Heads up: Paypal is launching an infuriating new user agreement

[annathepiper]

Do you use Paypal? If you do, you should go over to the Crime and the Forces of Evil blog RIGHT NOW and read up on Dara’s report on what they just tried to pull on her: making her choose between providing a phone number that they are then ready, willing, and able to robospam, or letting them datamine her by validating data on her that SHE NEVER GAVE THEM.

Of particular importance here is the link brought up by one of her commenters, in which the Washington Post reports that the new Paypal TOS, which kicks in on July 1st, gives them the right to robocall you on your cell phone. It also gives their affiliates and partners the right to robocall you. On your dime, of course, but screw that. Also screw giving you, the Paypal user, any ability to opt out of this.

There’s a word for this, and that word is bullshit.

Other links I’ve found that are pertinent to this:

• BGR.com: Paypal’s horrifying new User Agreement lets the company robocall and autotext users at will
• TheVerge.com: PayPal changes user agreement so it can send you ads on numbers you didn’t provide
• Gizmodo: PayPal’s Shady New User Agreement Opts You Into Robocalls

Relatedly, I also note that both BGR and Gizmodo are reporting that Paypal has just been dinged for $25 million in fines for deceptive business practices. And this is hardly the first time I’ve heard about Paypal doing something shady, either; in 2012, they tried to make Smashwords remove certain types of fiction they considered objectionable, and threatened them with shutting down the Smashwords Paypal account if they didn’t comply. And if you go look at Paypal’s Wikipedia page, the Criticism section calls out a whole thorny tangle of other issues it’s been involved in.

All in all there’s plenty of basis to say that yes, Paypal is sketchy at best, if not outright reprehensible. This robocall feature in their new user agreement is just the latest in a chain.

And it is, frankly, infuriating. Enough so that both Dara and I are now seriously evaluating whether we can minimize if not outright remove our Paypal dependence. Frustratingly, Dara can’t–Paypal is the mechanism through which Bandcamp pays her for any sales there, and she doesn’t have an option to set up anything else there. And she can’t bail on Bandcamp.

Me, my main Paypal dependency is that it’s the primary means through which Smashwords pays its authors–ironic, given the aforementioned 2012 controversy. I could switch Smashwords over to paper check as my payment method, but if I did that, I wouldn’t see any payment out of them until I broke $75 balance. And right now, honestly, my sales there don’t warrant that.

So right now I’m going to have to seriously consider whether I’m going to have to bail on Smashwords, maybe in favor of Draft2Digital, which I’ve heard about via some of the other authors I know. D2D, at least, will let me hit several of the same vendor channels as Smashwords–and let me be paid directly to my savings account.

There’s one possible light at the end of this tunnel, at least. The Washington Post also reports that the FCC is looking at new legislation which might well cut Paypal and other companies off at the knees before they have a chance to pull any further egregious robocalling bullshit. I’d like to hope that this legislation is a thing that will happen.

But I ain’t going to count those chickens till they’ve hatched. And meanwhile, I have some serious evaluating to do. If you’re a Paypal customer, you should start doing that evaluating too. We have until July 1st to decide.

ETA: I have been directed to this report of PC World’s which suggests that Paypal may not actually go through with this. However, so far I do not find this to alleviate my concerns in the slightest. What I’m seeing here is Paypal going “OH SHIT THE INTERNET IS GOING TO FALL ON OUR HEADS”.

What I need to see out of them at this point is a clear public statement that says “no, we’re not going to do this,” including revisions to the forthcoming user agreement that call out how users may opt out of this robocalling and autotexting bullshit. Until that happens, I fully endorse the Internet falling on their heads over this.

Also, this doesn’t address Dara’s experience with them trying to process a transaction tonight. Let me be clear about this: they tried to get her to confirm data she had not given them, specifically, an old address of ours in Kentucky. Which Paypal had NO BUSINESS KNOWING.

Mirrored from angelahighland.com.

