A client from the United Arab Emirates ordered the publication of two advertising texts on a Polish website. The texts concerned modern bicycles available on the Polish market. The editorial office of the istotne.pl portal published the materials and sent the client two links to the publications, asking for a payment of 80 dollars through PayPal. That same day, the agreed amount was paid into the editorial office’s PayPal account by another person (the client’s representative), with a note stating that it concerned the published texts (the transfer description included two links).

After two months, the person who made the payment reported to PayPal that the service had not been delivered. PayPal blocked the portal’s money. The editorial office provided PayPal with the following evidence:

  • all correspondence related to the order
  • a copy of the transfer with a note stating that it concerned specific articles
  • server log data, which showed that the articles had been visited from various countries, including the United Arab Emirates, as early as the day of publication and payment

At the same time, the editorial office emailed the Arab contractor asking for an explanation of the problem. He replied that he did not know why the payer had reported that the service had not been delivered. The editorial office therefore sent a joint email to the contractor and the payer asking for clarification, but no one replied to that message. PayPal was also informed of this, and evidence was provided.

PayPal sided with the Arabs from the outset. It took the money earned by the Polish editorial office and added a further 15-dollar fee for reviewing the dispute.

“I contacted PayPal consultants several times. I explained that the articles were still available on the website and that everyone had unrestricted access to them. I pointed out that the payer had included links to those specific publications in the transfer, so I do not know how else I could prove that the payment concerned those specific texts. The service was completed in full by my editorial office. The Polish consultants admitted that I was right, but someone else made the decision. And each time, that person rejected my claim. Finally, today I received the final decision,” says Krzysztof Gwizdała of the istotne.pl portal.

“In my opinion, the Arabs simply committed fraud, and PayPal sided with them. In addition, PayPal earned a commission on the transfer (because I did not see it return that money) and another 15 dollars for reviewing the dispute. Of course, the total amount is not large, but this is about basic honesty, which is important in business. I am withdrawing from PayPal as a financial intermediary because I have completely lost trust in them,” Krzysztof Gwizdała concludes.

The unpaid articles were removed from the portal.