Paypal status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Paypal reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Paypal users through our website.

• Sign in (46%)
• Errors (34%)
• Website Down (20%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Paypal outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Website Down	6 hours ago
Échillais	Website Down	15 hours ago
Cagnes-sur-Mer	Website Down	1 day ago
Sherman	Sign in	2 days ago
Reims	Sign in	2 days ago
Villepinte	Sign in	2 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Paypal Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  ThirdPhase (@Thx0304) reported 3 minutes ago

  @JayMckay11 @InTheAssembly same page; google pay/apple pay 1 click.. paypal: login here, click here,…😴💤

• 
  DEUKAE VOTING TEAM ⚔️ (@deukae7voting) reported 3 minutes ago

  (Photos 1 & 2) On May 18, during Round 1, we reserved 1.8M Blue Jams from them. They asked for a 40% down payment upfront, which we sent immediately as requested. (Photos 3 & 4) However, on the final day of voting, with less than two hours remaining before the deadline, we reached out because they still hadn't delivered the votes. They then told us they were unable to vote and offered to refund our payment. However, they never returned the money, claiming they didn't have Wise and that their PayPal account was on hold.

• 
  Yishan (@yishan) reported 4 minutes ago

  Now is a good time to explain certain things about the mechanics of the IPO process that most people don't know. I will explain various dynamics around IPOs that you've probably wondered about (or just felt were odd but ignored). To the financially sophisticated: this post elides certain details and attempts to be simple enough for a lay audience. There's no novel reveal at the end so if you already know how IPOs work, you can skip this post. When a company wants to IPO (sell shares, then have the shares float for public trading - two separate things - hence this explainer), they don't actually just sell them to the public. Rather, they hire bankers to round up a bunch of institutional buyers or wealth investors. We'll call these "big buyers." The company does presentations to these buyers, and then the buyers indicate their willingness to buy - like how much, and at what price - and the bankers mediate this whole process and arrange the transaction. The reason this happens is because when most companies come to the market, no one really knows what price it should start trading at, and it's largely an unknown entity (to the public investors), so you need experienced bankers who understand business and equity markets to figure it out and get it approximately correct. This is the actual function of the bankers who "take companies public" and they are called underwriters. The way it works is this: The bankers go to the big buyers (often investors who already have a lot of business with the bank) and ask them to participate in this process - the one I described above. Buying the shares is risky, so the big buyers need an incentive. This is where the "first day pop" comes from. Because the bankers have the most information of any party at this stage, they are the most likely to be able to guess at the likely "real" market trading price of the stock. So they price the stock a little bit under so that when the actual offering to the public happens on opening day, the stock "pops" by about 10% - 20%. This allows the big buyers to make an instant profit flipping the stock, compensating them for taking the risk of buying an "unknown" stock with no trading history. Let me summarize: - The company sells its shares in a negotiated sale to big buyers. - The company receives cash for those shares. - Now the company is done. - The next day, the big buyers sell their shares on the open market at whatever price public buyers are willing to pay. There are, typically, rules around flipping the shares but obviously not for everyone, not for all the shares, and some big buyers just break the rule (and may not be invited to future IPOs). But obviously the shares that the public actually buys comes from somewhere, and it's these big buyers who bought them from the company in the banker-negotiated sale. They do not come directly from the company. At no point does any member of the "retail" investor public actually give money to the company itself in return for any shares. It all goes through the banker-mediated sale process (called a "road show") where big buyers get a discount for taking the risk, and make their profits on the first-day flip to the buying public. (The bankers also make a huge fee for doing this) That seems kind of like "rich people enriching other rich people" but it's only partially that. Only a small percentage of IPOs do really well. Many of them stink, or fail on the first day with no pop. So if you're a big buyer who participates in a lot of IPOs, you are taking on a real risk. If all goes well, there is a modest 10-20% pop on the first day, and the IPO is deemed a success from the standpoint of the financial industry, and in particular, the bankers who arranged it. Here are two major ways it can go wrong: If the bankers misjudge where the public price will end up and price it too low, the pop will be HUGE. The common reaction to this is "Wow, what a great IPO!" because most people just get excited when Money-Number-Go-Up. But if the pop settles to something roughly close to its peak - the first-day close is taken as a proxy for what the market considers a fair valuation of the company - it means the company left money on the table: it sold to the big buyers at far too low of a price. All the big buyers and opening-bell first-day retail buyers captured a huge part of that value. Remember that the purpose of an IPO is to raise money for the company's operations and if they just sold a bunch of stock for less than the market was willing to pay, well, that's bad for the company. Another way it can go "wrong" is if it's "priced to perfection" where the negotiated sale is arranged at exactly what the public ends up being willing to pay, and there is no pop. Even "worse," if it's priced above that, and the bankers completely misjudge the price in the wrong direction, the stock will fall on the first day and close below the IPO price. But "wrong" is a matter of perspective: this is bad for the big buyers (who didn't make money on flipping the IPO), bad for the first-day retail buyers who now own a plunging stock, and bad for the bankers, who lose credibility. But it is the best financial outcome for the company itself. The company was able to sell its shares at the maximum price the market would bear, and it walks away with the cash. When an IPO like this happens, the financial headline that dominates is "it's a failed IPO." But in terms of raising money for the company, it's the best-case outcome! This is an instance where the incentives of all the parties involved are not the same. When the bankers price the IPO for a modest pop, that's the default compromise between these interests: the company makes a little bit less than it would get from the public, the big buyers take a risk and get a profitable flip sometimes, and the bankers lend their market expertise and get paid their fees. When it skews in either direction, one or more of those parties takes a hit - but the others benefit. The reason that the "priced to perfection" scenario is often excoriated in the press is because the financial press is largely controlled by the financial industry. It's not a conspiracy, it's just that financial news will mostly ask their network (i.e. finance folks) to give their opinion, and because the finance folks (bankers or big buyers) didn't come out ahead, they think of it as a failure. But it's a Great Success for the company itself! Outlier IPOs: In my life, I've had a front-row seat to two outlier IPOs (Google and Facebook), and two "standard default" IPOs (PayPal and Reddit). I'll talk a bit about the interesting effects in the outliers, and how they compare to the defaults, and then a bit about what could happen with SpaceX. One of the ways the default IPO process can vary is when a company is already very well-known to the public. Most IPO-ing companies are unknown to the public, and that's a big reason why the bankers have to be involved: they form a bridge of trust to the big buyers and bring value in their specialized expertise about market sentiment. But a company that's already very well-known doesn't get as much value from that. Especially if there's already demand for the company's shares, the company can often find enough buyers for its offering. The contract terms (services, fees) for underwriting an IPO are always negotiable, and so certain companies can negotiate lower fees and do things differently. Google did this in 2004. Now, one funny thing that's typically true in a default IPO is that the stock will open between $15 and $25. The reason for this is that most people are not financially sophisticated and if a stock opens at $100, they will think it's too expensive. The real value of the stock is what percentage of the company it represents + the company's financial performance. So the numbers $15 and $25 are chosen because most people will think that's a reasonable price to buy - they compare it to buying something at the store. No joke. Now, because companies and their existing stock can have a large range of values, what they do prior to the offering is simply do a stock split (or reverse stock split) so that the effective per-share price falls into that range. It's entirely just optics because most people don't understand math and finance. In 2004, Google IPO'd at $85/share. If you are thinking "omg, that's a lot!" then you are one of the people I just described. It doesn't matter that it was $85/share. Google, because it was well-known and there was a lot of demand for its stock, did not have the underwriting bankers negotiate their sales to the big buyers! Because they had a lot of internal expertise (and preference for) fancy auction mechanics as a price discovery mechanism, they set up a "Dutch auction" for their shares. Briefly, the Dutch auction is an auction format that is considered better at reaching the real market value of whatever's being sold (compared to a regular auction, which seeks to maximize the buying price). They ran this Dutch auction and asked everyone who wanted to invest to submit their bids and amounts, and then assigned a price and (modulo some regulatory details) opened at $85/share. This was the first time in tech for an "unusual" IPO. It was met with positive regard because Google didn't have to pay the bankers as much money, probably got a fairer price for its shares, and the buying public got in at a reasonable price, cutting out a lot of middlemen (e.g. big buyers, though they sold to the big buyers too). And Google was known for innovation and being quirky, so this fit their brand. Today, by the way, the split-adjusted price for that offering is about $2/share. Facebook also had an unusual IPO process. Facebook engaged the underwriters from a position of absurd negotiating superiority. They were already globally known, and was probably the company most well-known at IPO (in terms of name recognition) in history. Typical banker fees for underwriting can be ~4%. Facebook reportedly negotiated an underwriting fee of 1%. Why? Because there was massive demand for its shares, and everyone already knew what Facebook was about. So who cares about the bankers? Not only that, but Facebook priced itself to perfection. It opened at $38/share, and closed at $38.23/share, implying that Facebook had exactly hit the market price and gotten the maximum amount of money, with nearly no spread between what Facebook sold for and what the public ended up paying for it. Further, over the next few months, its stock trended downwards. This caused no end of hand-wringing from people who bought on first-offering, but it implies even more strongly that Facebook got top dollar for selling its shares. (Anyone who held on for longer 16 months after that saw huge gains - today the price is at ~$590) The financial press absolutely excoriated the Facebook IPO, calling it a huge failure. This drove the mainstream conversation about it, which also depicted it as a failure, highlighting stories of investors like an old lady who'd put her life savings into the IPO (.... which you are never supposed to do). The bad press went on for months. At the same time, Facebook execs and informed insiders quietly understood that it had been a perfectly-executed IPO, in terms of raising money for the company. And, if people like the old lady held on to her stock for a couple years, she still made mad bank. Those were the outliers. Now the regular ones: One of the features of an IPO is that typically most shareholders are subject to what is called a "lockup." The default lockup is often for 6 months, but the terms can be negotiated. During the lockup, shareholders cannot sell their shares. To understand this, first realize that "shareholders in the company" are different from the company itself. In an IPO, the company (the corporate entity) issues stock and sells it to investors, taking in cash to fund the company's operations. This is different from shareholders of the company - existing investors, employees, and executives - selling stock. These parties personally own stock (i.e. ownership) in the company and if they sell it the cash goes to them, not the company. The lockup typically applies to some or all of these parties, and the reason is because when the company floats shares in its offering, if on the next day (or month) many large shareholders were to also sell their shares - some of which could be a block of comparable size to the IPO offering itself - it would tank the market. This would reflect very poorly on the company because it would mean that all the investors who bought in the IPO (big buyers, but also people who believed in the company and bought on the first day/week) would see steep declines while "insiders" made off with profits. But the exact configuration of lockups varies, because it's all negotiable. The common default is that most private company shares are locked up for 180 days. Sometimes, the shares floated (sold to the big buyers) for the IPO aren't newly issued shares by the company. Sometimes the major shareholders negotiate to sell some percentage of their holdings - say 10% - and those shares are the ones sold to the big buyers and then later into the regular market. The rest of the shares held by the shareholders may remain subject to the lockup. The negotiation ends up balancing the desire of shareholders (prior investors, executives, employees) for liquidity vs the signaling effect it has on the market - no one wants an IPO to look like insiders dumping on the market. When Reddit went public, the underwriting situation was pretty vanilla (road show, sell to big buyers, modest pop on first day). The shares offered for sale at the Reddit IPO weren't all issued by the company, a significant component were employee shares. Many employees had been at the company for a long time, so a program was set up whereby the employees could elect to sell some percentage of their vested holdings, and these were some of the shares offered to the big buyers. All of the large existing shareholders - the venture capitalists and mutual funds that had already bought into Reddit at far below the IPO price - didn't sell a single share in the IPO. (Subsequent market performance seems to have borne out the financial wisdom of that decision) One thing to understand here then is the divergent effects on the company vs existing shareholders. If the company is "priced to perfection" and subsequently the stock price falls, and existing shareholders did not participate in the IPO sale itself, they are in the same boat as retail investors: the stock value is dropping. Further, if they're subject to a lockup, they have no way to exit the stock for a long time. ==== Now that we have all that background, we can talk about the SpaceX