PayPal Turns Bradley Manning Defense Account Back On; Claims It Was A Paperwork Problem

from the that's-not-what-they-said-originally dept

PayPal's decision to cut off the account of an organization that was collecting funds to help with Bradley Manning's defense got a lot of attention -- so much that PayPal came out with a blog post explaining that it was just a paperwork problem on the part of the organization, Courage to Resist. Because of this, they've reinstated the account:
We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organizationís PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue).

In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account.  To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.

Upon review, and as part of our normal business procedures, we have decided to lift the temporary restriction placed on their account because we have sufficient information to meet our statutory 'Know Your Customer' obligations. The Courage to Resist PayPal account is now fully operational.
While it's good that they've done this, not all of this makes sense. Courage to Resist claims that they repeatedly asked for an explanation and for the specific policy that they had violated. If it was just a matter of associating an account with a bank account, why didn't PayPal just tell them that in the first place?

Filed Under: bradley manning, paypal
Companies: paypal


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    FuzzyDuck, 26 Feb 2011 @ 1:43am

    Really need an alternative to Paypal

    Not so long ago I found out how their customer service really sucks, without going into details it went something like this:

    Q: why is the fee so high to receive money?
    A: the fee is for customer protection.
    Q: so are my customers be protected?
    A: no, because you are providing a service.
    Q: so why is the fee so high then?
    A: that is for customer protection.

    They repeated this circular reasoning a few times, apparently without blinking an eye.

    I can't wait for a good alternative to Paypal.

    Given Paypal's willingness to be a censorship tool for the US government before, it stands to reason that Paypal is acting in bad faith here.

    Besides what gives them the right to freeze an account and hold all the money? The most they should be allowed to do is tell people to take their money elsewhere. But no Paypal keeps the money "on hold".

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.