eBay To Disallow Checks and Money Orders In US 412
Sir_Kurt writes "In eBay's latest FAQ, they explain that sellers (for the good of the buyers) will no longer be allowed to accept checks or money orders as payment. They can take electronic payments only. So, will Google Checkout, Checkout by Amazon or Amazon Flexible Payment be allowed? No, says eBay: 'Google's and Amazon's products and services compete with eBay on a number of levels, so we are not going to allow them on eBay.' Options are limited to PayPal, ProPay, direct credit payments to the seller, and 'payment upon pickup.' But remember, this is for our own good!"
eBay ran into trouble earlier this year for trying to restrict payment options.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't excuse banning competing payment systems, however, especially ones that meet the same standard as Paypal.
This is a sideways move towards allowing only Paypal transactions to be made in the US - they're testing the water and seeing how far they can push it.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
I love to say this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind using PayPal, but I really hate the fact that the site is swamped with commercial vendors rather than people selling stuff they don't need any more. eBay needs to be split into a marketplace where you can go to buy new things (like Amazon), and the good old auctioning of used personal stuff. Until they do that, they won't see me again.
Gettin' yer thrills from bidding? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't for the life of me understand why so many people continue to waste their time using eBay. What exactly is the appeal of going through a bidding process to end up paying over retail prices on stuff that may not ever even get shipped by whatever douche happens to be scamming at the moment?
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:3, Insightful)
They have to do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The love affair with overpriced auction winnings is waning. More and more people are realizing that most of the stuff on ebay that you can get at your local store or at another retailer on the internet is usually ridiculously overpriced. The days of paying 105% of new price for used goods are over. This realization by the consumer is hurting ebay's bottom line. They are no longer growing at double digit percentages and I would argue trends show all growth will halt in less than a year. To continue to grow revenue they have to try to take a bigger cut of every sale. They have already raised prices so the next step is to take a cut of every payment transaction. That was the entire strategy with the paypal acquisition. It's simply been a matter of time before they ban every payment method other than paypal.
The question is will there be a drop is use of the site as a result, or whether there will be a lawsuit. Ebay has always run into this issue that someday a lawyer is going to get everyone together who's been scammed and file a class action suit that targets them for all the things they could do to prevent fraud and don't. It's going to be a BIG lawsuit someday so the executives have it in mind to bump the stock price as much as possible and make sure they get their bonuses before the shit hits the fan. That and making sure there is still growth in a company where there is no growth.
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm with you, man. Every few months I decide to scour eBay for something I don't want to pay full price for with the hope that I'll find the one true, used, item from a normal person in the middle of all of the "new for the same price or more than it costs at a store, plus shipping, plus you have to wait for it to arrive" crap.
Every time I do that, I end up spending the next hour ranting to my wife (seriously, for real, I have one of those) about how eBay has gone to hell and it's just a bunch of overpriced, new products now instead of used stuff.
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:5, Insightful)
But there really aren't a lot of "somewhere elses", other than craigslist, at least, not in a realistic sense. And craigslist is only an okay option for people who are happy selling locally at a fixed price (or perhaps "best offer", if you want to be technical about it.)
Other than that... hmm. Certainly there are a whole myriad of tiny itty-bitty auction sites out there (I would guess), but aside for some very narrow specialty niches, ebay enjoys an incredible barrier-to-entry advantage in the auction-house market. Why? Because when selling, just about everybody wants the biggest possible market for their wares. Hence, just about everybody goes to the biggest market. Duh.
This will not change until/unless eBay shoots itself in the foot by getting so greedy on sales commissions that they manage to piss off a critical mass of people. And even then, they'll still enjoy enough of a natural advantage that they can just back off a percentage point, wipe out their fledgling upstart competitor, and carry on as before.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:5, Insightful)
Quotes like this make it sound as if Paypal had a standard. Instant transfers and protection from fraud on ebay sound great, but there are also many cases in which money gets retransferred for no apparent reason or accounts are blocked because something was not conforming to their "policy". To me they are just pretending to be a real bank. As long as it works as advertised it is great but when there is trouble you'll face scenarios you would never encounter with any financial institute.
I'm too tired to look up any sources, but take a look at this google search [google.com].
So long USPO Money Order, the best option to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you can truly get scammed!
Previously, the best way to pay was with a US Post Office money order.
What you would do is write a description of the item that you had purchased, and if you didn't get it, the seller had committed mail fraud.
The reason this was the best, is that they (the post office)have a whole division dedicated to mail fraud, and would actually work at tracking down fraudsters and shutting down their operations, as the laws on mail fraud have teeth, as opposed to something that belongs in small claims court otherwise.