IPO: SpaceX is an outlier, if for no other reason than the fact that size of the offering is the largest in history. When outliers happen, rules often get broken. Not because of corruption (though sometimes it's that), but because an outlier will often create conditions that are outside the anticipated range of what the existing rules were set up to handle. The first thing is that SpaceX is one of those "already really well-known" companies and one with a lot of pent-up demand for its stock. In the last few years, SpaceX funding rounds have been massively oversubscribed. This means that SpaceX is in a position to not only negotiate the sorts of terms that Facebook got with its underwriters (very low fees), but it has negotiating power on key terms like pricing, sizing, and lockup periods. Remember that in terms of "cash raised" in the IPO, the amount the company raises is simply the amount they sell to the big buyers for, NOT how much the stock trades up (or down) once the markets open. Elon's stated intention is that the IPO is necessary to raise the huge amount of funds needed to complete Starship and fund a mission to Mars. People can quibble about whether that's his main motivation or if he's just grifter unloading on the retail market, but it's a very telling point that his actual compensation package involves actual Mars-based metrics like establishing a colony with a million people on it. If he's a grifter, and he basically controls his board, he there'd be no need for a comp package like that. So if the goal of the IPO is not to cash out for insiders, but actually "raise a huge amount of money for the company to carry out its insanely ambitious goals," there would be a strong incentive to "price to perfection," i.e. push the bankers to price the stock at what they think the market really will bear, and reduce the profit the big buyers would make on the first-day pop. And if any hiccup occurs, the stock could tumble, much like what happened with the Facebook IPO - but SpaceX itself would have the cash it needs. Based on what I've explained much earlier, you can now also see that if the stock being floated in the IPO is newly-issued by the company and none of the existing shareholders are allowed to sell into the IPO, and the IPO is "priced to perfection," it's less likely that it's a dump on retail investors, because the stock will tumble before any of the major shareholders can sell. The company as an entity makes cash, but its shareholders share the fate of the market (actually slightly worse because of the lockup's effects on their liquidity). On the other hand, having learned from that, SpaceX might not want a year of bad press, with the entire financial press discussing how bad an investment SpaceX is. Elon and SpaceX already have to fight a culture war and lots of people demonize them. So there's a chance the pricing has been set up to be something like the default - a modest pop on the first day. The question is basically whether the company wants to optimize for cash or public perception - compelling arguments for both could be made. Having said all that, people are probably underestimating the degree of retail investor interest. The allure and romance of space flight, the exploration of space - all of those are long-held dreams that are older than Google or Facebook or even the internet itself. Mankind has dreamt of walking among the stars for decades. Although the smart money makes decisions on the basis of P/E ratios and the like, a regular Joe with a Robinhood account who has dreamed of space and remembers the magnificence of seeing twin rocket boosters landing side-by-side will probably want to grab a few shares if he can. A LOT of people probably feel this way, and not many of them will be able to get IPO allocation. Thus, it's possible that no matter where the offering price is set, there will be an absolutely insane, possibly record-setting pop on the first day. SpaceX is not just a selling Starlink, or compute or whatever you think - SpaceX is selling dreams. And it has been steadily making them real. Incidentally, if this happens, after the euphoria wears off, the stock will probably tumble, providing lots of fodder for negative news coverage. SpaceX's lockup policy is also unusual. Instead of either allowing some shareholders to sell immediately, or locking everyone up for 180 days, there is a staged and gradual unlock over the span of the 180 days, with a fraction of one's holdings allowed to be sold. One of the stages even requires that the stock price be over some threshold, presumably to hold the stock price in a certain range of values. It's unclear how this staged unlocking will affect price dynamics; it feels like an engineer's solution to trying to manage market volatility. (My suspicion is that the magnitude of public sentiment - both positive and negative - will drive more of the volatility than any pricing or lockup schedule) Well, now you know everything I know about IPOs. If I were to guess at outcomes, my probability distribution is: 70% likely to see a huge first-day pop (sustained for at least a week), and 30% likely that it's priced to perfection and closes below its IPO price. This situation is such an outlier and all of the conditions necessary for any of those things to happen are in play, and it's not clear which forces will dominate. Either way, good luck! 🚀

