Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not sure if this is a worldwide thing or just regional but Paypal is changing its Terms and Conditions on the 31st July as detailed below;
We’re making the following changes to our terms:

We’ve added items intended for resale, including single item transactions or transactions that include multiple items, as items that will be ineligible for reimbursement under PayPal’s Buyer Protection.
The section on eligibility for PayPal’s Buyer Protection program has also been amended to clarify that if you are a buyer, you must now also attempt to contact the seller to resolve your issue directly before filing a dispute through the Resolution Center.
If you are a seller and lose a claim under PayPal’s Buyer Protection program and the buyer’s claim was that the item received was Significantly Not as Described, you may not receive the item back, or you may be required to accept the item back and pay for the return shipping costs.
We have added terms to the section on PayPal’s Seller Protection program. These include:
certain intangible items may be eligible for PayPal’s Seller Protection, subject to meeting certain Intangible Goods Additional Requirements;
to be eligible for PayPal's Seller Protection, a new basic requirement is that the payment must be marked “eligible” or “partially eligible” in the case of Unauthorized Transaction claims, or “eligible” in the case of Item Not Received claims, for PayPal's Seller Protection on the Transaction Details page.
We have clarified what is required as proof of shipment or delivery for both physical and intangible goods.

That first point would seem to have a massive impact on those who resell bits, kits and break up boxes for wargames. I am not sure if this is taking effect in every country but those that do not have individual agreements with Paypal are all covered.

This could be a pain in the arse for Looting, as strictly speaking whilst Shopping For Others, we are reselling.

If so, I’ll need to seriously consider closing the group down, as with no protections, I fear vultures would soon be circling.

Hmmmm.

Here is the link - https://www.paypal.com/ga/webapps/mpp/ua/upcoming-policies-full

My impression was this was targeting the big names on a case by case basis - lootgroup might be too small to be on their radar?

Surely items intended for resale will hit pretty much any retailer who doesn't manufacture their own goods?

Most businesses buy from a manufacturer (or more often a middle man)

Saw this on a CCG trading group on facebook, seems someone asked a paypal advisor directly about how it would effect folks buying trading cards, and the response was neither of you is covered.

https://imgur.com/a/Wc9HCrV (I just uploaded the two screenshots to imgur)


If I am reading that correctly, it seems my ebay home selling account just got put into mothballs

Ouch!

This could - and possibly should? - but a serious damper on a lot of eBay sales.

It looks like a case of PayPal wanting its cake and eating it too?

The very real 'threat' of a PayPal 'clawback' has, I'm certain, kept many scammers away from eBay and other similar sites and services.

I can't see how this is a 'good thing' for anyone other then...scammers?

I mean it won't even be that good for PayPal as their revenues *have* to take a hit once people realize their protections have been severely curtailed.

Happy to be proven wrong here too though...

I just wonder how they are going to separate resellers from secondhand. For the odd item here and there you'll be fine, but what happens if you resell things like MTG cards secondhand - chances are even someone at the very casual end might sell a lot of cards in terms of numbers even if they are just selling on duplicate commons.


The other question is what service is going to arise to replace paypal for those sellers. I'm guessing for Ebay people will just shift to using card since its all processed through ebay anyway; but for any trades outside its going to be come more complicated - esp as applying for credit/debit card payment systems isn't anywhere near as easy nor cheap as simply getting a paypal account.

Aye, its taking me back to years ago, when I had the restriction on my ebay selling account buyers had to have feedback over 10 to try and deter scammers to some degree.

With how things have changed with the feedback system, I'm not sure I would trust it all now.

I too hope this is wrong, but if its not, I'll be taking a long hard think on how to proceed with any surplus sales I want to make.

Maybe I am reading all of this wrong, but on eBay you are still covered by the eBay policies though. This change seems more aimed at transactions done "exclusively" through Paypal (i.e. buying and/or selling on Facebook, using Paypal to pay).

Good point!

I hope that's the case?

Still casts a bit of a shadow on MDG's awesome Loot Group though, potentially.

Have emailed PayPal for clarification.

For Looting, it really boils down to their definition of ‘resale’.

Strictly speaking, Looting is not reselling - instead I’m acting as a go-between, and at no point do I have any legal claim to the goodies being bought.

But, if PayPal are being super strict, then we are technically re-selling. But.....as the person I’m buying for is, and always was, the intended End User, they should still be covered.

Man PayPal annoy me!

Deleted.

Aside from the financial element, the man hours they must invest into arbitration between Facebook morons alone must be in the man years a month.

Plus theres no fee for some friends and family payment, so those cases (and having witnessed the conduct of some on FB trade groups, I have no trouble imagining there's many) so they're effectively making a loss on every transaction.

By keeping the safety net on eBay transactions but removing it elsewhere makes extraordinarily good sense from their perspective.

I've probably done more hobby buying and selling off eBay than on in recent years, but PayPal always meant risk was mitigated, this will likely impact my decision making.

