Personally, I think if you rely on PayPal/etc for your business, you're asking to get financially raped.
This doesn't sound like consumer protection to me. It sounds like an artificial barrier to entry.
Also, PayPal has had licenses in all states that require them since its IPO, and clearly there's no connection between this issue and customer service.
Would you elaborate?
Courts often "trust" people to go free temporarily if they can post bail pending trial. Lenders will "trust" you with their money in the form of a loan if you can post collateral.
Same for a bank. Any customer with an account that's greater than zero is owed money by the bank.
It's not a stretch at all to have a million customers owed money.
My spaghetti monster, do they even have to hold a reserve, or can they just spend all your money on the derivatives market?
If you want to get into banking, you had better have the chops to be able to treat your customers correctly. It's not a hard concept.
If you have a bone to pick with PayPal, you ought to be wishing for more competition, not supporting barriers to entry for their competitors.
This is nothing but downside as it relates to innovation in the payments space. These companies like their business models and don't care for it to be disrupted. They love regulations at this point.
Some might argue that they can only continue to do so due to a lack of competition, competition which is stifled by the very legislation ostensibly aimed at helping consumers.