• 
  K ⚡️ (@tatted__up_K) reported 5 minutes ago

  OK guys so I don’t usually post statuses like this but this is very very important. I am dealing with an emergency surgery situation and health issues right now with myself. I am really struggling and I’ve missed a lot of work this week due to this, now I’m hospitalised I know I’m gonna be here for at least five days and that’s the bare minimum. You’ll start buying the **** out of some content or bless me. I’ll post my links below. I don’t do this, but like I said, I’m having a very very hard time and this is very unexpected I’m trying to earn it and I’m not asking for handouts thank you. Chime slayk PayPal Notmakaylaguffey Cashapp $Cutebutshy

• 
  Junior WC Value🥶 (@Hallebarry010) reported 14 minutes ago

  21-year-old student living with her mum, single for 6+ months, openly admits she dates for money and will cheat if he doesn’t pay up Babe, you’re not looking for a boyfriend, you’re running a side hustle with terrible ROI. Loyalty isn’t a PayPal invoice, and the streets already have better rates.

• 
  Brandon Forinash (@blforinash) reported 14 minutes ago

  @ThePolverine_ But I will need a 5 dollar down payment, cause I feel like you're wasting my time. I can dm you me paypal. Hartenstein could definitely take less than 20 mil to return to OKC! Come on.

• 
  Trisha (@Trishafromaz) reported 18 minutes ago

  @bavedikian @BestBuy @FedEx I had a similar situation with T-Mobile and UPS. I ordered a phone to pickup at the local UPS store, employee signed for it, I get there and they say they can't find it. UPS said not our problem, T- mobile, not our problem. It took paypal 2 1/2 months to refund me after I filed an appeal. I was denied on the first claim. T-mobile kept billing for 2 phones. They keep saying it's an open investigation to this day.

• 
  Taikupy 🐈‍⬛🔞 (CLOSED COMMISSIONS) (@taikupy_cat) reported 20 minutes ago

  I had to temporarily suspend commissions due to issues I'm having with PayPal. I want to apologize to everyone who wanted a commission from me. I would like recommendations for international alternatives to PayPal (I live in Chile)

• 
  $$$ (@imakemoney100) reported 20 minutes ago

  @TheGoblinnn i remember i owed paypal $500, never paid it they eventually sold the debt to a debt collector and now they email me every other week asking me to pay $100 to settle it. at first they asked for $300 lmaoo and kept going down. credit score wasn’t impacted

• 
  baz 🔞 (@BazArtDump) reported 20 minutes ago

  -other people being banned or suspended permanently so i deleted the server (and made a new one) and im gonna handle commissions differently to avoid anyone sneaking in (like him) to do anything to mess with my paypal or anything again (3/6)

• 
  FritzVA (@fritzva15) reported 20 minutes ago

  @justvikinggg Indeed, although I'm not surprised considering I laid everything out clean as can be, Kept vulgarity to a minimum and sure, I called 'em a ******' dumbass for defending this disgusting trash... but otherwise I really have no issues with them. (P.S That and if they were to respond they'd have to actually account for all of the info above, There's really no way to spin it any other way than "She knew what she signed up for by getting a paypal account, Then she got caught and as such Actions have consequences. Does it suck? Obviously, yes.. but for someone like Vex? I don't feel bad.

• 
  Vikram Pai (@vikpai) reported 21 minutes ago

  The problem isn't that affiliate marketing doesn't work in India. It's that the infrastructure never existed. - Creators charge high upfront fees, but brands expect sales guarantees and don't pay - Creators don't trust brands to accurately attribute sales. See @AnshulGains rant - And until recently, there was no easy way to handle payouts, TDS compliance, attribution, fraud prevention, COD detection, and reporting at scale. The US got Stripe, PayPal, Impact, ShareASale, and 200 other softwares India only has @ReferRush

• 
  BiWolpDude (@WolfDudeAiden) reported 21 minutes ago

  @frank_esguerra There’s a chance maybe when someone sent money to you they put the note saying “nsfw”. Cause the annoying thing with PayPal is them cracking down on adult themed stuff now, so you gotta play with words now

• 
  Emely(COMS CLOSED) 🇵🇸🇮🇩 (@Aoisins12) reported 22 minutes ago

  @AutumnSakuraaa The problem is, all the transaction options failed, and I’m tired. They said my PayPal account doesn’t support international transactions, but my commission always handles international transactions, so the last resort is to send the gift as Astrites 😭🥀

• 
  Alisha Shrestha (@alishashrestha) reported 23 minutes ago

  @AskPayPal I deleted my previous account as i needed to change the country. Now when I try to sign up, it says the account with the email id exists. Neither password works nor Forgot Password. Something went wrong pops up. I can even ask the Assistant since I need to login.

• 
  MiDo 🇵🇸 (@mido0x0x) reported 25 minutes ago

  @AskPayPal I’m experiencing an issue with accessing my account. I haven’t received any OTP after logging in. I urgently need to resolve this problem.