Comments

[mmegaera]

I'm in exactly the same position as you are. I wonder if people dropping off of Smashwords in droves over this would give anyone on our side any leverage whatsoever, or just do Coker and co. in. I'd love to see this force Smashwords to revamp their payment options (and schedule, but that's another story altogether).

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads up. I am horrified by this too. Obviously you have no control over smashwords but for Dara and for your other sources of payments can you use Square?

[annathepiper]

(Note, I just added an ETA to the original post. Added a link to a post from PC World from the 5th, in which they say that Paypal is apparently going OH SHIT THE INTERNET IS FALLING ON OUR HEADS.)

Dara and I actually both already have Square accounts, yeah. Which is fabulous for in-person transactions, and I used my Square account a lot this past Norwescon when I sold copies of Faerie Blood at the NIWA table. I will be doing so again at Worldcon this summer, and maybe also at Orycon this fall.

However, Square has no facility for handling digital transactions, to my knowledge. :(

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

So it's true that over there it's the person called who pays the call, not the person doing the calling?

[annathepiper]

How this might impact the person being called financially is if you happen to be on a service plan with a limit of how many texts you can get--for example, my plan with AT&T limits me to 200 texts a month. With a fee if you go over that. So if texts from Paypal pushed you over such a limit, you'd be paying for Paypal's robotexting you.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

Wow, we don't have anything like that here as far as I know. Here it's always the person who is doing the messaging/calling who pays the fee (if outside their included calls/messages/data) except in the situation of reversing the charges (for emergencies) where the person being called has to accept the charges and call. And I've never encountered that myself (just seen the occasional advert).

[annathepiper]

*nodnod*

Yeah.

However, there appears to be hope. I've seen some rumblings today that the FCC may be looking VERY STERNLY at Paypal for this user agreement thing. It'll be real interesting to see if Paypal backs down.

This way to the Egress

[maellenkleth]

Prediction: they'll shuffle around and offer a non-apology, perhaps saying it was done without authorisation (by a rogue intern, mayhaps?), and then going right on ahead and try to set it up a bit more opaquely).

P.T. Barnum quotes spring to mind, easily. :\

Re: This way to the Egress

[annathepiper]

The followup article I saw on the matter is here.

Given that Paypal has already agreed to fork over $25 million in fines this year, they may not be entirely eager to risk another $16K hit per unauthorized phone call to users. We'll have to see.

Although it has also been pointed out quite correctly to me on Facebook that while one's phone may have to receive the call, there's nothing in the user agreement languages that says you are obliged to actually ANSWER it. XD

[maellenkleth]

They wanted me to confirm an old address in London (yes, **that** London), plus they wanted my social insurance number and my national registration number, neither of which I was at all inclined to give them in exchange of handing them my business.

And when I tried to close my account: 'unavailable service' error-message. Yeah, right. Pull the other leg, it's fastened on better.

[annathepiper]

Guuuuuh. :(

I'm seeing further news reports today that the FCC may actually be smacking Paypal down for this user agreement bullshit. But the digging up of old data on people concerns me DEEPLY.

Dara and I have elected to give them a Google Voice number now for our phone number. Because no, we don't want them calling us. And I feel an urge to further investigate the capabilities of iOS's Do Not Disturb functionality coming on.

[maellenkleth]

Heh. Google Voice gave me a 212-areacode number, which feels like an unlocked achievement of some magnitude. ^_^

Personal sensitivity to attempted commercial doxxing is HIGH, hereabouts, for reasons you and your lot already know well enough.

In the end, what we have here is a mordant example of why one should read the tinyprint EULAs and suchlike.

I curtsey to you and D. for your having raised the PayPal issue in the first instance. Much obliged to y'alls, I am!

(here, have an icon of an extremely cranky raven)

[edited because I've been speaking languages other than English all day, and my English-writing skills at this hour of the evening are nigh unto nonexistent]

[annathepiper]

You are very welcome!