eBay's Plan to Force PayPal Rejected Down Under 181
Jm_aus writes "eBay's plan to force all users to use PayPal only has been rejected by Australia's competition regulator, the ACCC. This followed 650 submissions from eBay users as well as from Australian banks, other payment services, the Australian Reserve Bank, and (anonymously) Google, which aired a lot of dirty laundry about PayPal's unresponsiveness and failure to sign up to the local banking code of conduct. Apparently the public benefits from eBay's 'Bad Buyer Experience' elimination program are likely to be 'minimal.' There is a period for appeals."
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Can somebody explain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just hoping that all countries everywhere enact similar rulings. Paypal gets on my damn nerves.
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:5, Insightful)
To give an example of their total fee structure: after selling a small item for $30, you're only going to see around $24.50 for it after fees, and then you still have to pay to ship it.
Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I never liked Paypal. As far as I could tell its sole purpose was to make it easier for sellers to scam buyers, since the only protection given to buyers is something on the order of $100. I know some people who bought Apple laptops on eBay, never received them, but were unable to get all of their ~$2000 back. If it happened to me, I'd do what another poster said today and stop the payment to Paypal from my credit card, but if it were me I wouldn't have made the purchase in the first place.
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ofcourse if you pay through PayPal, PayPal will also take a fee, this time depending on the total amount (item price + shipping).
With eBay & PayPal being 2 hands on one belly, making PayPal compulsory is something I read as an attempt to double the standard eBay fees, and grab a bit of the shipping costs as well.
Not that I care much. Read carefully what you sign up for if you sell items through eBay. Read even better what you sign up for when you open a PayPal account. Use both for what they're good for, not for everything. PayPal is just a payment option. I'd quickly drop eBay if that was not the case.
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they feel they can't profit on taking a CC transaction below a certain amount, they should either: Find a processing provider with better rates, not take CCs at all, or raise their prices such that larger purchases offset some of the cost.
Their profit margins aren't my concern, and it's silly to be expected to carry cash to make small purchases.
Re:Can somebody explain? (Score:3, Insightful)
When did I sign this contract? When I was born? Am I agreeing to this contract every second (since birth) that I do not quit my job, take all of my property on a plane, and spend my life savings moving to another country? Is that how the contract works in a "democratic society"? If so, where is this explanation written down, and how does it justify the violation of everyone's natural rights as rational beings?
"Your argument cuts both ways, one could as easily say that one who advocates less government are risking the overwhelming violence of
I am not advocating no government or even less government. I am advocating that the government only function according to its original intended purpose - to uphold the rights of the citizenry; this is done through the use of force, when necessary, by the courts and the military/police. Whether such a move results in more or less government is of no concern. What the government has become instead is a rights-violating machine.
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right, because PayPal's better... (Score:1, Insightful)
When owning a business, and you need to sell your goods, you include in your cost of goods whatever expenses you need to cover as well the cost of the goods in the price that you sell it for.
It's no different than any other charges a retailer faces. If their electrical costs go up, or their heating costs go up, business licensing for local municipalities, etc, they pass those costs on to the consumer in the form of higher prices overall on all products.
The fact that they accept credit cards as payment for goods is just another cost of doing business. They must accept this fact if they want to offer consumers the option of using this method of payment.
Your argument could also mean that if they use a new shiny Point of Sale software package to track inventory, sales, shipping, etc, that they should be allowed to charge the customer more to do so. But if the customer preferred the old ledger method, and hand-written receipts, then that cost could be avoided.
Nonsense.
Every decent retailer knows ahead of time that accepting CC transactions will cost them more. They should do the same thing that they would do if they incurred any other costs associated with doing business. Raise the cost of the goods.
Meanwhile, decent businesses survive well by including these costs already in the price of goods, and allow cash discounts to buyers who don't need the service.
I think a lot of people need a bit of a reversal of thinking. The retailer is not doing the consumer a FAVOR by accepting CC payments.
The whole transaction between the retailer and consumer is easily describer as a symbiotic relationship.
The Consumer needs something, and is willing to pay $x for it.
The retailer wants to make money by selling the product to the consumer.
Somewhere in the middle of that, there exists the happy medium in which both parties agree and business rolls on.
Calling it unethical on only the part of one party of that transaction is the same as condoning the behavior on the part of the other.
If the retailer wants to play dirty, then why not extend the same right to the consumer.?
Re:Can somebody explain? (Score:3, Insightful)