• 
  1 (@1Cookin) reported 26 minutes ago

  @EXgator50 @DrClownPhD Early on had some funny stuff but now he trys way to hard and is terrible especially the paypal commercials with him singing just awful smh

• 
  Silicon Salvage (@SiliconSalvage) reported 28 minutes ago

  PayPal is being priced as a melting ice cube. The capital return says otherwise. The setup: $5.23B of net income against a $36.5B market cap. That’s a 14.3% earnings yield — roughly triple a 10-year Treasury, on a $33B - revenue payments network, not a distressed cyclical. What the multiple implies: at 7.8x earnings versus ~20x for the index, the market is underwriting structural, terminal decline — flat-to-negative growth in perpetuity. That is the bet embedded in $PYPL today, whether or not anyone says it out loud. What management is actually doing: $6.05B of buybacks last year — equal to 16.6% of the entire market cap repurchased in a single fiscal year, funded entirely from operating cash flow, not leverage. At a depressed multiple, every dollar retired compounds per-share value faster than it would at any point in the last decade. The asymmetry: you’re being paid a double-digit earnings yield to wait, while the share count shrinks underneath you. Down 48% from the high, consensus has stopped paying attention. Re-rating is optional. The buyback isn’t. The first is upside; the second is the floor.

• 
  FatMexican'sMom (@tmddyan2) reported 36 minutes ago

  @catwranglers your Dad told me of all the issues he had with Cashapp.. that was the reason I got rid of it.. Venmo and Paypal are better..for me

• 
  Teos 🧨 (@Teooooos) reported 40 minutes ago

  @stevehunsaker1 I mean it's been a minute since I've paid a VA overseas but payoneer and PayPal etc were terrible too. Wise has improved on that but ACH is still slow and expensive compared to stables Provided you understand the tech it's pretty seamless and instant with lower fees.

• 
  TWST Overblot Physical Zine (@TwstObZine) reported 47 minutes ago

  @Sumayya17286477 We are very sorry to announce that the pre-orders are delayed because of some issues with PayPal !

• 
  grace 💜🩷 (@visionsofilife) reported 48 minutes ago

  @jessibel67 is transfer open? id be so down to paypal you the fv without resale fees but totally get if youd rather do it through resale

• 
  ❄️AnalQueen❄️ (@PetiteNativee) reported 51 minutes ago

  35$ for videos of this *** and kitty naked. PayPal only. Hit me up if you're down.

• 
  Adelusi Micheal (@novastudiohub) reported 52 minutes ago

  @PayPal @PayPal I have issues with logging in to my PayPal account the previous mobile number isn’t mine again as it is lost but I have access to my email now I can’t reset my password can I get an help I can’t login either

• 
  Nicole Lekeisha (@keisha_backup) reported 53 minutes ago

  Running a limited promo today about a Cash App glitch. hit me up to share you some tips on how to make money on your cash app,PayPal&chime without sending **** to anyone or sharing any personal info DM me with your Cash App tag or send me a direct message on the number below +1 (812 351-5324). I'll show you how it works.

• 
  𑣲bunni (@bunniofans) reported 57 minutes ago

  I'm only accepting bank transfers and throne depending on the amount as payment for a bit! Having issues with PayPal unfortunately #nsfwtwtًً #buyingcomtent #contentseller

• 
  Pasco Sheriff (@PascoSheriff) reported 57 minutes ago

  Pasco Sheriff’s Office is aware of several jury duty scams that occur across Pasco County. Oftentimes, the scammer claims to be an official, sometimes using PSO and/or a PSO member’s name, to inform the potential victim that they’ve missed jury duty and must pay a fee. These payments are made via PayPal, Bitcoin, Zelle, and similar services. Scammers may use a blocked number or spoof a PSO number, such as our general information line. PSO does not manage jury duty notifications, and we stress that these messages are not legitimate. PSO will never contact individuals for any form of payment to resolve issues, criminal or otherwise.

• 
  caseythefarmer (@caseythefarmer) reported 58 minutes ago

  @RealLuthen What?! Why they can’t exist? Do you even hear how crazy you sound? Burning the world down……by creating Tesla, or space X or PayPal ? Call out Soros if you want but seriously Elon?! What a joke

• 
  Parryi 🍰🦇 || Culinary VTuber (@liliparryiVT) reported 58 minutes ago

  @gravi0106 paypal when its time to ban half of its userbase for using the site instead of actually fixing their security and account fraud issues

• 
  XP_Artz (@XP_Artz) reported 59 minutes ago

  I had it since Oct last year(the ban, the account was from like 2020) and I can't even close it to try to make a new one since even most platforms will use PayPal too. And that ban thing has been a problem for artists for years. Thank God I didn't keep money in there.(2/3)