BrickLink Discussion Forum

Discussion Forum: Messages by cosmicray (3492)

Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Dec 7, 2023 10:16

Subject:

Re: PayPal’s Seller Protection changes?

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

General

View

Cancel

In General, yorbrick writes:

In General, cosmicray writes:

In General, pbegin writes:

For US Paypal account - Annonced changes:

Amendments to PayPal’s Seller Protection Program
Effective January 16, 2024:

We are revising PayPal’s Seller Protection Program to exclude from eligibility
Item Not Received claims filed by buyers as chargeback claims with their card
issuers for card-funded transactions.

There is something curious about this, and the way they worded it. It almost
sounds like a double-negative in the wording. Is PayPal saying that the entirety
of an INR claim now rests upon the seller ?

Nita Rae

Additional thoughts ... PayPal is specifically pointing at card-funded transactions.
So, I'm taking the view that INR protection is still active for existing
balance funded transactions (and by definition eCheck). These were once called
PayPal Classic. For those type of payments, PayPal has better visibility of what
the customer's nominal address is.

For the card-funded payments (aka PayPal Express, or Merchant Card Acceptance),
the INR claims will be between the seller and the cardholder's financial
institution ( who presumably knows about the cardholder's address(es) ).
PayPal will route those claims to the seller, but otherwise not be involved.
This is effectively how Stripe handles it. What I would like some clarity about
in this, is what is the time-period that a card-funded transaction can go to
an INR ? Is it still 6-months, shorter, or longer ?

Nita Rae

Yes, they are essentially saying that if the buyer makes a claim to their card
provider that the item was not received, then PayPal will not step in and refund
the seller even if there is proof of delivery as in the past as this means that
PayPal takes the hit if the card issuer accepts the buyer's claim. As you
say, presumably the seller has to deal with the card issuer instead. I can imagine
that is even worse than dealing with PayPal.

I wonder if this might lead to a change in behaviour, with more people withdrawing
funds from PayPal or paying by card instead of using funds within PayPal to pay
for purchases. That way, even if PP reject a claim, the buyer can go to their
credit card issuer instead. I know it has always been the case, but this now
gives even more incentive to do it.

I guess you have to decide if the glass is half full or half empty, to make this
call. At one time (I think it was on a site I used to sell on) they supported
both PayPal Classic (which was the traditional balance/eCheck payment funding),
and PayPal Express (merchant card acceptance). We had the ability to use Classic
only or Classic+Express. The carrot & stick was, that Google Marketplace would
only show items that had merchant card acceptance. So that means you had to accept
Stripe or PayPal Express or both. Many years have passed since then, and I don't
know the current lay of the landscape in this regard.

BrickLink is such a destination site, that Google Marketplace has little to no
meaning here (but I would like to be corrected if someone has better information).

Generally speaking, I don't think that buyers come here with the intention
of running a scam. Larger higher dollar items might be best to only ship where
a signature is required. That is going to cost the seller, but it may give them
an edge in a dispute situation.

Nita Rae

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Dec 7, 2023 10:06

Subject:

Re: PayPal’s Seller Protection changes?

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

General

View

Cancel

In General, LegoLDK writes:

Does the seller have any way of dealing with the buyer's card company? There
is no transaction relationship between them is there? I understood the process
to be Buyer's card pays PalPal, Paypal pay Seller. So does Buyer's card
company know who or what the seller is?

Isn't this why PayPal are doing this? I guess losses are mounting from chargeback
claims. And PayPal has met its match in Visa, Mastercard and Amex.

The answer is to look at how Stripe handles these chargebacks. They act as a
go-between, with the incoming chargeback being routed to the seller, and the
seller's response being sent back to the originating financial institution.
I'm only guessing here, but it makes sense. When the chargeback arrives,
the seller can immediately decide to refund, or (if the amount of the charge
was large enough, and the documentation is sufficient) then attempt to argue
that the package was sent to the requested address and delivered (as per the
delivery service). Part of this issue goes to which address should be used for
shipment, the one on the payment or the one provided by BrickLink. There are
strong opinions on this subject, and in both directions.

My guess is that what's driving this is the time the PayPal has been spending
responding to these claims (not to mention the amounts being claimed).

For an INR type of claim, there are a relatively limited number of reasons it
could happen: Seller used the wrong address, Buyer entered the wrong address
and seller used it, Porch pirates stole it upon delivery, Delivery service lost
the package or delivered it to the wrong address, Buyer is trying to run a scam.
The last one (if they try it often enough) should become apparent to the card
issuing financial institution.

Nita Rae

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Dec 7, 2023 08:08

Subject:

Lego Fortnite: Gaming giant launches Minecraf

Viewed:

120 times

Topic:

Media

View

Cancel