In 1947, Jackie Robinson becomes the first Black man to play in Major League Baseball facing unabashed racism from the public, the press and other players.
• Some are asking about whether this rule implicates off-platform speech. This is not 100% clear to me. It says "you may not use the PayPal service for activities that...involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that [are prohibited]".
This seems to be far too broad as it relates to the transaction itself, as one of the prohibited categories is "depict or promote illegal drug use". So if you sell a DVD of Trainspotting, then you are using the PayPal service for activities that involve the sending of content that depicts illegal drug use. Get ready to be fined $2,500.
You also could not use PayPal to sell a DVD of the movie 42 (about Jackie Robinson), because it "depict[s] discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. race...)".
It seems absolutely bonkers to think that using PayPal for these transactions (or the many other examples imaginable) could result in a $2,500 fine.
It is unclear how broadly PayPal can sweep in off-platform language. That is, if you have a website that sells all sorts of things, can they claim that you are "using the PayPal service for activities" that break their rules? The fact that this is to be determined "in PayPal's sole discretion" does not bode well for a seller.
• This is framed as "liquidated damages", which IIRC are not allowed in some jurisdictions. Liquidated damages basically means "we're just deciding on this amount as a deterrent, not because it relates at all to the harm actually suffered by any of the parties". In general, liquidated damages are disfavored because they discourage so-called "efficient breach" of contracts. This happens when A agrees to paint B's house for $500, but then A gets an offer to paint C's house for $10,000 on the same date. A knows that B can find a replacement painter for $1,000 even at the last minute, so he decides to breach his agreement with B and is willing to pay the actual damages (the extra $500 that B would have to pay) because it is efficient for him to do so, given his ability to earn much more money painting C's house.
• This amount that PayPal can deduct under this TOS is not limited to $2,500. That is just the liquidated damages piece. They could claim other, larger damages, though I can't really imagine what that would be. Harm to their reputation? Seems hard to prove.
Hacker Cinema
1 comment on Hacker News
A couple thoughts, from a (former) lawyer:
• Some are asking about whether this rule implicates off-platform speech. This is not 100% clear to me. It says "you may not use the PayPal service for activities that...involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that [are prohibited]".
This seems to be far too broad as it relates to the transaction itself, as one of the prohibited categories is "depict or promote illegal drug use". So if you sell a DVD of Trainspotting, then you are using the PayPal service for activities that involve the sending of content that depicts illegal drug use. Get ready to be fined $2,500.
You also could not use PayPal to sell a DVD of the movie 42 (about Jackie Robinson), because it "depict[s] discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. race...)".
It seems absolutely bonkers to think that using PayPal for these transactions (or the many other examples imaginable) could result in a $2,500 fine.
It is unclear how broadly PayPal can sweep in off-platform language. That is, if you have a website that sells all sorts of things, can they claim that you are "using the PayPal service for activities" that break their rules? The fact that this is to be determined "in PayPal's sole discretion" does not bode well for a seller.
• This is framed as "liquidated damages", which IIRC are not allowed in some jurisdictions. Liquidated damages basically means "we're just deciding on this amount as a deterrent, not because it relates at all to the harm actually suffered by any of the parties". In general, liquidated damages are disfavored because they discourage so-called "efficient breach" of contracts. This happens when A agrees to paint B's house for $500, but then A gets an offer to paint C's house for $10,000 on the same date. A knows that B can find a replacement painter for $1,000 even at the last minute, so he decides to breach his agreement with B and is willing to pay the actual damages (the extra $500 that B would have to pay) because it is efficient for him to do so, given his ability to earn much more money painting C's house.
• This amount that PayPal can deduct under this TOS is not limited to $2,500. That is just the liquidated damages piece. They could claim other, larger damages, though I can't really imagine what that would be. Harm to their reputation? Seems hard to prove.