Other payment methods (Visa, MC, PayPal) isn't going to spend a whole lot of effort to recover minor amounts of money, they may refund your money, but the scammer gets to continue their operation, maybe with a minor name change, taking advantage of the next sucker to come along.
This goes back to the reason why you don't really want to hack government entities, is that they will spend a fortune on tracking down the perpetrator all out of disproportion to the actual damage caused. *
In fact, a good way to tell the legitimacy of the seller, especially if they were a "private" seller, is to see if they would accept a USPO money order.
If they didn't it was a red flag that you may not want to deal with them.
I can understand (from a purely greed standpoint) of EBay not wanting to allow this type of transaction, as they don't get even more of a cut of the PayPal action, and just have to make due with the listing fee.
Oh well, just another nail in the coffin for fiscal responsibility.
Re:They have to do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're quite correct apart from one thing. eBay has been trying to bump its stock price for the past 3 years -- totally unsuccessfully. It's almost half of what is was 3 years ago(prior to the Skype purchase debacle). It's a dead man walking, and has been for some considerable time. Meg Whitman, the prime architect of its demise, baled a rich woman some time back. Just in time to avoid be caught in the wake of the ship as it sinks.
How does this solve anything? (Score:3, Insightful)
EBay/PayPal holding the money doesn't solve where the buyer gets the item but claims he didn't, or where the seller ships something else.
It's still he said, she said. People on both sides will still get ripped off. The only thing different is the extra fees by using PayPal.
you dont -have- to infinitely grow revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
unles you are a caancer.... or a publicly traded corporation ....
eby could be a fine, stable business... if they go private and quit worrying about how to do 'double digit growth'... a ridiculous long term goal for any company.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember Billpoint.....ebay took care of that. 10% of my sales are check or money order. Bye Bye 10% of my sales....and by bye 10% of ebay fees, At a time when all businesses are looking for as many payment methods as possible to capture sales, ebay is chasing away business. You guys at the top of ebay aren't too bright
Re:Actually they are right (Score:3, Insightful)
And the seller will pass on a part that PayPal fee with higher shipping and handling fees.
Re:Improvement at e-bay (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they did it for our benefit. Collecting 30 days of interest on hundreds of thousands of dollars probably doesn't factor into it at all.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are too stupid to realize that the X+Y thing is a scam, then you probably need to either get bit in the ass by it or get off the internet.
Re:So long USPO Money Order, the best option to pa (Score:3, Insightful)
Previously, the best way to pay was with a US Post Office money order.
Money orders are basically cash. This is a TERRIBLE idea.
What you would do is write a description of the item that you had purchased, and if you didn't get it, the seller had committed mail fraud.
The USPS doesn't prosecute individuals for mail fraud on eBay. And even if they did, the worst offenders are overseas and out of the reach of the USPS.
Other payment methods (Visa, MC, PayPal) isn't going to spend a whole lot of effort to recover minor amounts of money, they may refund your money,
The credit card companies will almost certainly refund your money because they MAKE MONEY on refunds. Ebay sellers are often charged $250 for each chargeback. American Express almost always takes the side of the consumer, they expect every merchant using AMEX to have a 30-day "no questions asked" return policy.
This goes back to the reason why you don't really want to hack government entities, is that they will spend a fortune on tracking down the perpetrator all out of disproportion to the actual damage caused.
No they won't. Most attacks against the Pentagon, NSA, and the White House aren't even investigated.
Think about this logically for a second: How many IP scanners are out there (lots) and how much IP space does the federal government have (lots and lots)? So logically if you run a port scanner on "the internet" (as many attackers do) you're going to hit a lot of federal IPs. Do you seriously think the feds investigate every one of those (several hundered per day) IP scans?
Re:Actually they are right (Score:4, Insightful)
I kinda doubt that the US DOJ will move on this....heck, they'd really like to better track all the $$ going through eBay, and having it all funneled through one computerized system will just make it easier to find a way to tax you on your sales.
So much for making a little 'no tax' cash on the worlds largest garage sale.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Improvement at e-bay (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:5, Insightful)
You tell a coporation to not grow? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I do.
Growth is the sole raison d' être for a corporation.
No it isn't. The sole purpose of a corporation is to serve the common good [alternet.org] or pubic good. The first corporations granted corporate charters were the Honourable East India Company [wikipedia.org] in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company [wikipedia.org] in 1602. Both India Companies were shipping businesses, the Honourable company shipping goods between Britain and India and the Dutch operating between India and the Netherlands. Shipping was a risky business, a ship could be attacked by pirates, the crew could mutiny, or the ship could run into bad weather. And the ship's owner was liable for any and all cargo lost as well as for the lives of the crew. If for whatever reason a ship was lost that could bankrupt the owners. So the British and Dutch governments granted corporate charters to these companies which gave them limited liability. With limited liability the most an owner could lose is the amount they invested.
