Amendments to the PayPal Privacy Statement Effective November 27, 2024:

We are updating our Privacy Statement to explain how, starting early Summer 2025, we will share information to help improve your shopping experience and make it more personalized for you. The key update to the Privacy Statement explains how we will share information with merchants to personalize your shopping experience and recommend our services to you. Personal information we disclose includes, for example, products, preferences, sizes, and styles we think you’ll like. Information gathered about you after the effective date of our updated Privacy Statement, November 27, 2024, will be shared with participating stores where you shop, unless you live in California, North Dakota, or Vermont. For PayPal customers in California, North Dakota, or Vermont, we’ll only share your information with those merchants if you tell us to do so. No matter where you live, you’ll always be able to exercise your right to opt out of this data sharing by updating your preference settings in your account under “Data and Privacy.”

edit: update title to reflect this is for PayPal USA users

  • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just logged in, just found it, just opted out. Thanks for the heads-up OP.

    But fucking fuck. Can we put a stop to this? Legally? We could call it sometime like… The National Opt-out Policy Elimination (NOPE) Act or something.

      • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah yes, that thing that sites mention on those annoying popups before making us sign away our privacy anyway.

        • pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          That thing which makes Meta and Apple so scared they do not release their new products in AI anymore in the EU to pressure us to loosen up the laws. That has already been costly to these companies.

          That prevents Paypal from doing this change in the EU.

          The law that has been awesome so far.

        • Schlemmy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, no. You can choose to say no. A privacy banner has to give you a single click option to decline the use of your personal data and if you don’t get that option, they’re not complying to GDPR.

          I systematically file complaints against unlawful privacy banners and with every popup that gets corrected I made the world a more privacy friendly place. It ain’t much but it’s an honest job.

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Most of those popups are illegal, according to the GDPR. Both opt-in and opt-out need to be just as easily possible.

          • lemonuri@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Exacly, these popups are completely unnecessary and just a form of malicious compliance by the website creators.

            • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              They are not even compliance a lot of the times.

              They are the equivalent of begging on the street, some of them aggressive enough that it’s illegal.

              • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                What? As a private citizen? in +this* economy?

                Wasn’t the point of stuff like the GDPR that the governments would be the ones doing the enforcing and the suing?

                • Gumus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No, GDPR is exactly what allows anyone to sue corporations with any chance of success and impact.

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Most things should be. Hell, one of Google’s biggest public failures was building an opt-out social media network that let all sorts of people see who you’ve emailed lately.

  • Skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Imagine if you lived in a country with a banking system so modern, that nobody needed Paypal or Venmo.

      • Skeezix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes. What a lot of Americans don’t realise is that in other countries, bank account numbers are standardised to include pre-defined bank and branch information. In a sense, account number includes what americans think of as routing number.

        People trade bank account numbers like business cards. Businesses post their account numbers for payment. Even a flyer for a local school fundraiser will have an account number listed on it. If you buy something from someone, the seller tells you his account number. You log into your bank and transfer the funds instantly, whether it’s $10 or $10000. You don’t need to know anything except the recipient’s account number.

        It’s free. It’s painless. It’s interconnected. It’s bank agnostic. The movement of small monies between individuals should not be commoditised.

        • Scrollone@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You don’t need to know anything except the recipient’s account number.

          You need to know the name of the owner of the account. At least in my experience, if you put a wrong owner number the money transfer will be rejected.

    • Vinny_93@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Still need PayPal for some transactions that require a credit card. In the Netherlands, credit cards aren’t as commonplace as in the USA since we only pay with money we actually have.

      I’m not saying I discredit your argument, I’m just angry at companies requiring either a credit card or PayPal (or even worse, those buy now pay later deals).

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Uh, isn’t that normal? People use PayPal because of the easy of use resulting from its inherently low security that is still far better than CC, not because there aren’t sensible alternatives.

      • Skeezix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The sensible alternative is when banks allow instant free transfer of funds from your account to any other account regardless of which bank or recipient.

  • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Luckily my country has a standard payment system for every bank in the country so I don’t to use this shitty ass service

  • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    In the Android app, open your profile, tap Data and Privacy, then Personalized Shopping, then toggle it off.

  • noneya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thank you. Just closed my account. Didn’t need it anyway and I sure as fuck don’t need to be generating income for PayPal anymore.

      • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        After facing backlash earlier this month, PayPal PYPL +1.9% rescinded a line in its policy stating that spreading misinformation on the platform would be subject to a $2,500 fine. Today, the remaining language leaves users and elected officials demanding more clarity over how the platform defines fine-worthy speech.

        A part of PayPal’s user agreement that says any customer in violation of the platform’s “acceptable use” policy is subject to a $2,500 fine has been in place since at least 2013, according to the website’s archive. The fine had largely gone unnoticed until earlier this month when PayPal updated its acceptable use policy to state that messages which are “fraudulent, promote misinformation or are unlawful” are in violation of the policy and, by extension, subject to the fine. The “acceptable use” policy stated that determinations of which messages violated the policy would be made at “PayPal’s sole discretion.”

        After drawing intense backlash from commentators stating that the policy could infringe upon free speech, the company rescinded the line in the policy citing misinformation and issued a statement saying it was posted in error on Monday, October 10. “PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy,” a spokesperson for the company said. PayPal’s former president David Marcus was among dissenters, posting a tweet objecting to the policy update, which was amplified further when Elon Musk responded “Agreed.”

        “PayPal’s new AUP goes against everything I believe in,” Marcus’ tweet reads. “A private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something they disagree with. Insanity.”

        The note about misinformation was removed from the acceptable use terms, but the $2,500 penalty for violations remains, causing continued concern.

        PayPal’s website still lists “provide false, inaccurate or misleading information” under the “restricted activities” portion of its policy. Violating the “restricted activities” portion does not result automatically in the $2,500 fine that breaching the “acceptable use” agreement does, but it may still result in charges, account suspension or other punitive actions.

        Unfortunately for PayPal, now that the $2,500 fine has landed in the public eye, it has fallen under close scrutiny. “Concerned about this language still in PayPal’s terms of service – it’s vague and seems like it could be weaponized to control speech,” Representative Tom Emmer (R - MN) wrote in a tweet on Thursday.

        The ordeal has spurred a call for people to delete their PayPal accounts with #PayPalCancelled and #DeleteVenmo gaining momentum on Twitter. Where the policy finally lands may be especially relevant to PayPal’s Venmo, a peer-to-peer payments network with a social media feed where users share messages attached to their public transactions.

    • killabeezio@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Oof. Thanks. I deleted mine as well. Never really use it anyway because I was always afraid of what they might do with my money.

  • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Venmo is owned by PayPal, but I couldn’t find any information about if similar Venmo TOS changes are planned or already in effect.

    • malloc@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Seems pp rolled this “feature” out to USA only due to our lax regulations on privacy. Another user (in Canada) pointed out the option was not seen in Profile & Data