Home > 2015 > Personal Finance

PayPal Draws Consumer Ire Over Robo-Texting Rights

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 6 Comments

When eBay cuts PayPal loose this summer, users of the new digital money giant will find they’ve agreed to new terms of service that take effect July 1. Those terms include PayPal giving itself the right to robocall or robo-text members at any phone number the firm can find, for just about any reason — from debt collecting to advertisements to opinion polling.

The fine print also says PayPal can pass along the same rights to its affiliates. Here’s the language, in black and white, from the company’s website:

You consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls and text messages from PayPal at any telephone number that you have provided us or that we have otherwise obtained . . . . (PayPal) may share your phone numbers with our Affiliates or with our service providers, such as billing or collections companies, who we have contracted with to assist us in pursuing our rights.

Given that both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (which created the Do Not Call list) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ban most robocalling and texting, this seemed in direct opposition to consumer protections granted Americans by Congress. And the FCC has made clear that the “existing business relationship” exception that applies to the Do Not Call list doesn’t give companies the right to robocall consumers. They must acquire written or oral consent. Could a change in terms of service constitute such consent?

How Consumer Advocates See It

So I contacted the National Consumer Law Center to ask about it, and lawyer Margot Saunders reminded me that consumers can consent to all sorts of things — including consenting to getting robocalls from debt collectors and advertisers. Critically, however, this consent is not a waiver or rights, she said, and it can be withdrawn at any time.
At least, that’s her opinion. But it’s not what PayPal has told at least one customer. When PayPal consumer Robert Pascarella questioned PayPal about the terms of service on the company’s Facebook page recently, he requested an opt-out for the provision and was shot down.

“Regrettably, there isn’t an opt out option to certain items within our User Agreement,” PayPal responded. When he objected, PayPal posted directions for closing his account.

PayPal did not return a request for comment by deadline. UPDATE: PayPal sent a comment to Credit.com after the story was published. PayPal spokeswoman Amanda Miller said, “PayPal takes consumer protection very seriously and we have processes in place designed to ensure compliance with all collection laws.”

When I pointed out the Facebook conversation’s all-or-nothing response to Saunders, she decided it was important enough to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission and ask for a ruling. In a draft letter provided to Credit.com that will be signed by several consumer groups and delivered this week, the National Consumer Law Center will ask the FCC to “clarify that withdrawal of consent for auto-dialed calls cannot be grounds for terminating a contract.”

That petition will also ask the FCC, which administers the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, to beat back a number of industry requests that consumer groups say could weaken the Do Not Call list. The FCC will vote on a declaratory ruling June 18 that looks to affirm consumer-friendly provisions; FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has proposed, for example, that consumers be able to withdraw consent to receive robocalls at any time (industry groups have argued that consent should be permanent).

While the PayPal corporate structure is new — this summer, it will be permanently separated from eBay, which acquired the payments giant in 2002 — the robocalling language is not really new. It is derived from eBay’s terms of service, which back in 2012 added the right to contact consumers “at any telephone number … you provide to us or from which you place a call to us, or any telephone number at which we reasonably believe we may reach you,” according to Practical Nomad blogger Edward Hasbrouck.

EBay did not respond to a request for comment.

Hasbrouck had created a stir about the fine-print robocalling issue even earlier, in 2009, when he noticed it in his American Express terms of service.

For now, there’s not much consumers can do, other than the drastic step of closing their accounts. Given PayPal’s immense market reach — it has 160 million users worldwide — that’s not a practical option. We’ll keep an eye on the FCC vote and let you know what happens. You keep an eye on your cellphone bills. Why? The PayPal / eBay terms of agreement also includes this warning: “Standard telephone minute and text charges may apply if we contact you.”

More Money-Saving Reads:

Image: Fuse

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • lironmiron

    I thought it should be
    whom we have contracted with…
    but I’m sure Paypal’s lawyers would not publish legally binding text on their website with gradeschool errors, so I must have been wrong.

  • blackbellamy

    I’m not sure I understand why closing a PayPal account is not a “practical option”. Immense market reach? 160 million users? How are these relevant to me, the consumer? Do you think I will be unable to shop without PayPal? That we all spend all our time on Ebay? That we can’t transfer money using Google Wallet for example?

    I gave them 72 hours to provide me with an opt out or I’m closing my account. I won’t miss it. I’m sure other merchants will step right up.

  • Cgar

    Sink or swim Paypal. I just cancelled by account as I suspect tens of thousands will do this month in protest of your heavy-handed changes to your Terms of Use effective 7-1-15. I do not welcome phone calls, text messages, e-mails, or 3rd parties harassing me. The article I read said there was no provision to opt out of these harassments, so I cancelled my account. Didn’t think I’d call your bluff did you?

  • http://androidpolice.com/author/cody-toombs/ Cody Toombs

    Yep, this would be enough to convince me to close my account. I’m not sure that’s the best option, though. Realistically, a policy like this opens up PayPal for a class action suit based on harassment. Easy to prove and unmistakably obvious.

    I guess what I’m saying is that the law firm that takes that case might want to start collecting signatures now.

  • Bob

    Thanks for posting this. The NCLC seems to agree, and is asking for the FCC to make that point clear. There have been requests by industry to make one-time consent permanent/irrevocable. Consumer groups oppose that.

  • warminghut

    ““Regrettably, there isn’t an opt out option to certain items within our User Agreement,” PayPal responded. When he objected, PayPal posted directions for closing his account.”

    Funny to imagine that Paypay (spelling error is intentional) actually regrets the User Agreement that they wrote. But if they think this is going to stop a consumer, like me, from filing suit after an opt out has been issued, I regret to inform them that they are wrong. I’ll hear what the courts have to say. TCPA seems rather clear to me.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team