Consumer complaint received 2026-02-21 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Chronological Impossibility and Failure of Reasonable Investigation PayPals denial relies on XXXX tracking number XXXX as proof of delivery. However, XXXX records show : Shipment originated : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Delivered : XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXXXXXX XXXX Delivered to : XXXX Identified as XXXX of XXXX piece shipment My PayPal transaction to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. 

It is chronologically impossible for a shipment delivered nearly XXXX month prior to my transaction to constitute proof of delivery for that purchase. 
The tracking number predates my transaction and is unrelated. 

Additionally : The named recipient is not me. The shipment was a multi-piece commercial delivery inconsistent with my single-item purchase. PayPal relied on facially invalid tracking data and failed to reasonably verify whether the shipment corresponded to my transaction. 

Because this payment was funded via my linked bank account, it constitutes an electronic fund transfer under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ). Financial institutions are required to conduct a reasonable investigation before denying an error claim. Relying on a tracking number that predates the transaction by nearly XXXX month does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation. 
I request : Immediate reopening of the claim, Written explanation of how a XX/XX/XXXX delivery was deemed valid for a XX/XX/XXXX transaction, Confirmation that a Regulation Ecompliant investigation was conducted, Reimbursement of {$4800.00}. If this matter is not corrected, I request CFPB review of PayPals compliance with Regulation E obligations. " Intended for Resale Determination Is Unsupported PayPal additionally denied coverage based on a claim that the item was intended for resale. 
This determination is incorrect and unsupported by any evidence. I did not represent to PayPal or the seller that the item was intended for resale. No documentation has been provided explaining how PayPal reached this conclusion. 
A unilateral assumption regarding resale does not satisfy the burden required to deny consumer protection. I request PayPal provide : The factual basis for concluding the item was intended for resale, The specific evidence relied upon in making that determination. Absent documented evidence, this exclusion is being applied improperly. 

This matter involves intentional misrepresentation and non-delivery. If the tracking number was misused, redirected, or associated with a shipment not containing the purchased item, then this constitutes fraudulent activity involving electronic transmission of funds. Under these circumstances, the matter extends beyond a standard Purchase Protection dispute and implicates fraud-based review. Again, I respectfully request : Reopening of the claim, Written verification of the delivery details described above, Documentation supporting the resale exclusion determination, and Reimbursement of {$4800.00} if delivery to my exact name and address can not be verified. I appreciate further review of this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation