AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Why are PayPal and American Express so hostile to the adult industry?

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People claiming their card was stolen for the transactions, people saying they didnt purchase the content, etc.

Basically when someone's wife looks at their statement and is like "woah, someone spent money on porn, better get that back" or if a guy buys a video and loves it but wants his money back and claims he never bought it. So he gets his money back and still has the video. Or a guy buys into a gold show and then regrets it and complains and gets his money back.

Credit card companies don't wanna mess with that, and paypal doesnt want to mess with the fact that pretty much nothing we sell is tangible or can be proven to have been received by the buyer.

Plus you then get into all the illegal content that could possibly be bought and sold, like anything that is considered 'obscene'.
 
People claiming their card was stolen for the transactions, people saying they didnt purchase the content, etc.

Basically when someone's wife looks at their statement and is like "woah, someone spent money on porn, better get that back" or if a guy buys a video and loves it but wants his money back and claims he never bought it. So he gets his money back and still has the video. Or a guy buys into a gold show and then regrets it and complains and gets his money back.

Credit card companies don't wanna mess with that, and paypal doesnt want to mess with the fact that pretty much nothing we sell is tangible or can be proven to have been received by the buyer.

Plus you then get into all the illegal content that could possibly be bought and sold, like anything that is considered 'obscene'.
Obscene is a term they used for pornography back in the 1940s and 1950s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TattooedMilfyMama
Exactly, there is no definite definition for obscene across the board.
It's different everywhere. So the law is not definite across the board for pornography sales. Which makes companies not want to contribute to online sales of porn because illegal things could be going on depending on where the porn is being sold from and to.
 
And.. the financial world as a whole, is lead by very conservative men, and for some reason, conservative people have problems with the fact that sex can also be done for fun. Religion plays some part here, but mostly people at the top want us to be as miserable as possible so we would be better motivated to work our asses off against a minimum wage (or as low a wage as they can get away with).

Even in a country like the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, it's still very hard to get financing for, say, starting an escort service or a brothel or a 'love hotel'.
 
And.. the financial world as a whole, is lead by very conservative men, and for some reason, conservative people have problems with the fact that sex can also be done for fun. Religion plays some part here, but mostly people at the top want us to be as miserable as possible so we would be better motivated to work our asses off against a minimum wage (or as low a wage as they can get away with).

Even in a country like the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, it's still very hard to get financing for, say, starting an escort service or a brothel or a 'love hotel'.
I think most of those "conservative" men probably frequent porn sites.
Maybe they're afraid their "hobbies" will be discovered.
 
I think most of those "conservative" men probably frequent porn sites.
Maybe they're afraid their "hobbies" will be discovered.
I know, right? That is the sad part.. C.E.O.s that have no qualms hiring 1k/ hour escorts decide that you can not watch porn or have sex...
 
I know, right? That is the sad part.. C.E.O.s that have no qualms hiring 1k/ hour escorts decide that you can not watch porn or have sex...
CEOs are not the one responsible for this, more likely their shareholders include conservative/religious groups that influence company policy.

Also, there is the involvement of the US Justice Department in the matter:

The businesses say they are legitimate, but banking regulators and the Justice Department are warning that these and other businesses are high risk for money laundering, consumer fraud and other crime. Pressure is being applied through stalled merger approvals and the lingering threat of lawsuits.

The pornography sweep in particular only strengthens bankers' suspicions that regulators are forcing them to play the role of morality police. And it raises more practical questions for bankers: How do they balance public perception and compliance? What industry will they feel compelled to shut out next?

"Banks are left to guess who deserves access to the banking system and who doesn’t," says William Isaac, a former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman who recently stepped down as chairman of Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB). Isaac, who is now head of the financial institutions group at FTI Consulting, has advised payday-lending companies.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has closed accounts of individuals or businesses associated with the adult entertainment industry, several media outlets have reported. In one case, the adult film actress Teagan Presley posted on her Twitter site a copy of the alleged letter from Chase saying her account would be closed on May 11. Presley's husband, film producer Joshua Lehman, told Business Insider, "it was because of our industry."
Source: http://www.americanbanker.com/issue...-erring-on-far-side-of-caution-1067442-1.html

A while back, some adult performers noticed that banks were terminating their accounts. The reason, it turned out, was a Justice Department program called "Operation Choke Point." This program, apparently, seeks to target businesses regarded as undesirable — like porn — by hitting them at a financial "choke point": their bank accounts.

Though the Justice Department can't prosecute people for making porn, because the First Amendment prohibits that, and too many people would think of them as blue-nosed morality police, which is politically undesirable, it can use its power to put them out of business extra-legally, by pressuring banks to cut off their accounts. Prosecutors and regulators have a lot of discretion, and the threat to use (or abuse) that discretion in ways that make banks uncomfortable provides a lot of leverage. Sure, banks make money off of the accounts of porn performers (and other targeted businesses), but not enough to make up for the hassle of being targeted for harassment by the feds.

As Timothy Geigner of TechDirt puts it:

Let's not mince words: A program that was built upon the goals of stopping financial fraud has devolved into a massive government overreach into private businesses that are operating within the law. The way it works is that the DOJ informs financial institutions that certain industries are more likely than others to be involved in unauthorized charges of consumer credit and bank cards. They likewise inform the banks that the DOJ is going to keep a special super-awesome close-eye on these industries, with the implication being that there will be a great deal of prosecutorial action, subpoenas, and scrutiny on those industries, not to mention penalties on the institutions that work with them. The intention of the government, it would seem, is to make the banks unwilling to deal with the government harassment and simply cut anyone in those industries off from the financial institutions.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nt-porn-stars-first-amendment-column/9594113/

Banks are Terminating Relationships with Legal Industries, Often Leaving Businesses with No Recourse
Operation Choke Point threatens countless legal businesses well outside of consumer finance. The Department’s radical reinterpretation of its authority under FIRREA, in conjunction with recent policy announcements by bank examiners, is compelling banks to terminate longstanding lending and depository relationships with a wide array of lawful businesses and individuals. In 2012, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued revised guidance for FDIC-supervised institutions concerning their relationships with payment processors. The guidance identified a variety of businesses who pose “elevated … legal, reputational, and compliance risks” to depository institutions. According to the FDIC, these businesses include
. . . credit repair companies, debt consolidation and forgiveness programs, online-gambling related operations, government grant or will-writing kits, payday or subprime loans, pornography, online tobacco or firearms sales, pharmaceutical sales, sweepstakes, and magazine subscriptions.
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Thanks Obama
 
CEOs are not the one responsible for this, more likely their shareholders include conservative/religious groups that influence company policy.

Also, there is the involvement of the US Justice Department in the matter:


Source: http://www.americanbanker.com/issue...-erring-on-far-side-of-caution-1067442-1.html


Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nt-porn-stars-first-amendment-column/9594113/


Source: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Thanks Obama

Turns out obama was NOT targeting pornography http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/09/operation-choke-point-opr_n_7758334.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.