Is this legal? We sent a total of 1 new join to Ibill yesterday off an old paysite we no longer promote, so it will not affect me. Also, I would not trust Ibill with my business at this point.


But I am curious?

I could give you legal advice but I charge $50/ hour and i don't thin kyou can afford it

PS get those shoes ready I am nearly up to 100 posts

Guess nobody wants to touch this one.

nah, all the lawyers are on GFY....LOL

If you want to know if it's legal ask your lawyer...

If you want assumptions ask GFY ;-)

What? you mean all of those advice givers on GFY are not the best source for legal advice? surely you jest!

;-))))))))

What? you mean all of those advice givers on GFY are not the best source for legal advice? surely you jest!

;-))))))))[/b][/quote]
Nah, only the ones with offensive nicknames ;-)

If you are a new client and start processing with them now I reckon they can. They can draw out a new contract and say you are not allowed to process with Ibill for future clients. If you then sign you are legally bound by it.

However they are now implenting something that customers prior to this announcement have not signed up to. You could easily tell them to fuck off and then if they cut your service you would win in a court of law as you have an agreement with them for them to process.

From IBill on GFY http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s...threadid=151866

Whatever bad things can be said about iBill, they're not the processor with the deceptive pre checked cross sales and free trials.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



I still don't get Epoch's logic for dis-allowing only Ibill to start with though. If these companies want to make it hard to work with multiple processors they will only be driving more people to their own merchant accounts I would have thought.

"Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday." - Unknown

i don't get it ... at first glance i think epoch are being fucking idiots ... what right do they have to make these rules?

i've only just started reading all this shit - can someone summarize it?

Not to defend anybody, but they have the right to say "if you do business with abc corp we wont do business with you".... no different that me saying that if you promote something i dont approve of that i wont be letting you into our sponsor programs. they arent saying you cant use ibill, just that if you use ibill you cant use them.

I'm never in the know on these things, but if i had to guess, i'd assume that because of some new visa regulations about tracking sponsored merchants across multiple ipsp's that an ipsp's overall portfolio numbers could potentially be affected by another ipsp's customer's fraud scrubbing or lack thereof.

but who knows. thats just my guess.

JoeE used to threaten these things all the time! haha

Not exactly, they are telling their existing clients to drop iBill or they will lose their rebills they have on Epoch.

It's not the same as denying admission to a program based on content of a site.

And how would you like it if another sponsor program said "If you use Quickbucks your account will be terminated" :-)




Last edited by Timon at Jul 13 2003, 11:04 PM

this was my initial thought, however, changing the rules is pretty common with processors and their clients ...

the only logical argument i have seen for this so far is hoopers comment ...

but in this case, if you have separate companies registered with the processors, how can they enforce it?

epoch might be the leader in the biz of processing right now, but with their 'creative' billing methods of the last 12 months, i'm confused as to why ibill is going to cause them any additional grief than they already have from their own actions.

as far as customer service, usability of their admin areas etc, they both suck ass and have a long way to go before either of them can make a move to own the business ... but ibill does have a better track record than paycom.

the lives of 3rd party processors are shortening every day with the new rules in place - shit like this is only going to push more people to their own merchant accounts.

oh well, nobody thought this was going to be a boring future!

I think if you read your Service Agreements the processors have ample leeway to cease processing for any given account.

This clause is usually surrounded by... "in the sole discretion of the Company".

And when they say 'we will no longer process for you', maybe that means new sign-ups and not recurring.

If all the risk of being TMF'd is shifted to the merchant, why would they give up the recurring?

No he said specifically that all funds owed would be forfeited.

The question is not if it is legal to do this to their clients, because all clients sign a waiver that allows the processor to can them for whatever reason.

The question is: is it legal for a company to do this to their competitor.

Now that is a legal issue. Or do you mean simply not processing the FUTURE recurring?

I don't think this is tortious interference. Maybe it should have been phrased differently.

Now that is a legal issue. Or do you mean simply not processing the FUTURE recurring?[/b][/quote]
Actually he said "suspended" not "forfeited" so I guess it's a gray area :-)

I believe so, as long as they aren't a monopoly... :rolleyes: