In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Pandora revamped its app logo back in October 2016, changing the front and opting for a more minimalistic blue and white design. At the time, Wired magazine couldn’t help but notice that Pandora’s blue capital “P” looked eerily familiar to another app–PayPal.

At first glance, the new app icon looks understated, its form and color reminiscent of the PayPal logo; the updated Pandora ‘P’ has no counter (the open space between the stem and the bowl of the ‘P’), and sports a subtle blue gradient.

Many app users have noted the similarities between the apps on Twitter as well:

that moment when u click on PayPal cuz u thought it was pandora smh @pandoramusic pic.twitter.com/5I9tz3ACD3

— julianjaden (@julianjaden) October 27, 2016

Look how similar the #pandora and #paypal logo are when next to each other…. #graphicdesign pic.twitter.com/dhWqmRQXq7

— Kylie Murphy (@Ky_Murphy) October 19, 2016

Pandora wants to be young and hip again. That’s why they… copied PayPal’s logo? pic.twitter.com/MSGUuV0FqC

— Romain Dillet (@romaindillet) October 12, 2016

According to the New York Post, PayPal says this confusion diverted traffic away from its app, and in effect caused it to lose customers.

“One critically important function of the PayPal logo is to stand out on the crowded screens of customers’ smartphones and tablets,” the suit states. The company says it “has invested heavily in the PayPal Logo since its introduction,” and that Pandora’s logo “not only resembles, but openly mimics the PayPal logo.”

PayPal reportedly sent numerous letters to Pandora hoping to solve the problem, but they went unanswered. Now the company is asking the court to force Pandora to stop using the logo and pay unspecified damages for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The threat of a possible settlement isn’t good news for Pandora, which lost about $250 million last year. The internet radio company was late to join the premium subscription bandwagon, and has since struggled to keep up with the growth of Spotify and Apple Music. Earlier this month the company received a $150 million investment from KKR & Co., the private-equity firm, in order to keep it afloat as it attempts to court a buyer to rescue it from its financial woes.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Chances are that if you buy merchandise online, you have probably made a PayPal account to streamline the process. Whether you just use it to pay for your iTunes purchases or to feed your late night Amazon habit, it can make your online shopping a little easier to handle.

PayPal is an online platform that allows users to connect their credit card or bank account information so that they don’t need to have their credit cards handy for purchases. Many online retailers allow users to sign in through PayPal. The online service also has its own credit card, which is at the center of a current controversy. Read on to learn about the controversy, what laws PayPal may have broken, and what’s next for the financial giant.

The Controversy

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently filed a $25 million lawsuit in a Maryland district court against PayPal for deceptive practices; in particular, deceptive practices relating to the PayPal credit card. This agency’s main purpose is to “make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans–whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.”

What PayPal Did

Complaints against the company aren’t exactly new. In fact, there are multiple websites, such as aboutpaypal.org and paypalsucks.com, that detail many of the problems that people have with the company; however, many of those complaints have to do with customer service issues or confusion. The complaints at hand are a little more serious: as detailed in the CFPB suit, the complaint includes the following six counts:

1. PayPal enrolled customers in its credit card without their consent or authorization;
2. Customers who used account funds were billed through that credit card instead of having it taken out of their connected card or bank account;
3. PayPal did not accept, process, or post payments made to the PayPal card, resulting in late charges and changes in credit scores;
4. Paypal lied to customers about what they were receiving when they signed up for the card;
5. Paypal did not provide adequate information about the balances posted (deferred interest) and the information about promotional content–even for customers who did sign up for the credit card willingly;
6. Paypal employed unfair billing dispute practices.

You may not even be safe if you only used PayPal to pay for things online or have some funds in there from online payments. According to CBS Money Watch, PayPal actually signed up many users for credit cards without letting them know or sending them a physical card–meaning that many people didn’t even know that they were actually charging to a credit card, because they didn’t know they had one.

The result was an abundance of charges for users, particularly charges that were sometimes just taken out of the funds they had loaded into the website. Some consumers were also hit with overage fines and interest charges.

Why it Was Wrong

While all of the counts are bad enough to warrant a dispute, number five is particularly abhorrent. In fact, the CFPB described the conduct as “abusive” in its report. However there was some debate over that–the National Law Journal reports on the difficulty:

In its complaint, the agency listed six charges against PayPal, including one that details the conduct the CFPB said was ‘abusive.’ The agency has declined to define abusive conduct—a standard that’s apart from long-established consumer protection terms ‘unfair’ and ‘deceptive’—through any regulation.

Instead, the CFPB is laying out what it means one enforcement action at a time. For lawyers and their clients, and even members of Congress, understanding the parameters of abusive practices has been unsettling.

‘How can companies comply with this law?’ Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisconsin, asked at a 2012 oversight hearing, calling it ‘a subjective standard with no bright line.’

What happened to customers really depended on when they signed up–or were signed up–for a credit card. A customer with a PayPal card could have two balances: one for the card that was free from interest and another that had an interest-accruing balance. Customers were told they could decide what payments went where, but that was not true. They were also lied to about the minimum payment due–and attempts to talk to customer service often resulted in the age old “we are experiencing an unusually large call volume” message.

What Rules Do Credit Card Companies Have to Follow?

There are several laws in place that help protect consumers from being taken advantage of with their credit cards. These laws are part of the reason that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even found the problem with PayPal. In 2010, President Obama signed something called the Credit CARD Act, also referred to as the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. According to the CFPB, the law has two key purposes:

Fairness – Prohibit certain practices that are unfair or abusive such as hiking up the rate on an existing balance or allowing a consumer to go overlimit and then imposing an overlimit fee.

Transparency – Make the rates and fees on credit cards more transparent so consumers can understand how much they are paying for their credit card and can compare different cards.

That is the law that this particular case focused on, but there are a few other laws that credit card companies have to follow that illustrate the issues with PayPal’s deception.

Truth in Lending Act

When you go to get a credit card or a loan from your bank, you are immediately on an uneven playfield. The Truth in Lending Act is supposed to shield you from unfair lending practices. This means that a bank or credit card company has to tell you orally and in plain written language the terms, interest rate, and any other hidden fees.

Fair Credit Billing Act

This law kicks in once you have a credit card and protects you against inaccurate billing. If you meet predetermined guidelines, this act limits your financial responsibility for unauthorized charges up to $50. It also assures that you don’t have to pay for merchandise you ordered but never received, goods and services you didn’t accept, and double charges.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Credit companies, lenders, and banks report your credit activity to the credit bureaus. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, most recently changed in 2003, ensures that your information is correct. It gives you the right to dispute inaccuracies and to access your credit score and file. This law also protects who can see your credit file. The only people who have access are those with need: a creditor, a landlord, an insurer, or a prospective employer.

What Can Those Affected Do Now?

For its part, PayPal (and parent company EBay) now seems to be remorseful over the situation, and in an email to Bloomberg, a spokesperson for the company seemed hopeful that it would take care of everything and make it right:

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for PayPal, said the company ‘takes consumer protection very seriously.’

‘We continually improve our products and enhance our communications to ensure a superior customer experience,’ Miller said in an e-mail. ‘Our focus is on ease of use, clarity and providing high-quality products that are useful to consumers and are in compliance with applicable laws.’

As for those who have been affected, $15 million will go right back into their pockets. PayPal is said to be sending out emails in the coming weeks to customers who qualify for reimbursement. There is also going to be a $10 million fine against the company.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, we have all signed up for things and haven’t read the fine print. However, it is a lot more difficult to read something when you don’t even know it applies to you. PayPal received a pretty hefty slap on the wrist, and the hope is that other credit card companies and money lenders see this and change some of their shady business practices.

Resources

Primary

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The Credit CARD Act

Federal Trade Commission: Fair Credit Reporting Act

U.S. Department of the Treasury: Truth in Lending Act

Additional

Credit Cards: Obama Signs Credit Card Reforms Into Law

National Law Journal: Why the CFPB Found PayPal’s Conduct ‘Abusive’

Bloomberg Business: PayPal Will Pay $25 Million to Resolve CFPB Bill Me Later Claims

CBS Money Watch: Feds Say PayPal Illegally Signed Consumers up For Credit

USA Today: PayPal to Pay $25M in Refunds and Penalties

SlashGear: PayPal Ordered to Pay $25 Million over Deceptive Practices

Wall Street Journal: PayPal Says it May Face U.S. Lawsuit by June

Wall Street Journal: PayPal to Pay $25 Million to Settle Online Credit Claims

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Use PayPal’s Bill Me Later? You Might Get a Refund Due to Shady Practices appeared first on Law Street.