HiddenAg2 said:

---

I don't see how this would stand up in court. Paypal is certainly going to get sued for charging a consumer for something he/she didn't consume. A lot of folks are just going to cancel.

---

why wouldn't it stand up?

if you agree under terms of service that if you (for example) use paypal receive money for selling credit repair services, they will fine you $2500, why would that not hold up? this is not a new policy, its been around for a while.

as said above, somethings like "promotion of hate" may be too vague to enforce, but even for that there some examples that would clearly hold up.

BMX Bandit said:

---

HiddenAg2 said:

---

I don't see how this would stand up in court. Paypal is certainly going to get sued for charging a consumer for something he/she didn't consume. A lot of folks are just going to cancel.

---

why wouldn't it stand up?

if you agree under terms of service that if you (for example) use paypal receive money for selling credit repair services, they will fine you $2500, why would that not hold up? this is not a new policy, its been around for a while.

as said above, somethings like "promotion of hate" may be too vague to enforce, but even for that there some examples that would clearly hold

---

Yeah, it's too vague and attorneys are going to have a field day with this. Paypal is playing with fire.

you didn't answer the question.


most of this is not vague at all. they have been playing with this fire for a while. how any lawsuit have they lost?

Quote:

---

if you agree under terms of service

---

I have been seeing where a few lawtubers are making the argument that TOS for various social media platforms are adhesion contracts. Interesting legal argument.

Have you thought about that argument?

BMX Bandit said:

---

you didn't answer the question.


most of this is not vague at all. they have been playing with this fire for a while. how any lawsuit have they lost?

---

This will also come with political cost and potentially lose market share and a significant portion of its customer base. Just not smart.

i think they have already lost a great number of customers. still waiting for an answer on why this won't hold up.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

if you agree under terms of service

---

I have been seeing where a few lawtubers are making the argument that TOS for various social media platforms are adhesion contracts. Interesting legal argument.

Have you thought about that argument?

---

in texas, a contract of adhesion is not automatically unenforceable. it needs to be unconscionable.

in the context of paypal, I don't see how a stated liquidated damages amount for violating a list of rules is unconscionable, especially at such a low amount. vagueness of the "hate" term is one reason that it would not always be easy to enforce, that that is a different issue than unconsionability.



(for general social media, I'd need to know which provision they are referring to in the TOS.)

Mostly twitter and youtube for censorship TOS. Banning people for political beliefs and wrongspeak.

Under Texas contract law, you would lose an argument saying they can't end your account for something you posted based on an "adhesion contract" theory. (I specified contract law because under the new Texas social media law you would win if it ever goes into effect)

Is there any corporation out there that isn't just complete anti-American garbage? It's got to be a short list.

That you hammerly?

Just closed my account. See ya!