I don't know, but I would assume this is because payment processors uniformly refuse to handle payments for a number of legitimate customers, such as sex workers. Which is yet another reason we need something like a common carrier law for merchant services.https://twitter.com/inputmag/status/1428421204055052296 …
-
Show this thread
-
For example, here are all the businesses that cannot use Stripe. It includes many types of businesses that would be legal to operate in the US/elsewhere, but which nonetheless effectively can't because almost all payment processors use a list like this.https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses …
2 replies 3 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
I assume, but don't know, that these lists arise because payment processors want to limit the damages they may be liable for in businesses that are "legally entangled" (like pornography, gambling, etc.) So it is not necessarily the case that they are being puritanical.
4 replies 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Therefore, a "common carrier, limited liability" law that gives payment processors legal immunity from resulting damages in exchange for requiring them to offer equal access to business types would be a step in the right direction.
2 replies 2 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
do processors actually need this legal immunity? I always figured they operated this way due to the fiscal reality that refunding chargebacks and fraudulent transactions due to stolen credit cards is just not profitable for that subset of 'risky businesses'.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Never having worked at a processor, I honestly have no idea. Trying briefly to look through them, it seems like maybe a few just have you sign contracts indemnifying them? I would love for payment processors to be more vocal about why they openly discriminate, so we could know.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.