Old Meets New: Using Smartphones To Scan Checks, PayPal-Style

Written by Evan Schuman
October 14th, 2010

When PayPal announced last week that its mobile application would be able to scan checks, it was a delicious marriage of the old and new worlds of payment. From the new: PayPal, a leader in the new wave of alternative payments, and the mobile app, the youngest of retail channels. And the old: paper checks, which are likely in their last generation—perhaps even last decade—of existence.

Todd Ablowitz, payment consultant and president of the Double Diamond Group, suggests that PayPal’s check-capture-smartphone move—which puts it following financial old-timers including Chase Manhattan and USAA—makes it not such an upstart after all.

“The new PayPal mobile deposit product is interesting because it furthers PayPal toward being a bank-like entity. It sounds very exciting: I can just snap a pic of a check I want to deposit and, whammo!, it’s in my account,” Ablowitz said, adding that there’s “a catch. The funds don’t go right in my account. It takes three to five days to go in my account. Three to five days to get my money? Ouch! Why would I use that? PayPal, come back to me when I can get my money right away.”

Actually, it could be slightly worse than that. PayPal is officially telling customers that check clearance might take as long as six days. The company handling the check processing for PayPal (BankServ) confirmed PayPal’s timeframe but toned it down a little, stressing that six days is the maximum.

“Processing time for checks on PayPal’s iPhone app is typically four days,” but PayPal allows itself six days, said Brad Kvederis, BankServ’s marketing director. “The six days is a couple of days too long” given that BankServ can do it in three days, Kvederis said, adding that the additional delay was “a business decision by PayPal.”

As a practical matter, though, it’s unlikely most consumers who are comfortable using checks would notice the additional delay. Still, it’s a fascinating example of the newest technologies offering a bridge to those consumers who are still most comfortable with the older approaches.

PayPal calls its new capability, logically enough, “mobile check capture” and describes the service as one that “allows consumers to transfer checks into their PayPal balance by simply taking a photo of the check with their iPhone. Once photographed, just hold onto your check for 15 days and then you can throw it away,” said PayPal spokesperson Yulimar Chiu.

No offense, but if I was using this new service, I’d wait to get some official confirmation that the money arrived before throwing anything away. Preferably—and this illustrates the generational divide at issue here—I’d want it in writing.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.