Paypal ripping me off ! please advise

[Avenged7Fold]

Isn't selling any sort of game code against Ebay terms anyway, especially when your just messaging the code and not shipping the card after. Usually get scammed on things like this as they'll claim the code doesn't work after redeeming it.

The reason why its against the terms and voids protection is because the disputes are too difficult to sort out and this sort of selling just tempts scams.

This is hardly a case of PP siding with the buyer just because. The quote below is all that really matters. I don't understand how someone expects to have the right to seller protection when selling of game codes in this matter does not cover the requirements laid out for seller protection.

Seller protection requirements include:

• Ship the item using a qualified Shipping company according PayPal’s User Agreement to the address on the Transaction Details page.
  
• The item sold must be a physical, tangible item that can be shipped. This means intangible items such as digital goods and services aren’t covered.

So pretty sure he wouldn't be covered.

 

[zophiel]

the best way to do it was to never send the code via ebay msg or email, always just post the card out with the code on it using a signed for service. This is the way we had to do it to be covered.

and we sold 100's of taketwo game codes.

 

[dowie]

Nearly every big company in Europe shifts its money through Luxembourg and has done since the 70's, not sure of the relevance.

lol, PayPal didn't exist in the 70s

if you're unaware of the relevance you might be interested to look into what Junker did when he was Luxemborg PM re: blocking tax reform and agreeing individual deals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker#Controversies

In early November 2014, just days after becoming head of the commission, Juncker was hit by media disclosures—derived from a document leak known as LuxLeaks—that Luxembourg under his premiership had turned into a major European centre of corporate tax avoidance. With the aid of the Luxembourg government, companies transferred tax liability for many billions of euros to Luxembourg, where the income was taxed at a fraction of 1%. Juncker, who in a speech in Brussels in July 2014 promised to "try to put some morality, some ethics, into the European tax landscape", was sharply criticized following the leaks.[53] A subsequent motion of censure in the European parliament was brought against Juncker over his role in the tax avoidance schemes. The motion was defeated by a large majority.[54]

In 2017, leaked diplomatic cables show Juncker, as Luxembourg’s prime minister from 1995 until the end of 2013, blocked EU efforts to fight tax avoidance by multinational corporations. Luxembourg agreed to multinational businesses on an individualised deal basis, often at an effective rate of less than 1%.

nice for him that it came to light only after he was elected to his position in the EU

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-juncker-taxavoidance-idUSKBN14Q1S4

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker faces renewed claims that he impeded EU moves against corporate tax avoidance when Luxembourg's prime minister, casting a shadow over his political future as a tussle over the bloc's top jobs looms.

Juncker has faced criticism from lawmakers and advocacy groups in past months over tax deals during his 18-year tenure as Luxembourg premier, including favorable arrangements for multinationals including Amazon and Fiat.

Since Juncker took over the top job in Brussels in November 2014, the Commission has launched investigations into those deals.

Citing leaks of German diplomats' internal communications, Britain's Guardian newspaper said on Sunday that Juncker had spent years blocking EU attempts to tackle corporate tax avoidance - prompting euro lawmakers to call on him to appear before an EU parliamentary committee of inquiry.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I have sold 5 products over EBAY the past week all Digital CD-Keys to 5 different customers with rating all over 25

The customer have all paid me right away with PAYPAL


Guess what ? over the space of a week I have had Emails from Ebay & paypal saying these accounts have been hacked and they will be refunding the customer ! WTF

My Paypal account is now Negitive £90 ! How is this even legal ?

I have done my part and supplied the customers with the CD-Keys over Ebay Email service.


What can I do about this because this is Neglect on Ebay & Paypals part not mine ! someone shouldnt be able to buy on Ebay and then access someones paypal account so easily and the seller shouldn't suffer for it .


I have advised them I will not be paying this fee because as a Seller I have done everything correctly.

maybe you should have read t & c's? you dun goofed.

never sell digital goods on ebay and use paypal.

use a forum and bank transfer only.

 

[dowie]

this is the only post that is useful. unless you posted the codes to the buyer with a tracked service to prove it arrived you dont have a leg to stand on.

I used to sell games codes a lot (100's) a few years ago, some claimed that they did not work or they didnt receive them, but i sent them all tracked and only lost a handful of cases where the post person didnt get the delivery signed for / it was lost in the postal systems still waiting to be delivered.

this has got nothing to do with proving the codes arrived - the issue here isn't the seller claiming they didn't arrive but that the transaction was fraudulent - i.e. the accounts being compromised - the fault is with the customers/paypal yet the OP is somehow the one who loses out - that isn't right

 

[zophiel]

The main problem is he sold something your not meant to sell via that platform anyway. If he had sent the codes via the post with proof of the arrival they would not have refunded the money back.

Once the proof of delivery is there, even there customer service cannot do anything.

Like i said twice, if you do it the correct way then there are no issues. I have sold many many codes and had very few problems, the only one i had were when the bit of paper they were printed on didnt arrive from the post. I never had a problem with stolen accounts or when people claimed codes didnt work it didnt matter as long as the proof of delivery was there.

 

[omnomnom]

People are so quick to jump down Paypal / Ebays back with stuff like this, do you have a link to the item ?

If you listed it as a digital item then there is no money back guarantee and it really isn't open and shut.

 

[eatcustard]

Seller gets scammed using ebay shocker

 

[Cuchulain]

</snip>

No-one claimed they did, my inference was that it's the norm for any big European company to take advantage of Luxembourg's tax laws. As for your hard on for Juncker, you're probably better off ranting in the mire that is the Brexit thread.

 

[dowie]

The main problem is he sold something your not meant to sell via that platform anyway. If he had sent the codes via the post with proof of the arrival they would not have refunded the money back.

Once the proof of delivery is there, even there customer service cannot do anything.

But surely this has got nothing to do with delivery or claims that the item didn't arrive?

 

[dowie]

No-one claimed they did, my inference was that it's the norm for any big European company to take advantage of Luxembourg's tax laws. As for your hard on for Juncker, you're probably better off ranting in the mire that is the Brexit thread.

yes and a large reason for that, in this case, is thanks to Junker... there isn't much to dispute there and it was just an aside so I'm not sure what your issue is with the comment

 

[Cuchulain]

But surely this has got nothing to do with delivery or claims that the item didn't arrive?

Doesn't matter, he has no seller protection irrespective of whether they were purchased using stolen accounts or not. With a legit account and posting them to the verified address he would've been covered.

 

[Cuchulain]

yes and a large reason for that, in this case, is thanks to Junker... there isn't much to dispute there and it was just an aside so I'm not sure what your issue is with the comment

It's completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[dowie]

It's completely irrelevant to this thread.

like I said it was just an aside, you started commenting on it, I really don't know what your issue is

 

[Cuchulain]

like I said it was just an aside, you started commenting on it, I really don't know what your issue is

You spent more time and effort on citing your long winded irrelevant rant than you did actually responding to anything pertinent to the op's issue in this thread.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

Because that is for BUYER protection - they are the SELLER.

Bit naughty that by PayPal - Buyers are protected but Sellers shouldnt sell digital goods but a lot of PayPals adverts and settings are about digital goods selling.

 

[dowie]

You spent more time and effort on citing your long winded irrelevant rant than you did actually responding to anything pertinent to the op's issue in this thread.

Seriously what on earth is your issue? I simply made an aside which apparently you were entirely ignorant of thus I ended up replying to your quote... I've also replied to the thread topic itself. Why are you now trying to start some petty argument over it?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Bit naughty that by PayPal - Buyers are protected but Sellers shouldnt sell digital goods but a lot of PayPals adverts and settings are about digital goods selling.

Seller's can sell digital goods but they give up seller protection. It is straight forward.

The reason for this is that digital goods are open to a lot of abuse. Sell them at your own risk.

I dont understand why people think they can pick and choose what terms and conditions they can follow and still expect to be fully protected. They use to ban the sale of digital goods but people did it anyway. Now it is a 'sell at your own risk' scenario. Which is fair.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

Seller's can sell digital goods but they give up seller protection. It is straight forward.

The reason for this is that digital goods are open to a lot of abuse. Sell them at your own risk.

I dont understand why people think they can pick and choose what terms and conditions they can follow and still expect to be fully protected. They use to ban the sale of digital goods but people did it anyway. Now it is a 'sell at your own risk' scenario. Which is fair.

Why should their be any risk? If its a reputable seller surely they can prove the digital content was sent.

 

[dowie]

Seller's can sell digital goods but they give up seller protection. It is straight forward.

The reason for this is that digital goods are open to a lot of abuse. Sell them at your own risk.

I dont understand why people think they can pick and choose what terms and conditions they can follow and still expect to be fully protected. They use to ban the sale of digital goods but people did it anyway. Now it is a 'sell at your own risk' scenario. Which is fair.

that might be fair if there was some other issue like disputing the delivery of said goods - however the issue in this case is the buyer's accounts were hacked - surely that is an issue for PayPal or the buyer