Found this story posted today. A user making eBook help guides and videos on numerous subjects of health has his account and funds frozen due to what PayPal say is “sexual material”. I am pretty sad to say this guy wont get his account unfrozen as fast as some others…
In October 2012 Paypal Inc. blocked my account, claiming that I violated PP policy, and claiming they may hold my money (about $800) for six months or indefinitely as “damages.” I believe that the following details make PP’s claims untenable, and suggest that PP is holding my funds under false pretense to use my money for ulterior motives, as PP is doing to many other people.
In late October before my account was under any accusation of “policy violations” I requested that PP transfer $650 to my bank account. PP initially sent me an email notifying me that my funds were in the process of being transferred to my bank, and the transfer would take up to five business days.
But later PP sent me another email claiming my account was being examined for routine security, and asking me to log in to my account and update my telephone number so they could call me. I replied that my telephone number was already up-to-date, and when I tried to log in to my PP account I was asked for my old bank account number, which I entered correctly but the PP web site said the number I entered was “incorrect.” So I was not allowed to log in to my account and nobody called me.
From that moment on PP has no longer allowed me to even see my account balance or possible account activity, despite numerous emails and a complaint to the Better Business Bureau of San Jose, California, challenging PP to publicly publish my account balance and any activity on my account since PP blocked my account.sanjose.app.bbb.org/complaint/view/302409/c/h93d9a
In an early email from PP an employee claimed the reason my account was blocked was because I distributed “sexually oriented material” in violation of PP policy, citing a transaction the previous week. However, for the prior 13 months I used PP to process about 100 identical transactions, without any claim that such transactions violate PP policy.
I used PP to solicit small donations to create the Breast Pride Education Foundation, offering an eBook “Real Child Safety,” and requesting a questionnaire to show that readers have no prurient interests, to receive an additional eBook photo-documentary “Girl Becomes Woman.” Note that my eBooks are no more “sexually oriented” than a documentary about pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding. There are no images that reveal or focus on the genital area, no erotic narrative, no discussions or descriptions of any sexual acts, etc.
Since my documentary is of a minor (a girl from age 9 to 15), and if PP sincerely believes it is “sexually oriented,” then why didn’t PP report me to the authorities instead of merely blocking my account? Evidently, the claim of “sexually oriented” material is merely an excuse to hold my money for ulterior uses.
If my case is unique, then PP’s actions could be explained as an understandable attempt to protect the company from possible controversy. But numerous other cases of clients’ money being blocked for various excuses suggest that PP is engaging in a pattern of misuse of clients’ funds for ulterior motives that may total millions of dollars. See:www.paypalsucks.com
As can be seen in my complaint to the San Jose BBB, PP refuses to publicly repeat or defend its original accusation of “sexually oriented” material, nor allow me access to my account to see and dispute any possible charges or other irregular activity.
The vast majority of small donations I received through PP are over six months old already, and almost all of the money that makes up my current balance (before being blocked) is from the sale of my old camera equipment on ebay – all with positive feedbacks and no customer complaints – so there is no risk of possible “chargebacks” that PP claims justifies holding my money any longer.
According to the San Jose BBB, PP has received about 6,500 complaints over the past 10 years, more than one-third of which (about 2,200) were during the past 12 months. The San Jose BBB nonetheless gives PP an “A+” business rating, and decided that PP made a “good faith effort” to resolve its conflict with me, even though PP’s response to my complaint contributed absolutely nothing except vague and unsupported claims dressed up in feigned courtesy.
My BBB complaint is often invisible (the link provided above often leads to an error message), and the BBB says that is because their web site is the victim of “cyber attacks,” but they deny that their odd defense of PP is the cause of such unpopularity. My experience suggests that the San Jose BBB is aware and complacent in PP’s actions.