Pretty sure I'm being scammed.

[mastermixer]

Thanks for your post, I agree with you that they should have to relinquish the info. I will give them another call and try and get it. I don't understand why I am paying ebay a fee when they basically do nothing. The situation is no different then If I would have just taken the credit card from the buyer directly except I would actually be in a better situation because I would have recourse because I would know the credit card company.

Originally Posted by Saundo

Guys, as a practising lawyer (albeit an Australian one and not expert in consumer credit or merchant law) I have read this thread with a growing sense of incredulity. Hence I've decided to do some digging on the law because you need to know what your rights are if you want to take on PP and the CC company.

When you sign up to Paypal you enter into the Paypal User Agreement (PUA). You should all read it because it is the primary source of your rights and obligations when using Paypal. It's very lite re rights and heavy re obligations. In a nutshell PP is merely a clearing house between you and the buyer/you and the seller. As such it rarely owes you money but it can certainly take it out if your account in a whole host of circumstances. Disputes relevant to your PP account are dealt with under the The Seller and Buyer protection policies. Sounds like you initially won this, hence PP would be notionally obliged to release the funds or credit your account if it had previously refunded them to the Buyer. So far so good, and this seems to be what initially happened.

Now the real story starts. Under the PUA, when you nominate to be a Seller you automatically agree to accept payments funded from credit cards. You also automatically become bound by a Credit Entity Agreement with the various CC companies. You nominate PP to receive and disburse funds for you and deal with the CC company but the primary contractual relationship for these payments is between you and the CC company. This contract is effectively separate to and sits above the PUA. PP is a very interested party but that's it.

So, if a Buyer doesn't pay, then PP ON YOUR BEHALF seeks the money from the CC company. If a Buyer disputes a transaction via a chargeback process with its credit card company, the CC company (or more accurately, the bank that has issued the card) will take the money back from you via the account which PP MAINTAINS ON YOUR BEHALF. The PUA also provides for PP to do so. But in both cases you have no real rights against PP (other than, I assume, a right of reasonable administration by PP).

The CEA directly or more likely the Card Association Rules to which you are deemed to be bound by will set out the chargeback process and appeal rights. Most provide for a two stage review process, finally determined by the CC company. However I think you'll find there are further external arbitration rights under the Card Association Rules if you are dissatisfied with the CC company's decision.

Again, PP will act on your behalf during the two stage process. From what I can tell, your rights under the various CEAs with the different CC companies can be subtly different. What I can't tell, and what I struggle to accept, is that PP has any rights to withhold information from you that is related to the chargeback dispute. The dispute occurs under a contract to which you and the CC company are the contracting parties, not PP. PP is acting in your behalf, not their own etc etc. I can't see any confidentiality issues in PP providing you details of your own dispute (personal details about the card holder aside).

To use a phrase which may not translate into Ameriglish: PP is most likely having a lend of you.

At the very least I'd ask PP to provide you with all correspondence they've had with the CC company/issuing bank and detail what stage the chargeback process is at and what your rights are under the relevant CEA and Card Association Rules. You can then contact the CC company and seek to get engaged in the process directly. If PP says no, ask why and ask them to produce a letter from their in house counsel clearly stating the legal basis on which they are refusing to name names and provide details.

Cost will be an issue you'll have to address at some point, particularly if you need/want to engage an attorney. However you can still push this along on your own, remembering you should never underestimate the laxative effect of a bit of process knowledge when dealing with quasi bureaucratic blockages. If you sound like you know what you're talking about they will assume you do.

This is when a US attorney should weigh in (there must be at least one lurking on this forum somewhere judging by the hourly charge out rates we are regularly invoiced when engaging US counsel) to correct or supplement the above.

Looking forward to reading about a positive resolution.