But because of this limited liability corporations were only granted charters if they served the public good. Once a business no longer served it it could have it's corporate charter revoked [multinationalmonitor.org]. Unfortunately as foreseen by Thomas Jefferson [indymedia.org] corporations became too powerful so they are no longer held to the standards of serving the public good.
Falcon
Re:Corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest, instead of calling your legislators to ask them for more laws and restrictions, I suggest that you use your freedom of choice, and stop doing business with PayPal.
Because the next time you ask a legislator to regulate something you don't like, they may end up regulating something you DO like.
The heavy hand of government should be the absolute last resort.
Re:Corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
Refraining from doing business with PayPal is not an option. There is in many cases no good alternative.
PayPal also doesn't care if I personally or even if I get 1000 people to join me in refraining from using them; it won't change a thing. There won't be a massive boycott of PayPal; only a small number of people have been directly impacted by PayPal's bad practices, not enough to create the necessary outrage.
People have tried personally boycotting PayPal for a long time -- this isn't a good answer either, these people are personally harmed by not having use of PayPal's services.
And PayPal doesn't care. The only thing corporations as huge as PayPal do understand is regulation.
The regulations don't need to tell PayPal how to blow their nose, but they need to tell them not to blow it in my face.
They need to be restrained from arbitrarily freezing individual customers accounts and holding cash that rightfully belongs to the customers for extended periods of time.
Amounts frozen for more than X days need be limited to transactions that there is specific and reported cause for suspicion about.
Amounts frozen for more than Y days need to be limited to transactions that have an issue. And X
They should be prohibited from discriminating: no closing of an account without cause and without warning. And no stealing: no closing an account and refusing to release assets for 6 months, without a judge's order to do so.
Quality not quantity (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the government shouldn't use a heavy hand but a good hand instead?
After all the heavy hand of government is handing out taxpayer money to the companies involved in the recent financial crisis.
Sure it may be necessary.
But perhaps the hand of the government should have skimmed off profits from all those financial companies during the good times, and kept that money in a Bailout Fund to be used for bailing them out. That'll be fairer right? Every 10 years they go bust, and they keep saying "No you shouldn't regulate us" and "You have to bail us out". Yeah right.
Re:Actually they are right (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, some people fall for the fake check scams... But those people could fall for any kind of stupid scam.
Most people will only ship the item when the check has cleared, and if the check is for the wrong amount they will know its a scam and destroy it or hand it to the cops.
Some people don't have and can't get credit cards or bank accounts, but anyone can get a money order, and for some people that's the only way to buy anything without having to use cash.
Re:More Corrections (Score:4, Insightful)
Your average utility/store credit card is not a registered bank.
Well, duhh... That's not their business, but they are BACKED by such in such lender/bank who are regulated. I just did a simple random search of a few stores, and all the cards are backed by such a place.
Comparing Paypal to a utility bill, or ANY bill is not even close to being fair let alone accurate - if you overpay someone, they are required to refund you your money or you can go after them. This 'refund' usually is just applied to your next bill - although, if you close your account they send you a check regardless if you were a bad customer or not.
Comparing them to 'gift cards' is more accurate although at the same time, gift cards are not used as banks in which Paypal actively encourages you to do so, and makes them selves "look" like one. Essentially it should come down to something as simple as how much money goes through the account - a gift card usually has a max limit of a $100 or something like this, Paypal has $1000's upon $1000's going through it.
Even the quick payday loan shops who charge 30% interest and worse than any given collections joint - even they are regulated at some extent. Paypal is just exploiting loopholes to the max.
Re:Corrections (Score:3, Insightful)
Sniping makes absolutely no difference if you use the bidding system correctly.
Re:If you don't like thier policy, go somewhere el (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. Ebay was never tied to a specific location, and made it easy to find items no matter where they were located. Craigslist is too local in nature. It's great if you want to buy a secondhand piece of furniture, and are willing to move it yourself, because you can look through listings by people near you. It's great for sellers because it's totally free. But if you want to buy a replacement laptop part, or a CD, it's totally useless: there's no reason to constrain yourself to your local metro area in searching for that, since the cost of shipping is generally very low for such items, and a better value than spending a few hours driving across town to pick it up in person.
When I want to buy or sell furniture, cars, or find a landscaping service, I get on Craigslist. If I want to find a rare CD, buy an iPod charger, or a replacement laptop part, I go to Ebay.