Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against PayPal , Inc. for failure to conduct genuine human review of XXXX buyer protection disputes involving the same vendor, and for applying an incorrect evidentiary standard to a digital services contract. The disputes : XXXX XXXX {$850.00} XXXX XX/XX/XXXX payment for social media management services. Vendor contracted to deliver XXXX posts per month. Vendor delivered XXXX a 35 % shortfall verified by manual review. Following termination on XX/XX/XXXX, both parties entered a written post-termination settlement requiring complete delivery of all work by XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX PST. Vendor missed that deadline, replying at XXXX XXXX without delivering. XX/XX/XXXX is the documented breach date. A XXXX evidence PDF documenting the full timeline was submitted with this dispute. XXXX. XXXX XXXX {$150.00}, XX/XX/XXXX payment for XXXX XXXX processed through the same vendor . Vendor provided a written one-year guarantee the subscription would not be interrupted. It lapsed within XXXX months. Vendor acknowledged the lapse in writing, promised resolution, went silent 33 days, re-engaged only when a PayPal dispute was filed, and attempted to condition reinstatement on dropping the active dispute a bad-faith quid pro quo. PayPal denied this case on XX/XX/XXXX stating the transaction was processed correctly, which does not address service non-delivery. Automated processing overriding human review : On XX/XX/XXXX, PayPal agent XXXX manually recategorized case XXXX XXXX XXXX Item not received, '' determining the original automated category was insufficient. On XX/XX/XXXX, PayPal agent XXXX reopened the same case, recategorized it as " not as described / incomplete service, '' added detailed notes, flagged the call recording for PayPal 's human backend team, and notified that team directly. The case was denied again the same day. XXXX separate PayPal agents intervened on the buyer 's behalf. Both were overridden by automated processing the same day their interventions were recorded. Incorrect evidentiary standard : PayPal 's XX/XX/XXXX response from its XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( reference XXXX ) states the case was denied because the seller provided sufficient and valid evidence demonstrating services were delivered. The case timeline shows the seller submitted " tracking info '' on XX/XX/XXXX. This is a digital services contract for social media posts. There is no tracking number for a social media post. PayPal applied a physical goods delivery standard to a digital services dispute. A XXXX evidence XXXX was submitted by the buyer. There is no indication a human reviewer evaluated both submissions before issuing a same-day denial. PayPal 's own portal contradicts its denial : PayPal 's transaction detail page for case XXXX XXXX XXXX buyer may be eligible for Buyer Protection. The dispute page simultaneously states the transaction is ineligible. PayPal 's own system contradicts itself on the same transaction. Prior escalation : A XXXX complaint ( ID : XXXX ) was filed XX/XX/XXXX. PayPal 's executive office responded XX/XX/XXXX declining to reopen the cases. A formal documentation request has been sent to PayPal 's XXXX address requesting all seller-submitted evidence and internal reviewer notes for both cases. Relief requested : PayPal should identify what specific evidence the seller submitted and confirm whether a human reviewer evaluated it against the buyer 's XXXX evidence XXXX. PayPal should explain how tracking information constitutes proof of delivery for a digital services contract. Both cases should be reopened for genuine human review. Total refund requested : {$1000.00} ( {$850.00} + {$150.00} ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation