What happened in plain terms
- Accounts were limited without a clear, testable explanation.
- After the holding period, the remaining balance was taken in a single enforcement debit.
- No reconciliation schedule, itemised breakdown, or contemporaneous records were provided to substantiate the quantum.
- We were repeatedly directed to broad policy language instead of record based particulars.
What we did next
We tried the usual channels first: support tickets, phone calls, social media escalation, and standard complaint routes. When that failed, we shifted to evidence and structure. We built timelines, preserved communications, and studied how payment firms are expected to handle restricted funds, disclosure, and complaints handling, including how penalty style charges and liquidated damages are typically assessed and justified.
What this site is for
This site turns that work into practical tools. You will find region specific complaint templates, checklists for gathering evidence, and explanations of the key concepts that tend to matter to regulators and ombuds schemes. The intent is to reduce the cost of getting started and to help users present their issues in a form that is verifiable and supervisor friendly.
What this site is not
Nothing here is legal advice, and we cannot promise outcomes. The goal is to help you document your case clearly, ask the right questions, and avoid wasting months on dead ends. Maybe nothing will change, maybe nothing will get better, but there’s an inexplicable dignity in fighting for just causes even when they are already lost.
Why this site exists at all
This site would not exist if PayPal had simply returned what they took, with interest. That is all we ever asked for, and it is all the law requires. Instead, PayPal has chosen not to respond, not to engage, and not to settle. Formal complaints, letters of demand, and regulatory submissions have been met with silence or deflection.
Litigation would be the obvious next step, but taking a Singapore-registered payment company to court from another country is not a realistic option for most of us, at least not yet. The legal costs alone are prohibitive. On top of that, our cases date back to 2020, which means FIDReC, the financial dispute resolution scheme in Singapore, is not available to us: it only covers cases from December 2024 onwards. We fall outside every accessible formal remedy.
That leaves one path open: making the problem visible enough that someone with the resources to litigate decides it is worth doing, takes PayPal to court, and wins. What we need is a judge to put on record that these AUP deductions are unenforceable penalty clauses with no legitimate legal basis. Until that happens, nothing structurally changes for anyone.
We are not the story. The jurisprudence is the story. Every documented case on this site is a data point for the next claimant, the next regulator, or the next judge who has to decide whether a payment platform can seize a user's entire balance, without itemisation, without evidence of loss, and call it damages.
If you have suggestions or questions, feel free to contact us at: aupdamages(at)gmail.com