Did this start out as an attempt to stop hoarding of things like TP and PPE? It reads like that to me, like they had a little nail sticking out and reached for the jackhammer.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This could be a pain in the arse for Looting, as strictly speaking whilst Shopping For Others, we are reselling.

If so, I’ll need to seriously consider closing the group down, as with no protections, I fear vultures would soon be circling.

Hmmmm.

Can I have a translation please.

 Elbows wrote:
Remember, PayPal and eBay are the same company...so I'd imagine they're doing this outside of eBay as it would kill...MOST eBay stores.

It also puts a huge hurt on other stores which use PayPal...which could actually drive purchases to eBay (conveniently).

Ebay sold paypal around 2015/6, and is working up to replacing it with something called Ayden (https://qz.com/1195416/ebay-is-replacing-paypal-with-adyen-as-the-main-way-to-pay/)

so it's not that

I wonder if merchant accounts are going to avoid the issue and they're doing it to get 'traders' to actually get a merchant account and pay the extra fees?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This could be a pain in the arse for Looting, as strictly speaking whilst Shopping For Others, we are reselling.

If so, I’ll need to seriously consider closing the group down, as with no protections, I fear vultures would soon be circling.

Hmmmm.

Can I have a translation please.

Certainly,

Loot Group is a FB Group where we try to get limited edition models to those with no corresponding events. All trades are done strictly At Cost, so the buyer only pays the price of buying and shipping, plus PayPal fees.

We use PayPal Goods & Services precisely because it offers Buyer Protection. Sure each transaction is only around £30 for a single model on average. But when large scale looting can easily run to £1,000+ orders, Buyer Protection is essential, both for peace of mind and to dissuade scammers coming to us for a quick buck.

Here, the wording of the rule change suggests there’ll be no Buyer Protection, as technically speaking the items I’m picking up are for resale.

If that’s the case, the Loot Group May be done, as without Buyer Protection the risks are too high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clarification obtained, and the Looting can continue,

Provided the person filing the hypothetical claim is the intended End User ( as in, they’ve no intention to sell the model or book on), they benefit from Buyer Protection.

I do have a screen grab, but as it’s not specifically war games related, and I don’t have a tumblr type account, I can’t really share it on Dakka.

Posting this for MDG, the first line of text is illegible as it contained his full name no other reason.

This sounds like the Loot Group will need to find a new vendor to do payment transactions and protections.


However I'll be curious how PP is going to identify private from resellers. Esp when its clear that you might well not find out if you quality until after you raise a ticket.

My reading is that it depends who the End User is.

For Looting, there are three parties involved.

1. The Lootee - the person wanting the toy, and paying for it.

2. The Looter - the person accept the money from Party 1, and buying it from Party 3.

3. The Retailer.

Here, Party 1 is the End User. So regardless of how they’re sourcing the Loot, they at no point have intention to sell on. This would mean they benefit from Buyer Protection against Party 2.

However, Party 2 does not get Buyer Protection for a transaction with Party 3, as at no point are they the End User.

Guys.

This is in regards to the paypal transactions.

In the loot group.

The guy wanting the items is paypaling money to the guy who got the items from a store. The guy sending payment is not intending to resell. How the "seller" got the items in the first place doesn't matter.

It's like MDG describes, but there's no issue since The Looter is not paypaling the Retailer (I assume... that's the point, right, the Looter goes to physical stores on behalf of the Lootie)

Yuparoo!

I’m happy that Buyer Protection would kick in for a Lootee. But, we may not know 100% for sure until such an issue arises.

For those in the U.K., you can complain about PayPal to the Financial Ombudsman Service too, so there’s potentially further protection there.

 Alpharius wrote:
Ouch!

This could - and possibly should? - but a serious damper on a lot of eBay sales.

It looks like a case of PayPal wanting its cake and eating it too?

The very real 'threat' of a PayPal 'clawback' has, I'm certain, kept many scammers away from eBay and other similar sites and services.

I can't see how this is a 'good thing' for anyone other then...scammers?.

Well does hurt on scamming by buying and then claiming goods never arrived. That paypal pretty much defaults on buyers favour.

But yes overall annoying change.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gobbledigook

Hmmmm.

Can I have a translation please.

Certainly,

Explanation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Recent Developments

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My reading is that it depends who the End User is.

For Looting, there are three parties involved.

1. The Lootee - the person wanting the toy, and paying for it.

2. The Looter - the person accept the money from Party 1, and buying it from Party 3.

3. The Retailer.

Here, Party 1 is the End User. So regardless of how they’re sourcing the Loot, they at no point have intention to sell on. This would mean they benefit from Buyer Protection against Party 2.

However, Party 2 does not get Buyer Protection for a transaction with Party 3, as at no point are they the End User.

??
Hold on, doesnt party 2 get the item from the retailer at conventions, and not on ebay. If its on eBay party 1 can bid directly. Also if the item is sealed the retailer is then the 'distributor'.

Yeah, Party 2 procures from a retailer or convention.