四、结语
综上所述，美国对于第三方支付机构的监管核心为消费者保护，特别是保障消费者预存资金的安全，州和联邦的监管者为此引入了包括准入审查、保证金与最低净资产要求、获许投资限制、检查与报告制度、过桥保险、隐私权保护以及反欺诈规则等一系列消费者保护规则。即便如此，由于缺乏针对第三方支付特点的专门立法，对于消费者的保护仍然不够成熟，存在漏洞；但由于PayPal等大型第三方支付机构采取自律监管的方式，针对监管漏洞进行了有效的弥补，整体而言消费者权益受到了较好的保护。
[1] 作者系北京大学法学院2013级经济法方向法学硕士，现就职于北京市方达律师事务所。
[2] See PayPal, Who We Are, https://www.paypal-media.com/about, last visited on 2014-10-6.
[3] User Agreement for PayPal Services, https://www.paypal.com/c2/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full，last visited on 2014-10-6.
[4] See Andres Guadamuz Gonzalez, PayPal: The Legal Status of C2C Payment Systems, Computer Law & Security Report, Vol.20, No.4, 2004.
[5] 《统一货币服务法案》第102条。
[6] See Rinearson, Judith, Regulation of Electronic Stored Value Payment Products Issued by Non-banks Under State Money Transmitter “Licensing Laws”, The Business Lawyer, Vol.58, No.1, 2002, p.317.
[7] 在《统一货币服务法案》第102条所附的评论部分，制定者明确指出：“保留消费者资金或者货币价值而不仅仅是提供清算的互联网支付服务应当属于货币转移服务。”
[8] Allouise, Patricia, Sarah Jane Hughes, and Stephen T. Middlebrook, Developments in the Laws Affecting Electronic Payments and Stored-Value Products: A Year of Stored-Value Bankruptcies, Significant Legislative Proposals, and Federal Enforcement Actions, The Business Lawyer, 2008, pp.219—252.
[9] See M. MacRae Robinson, Easing the Burden on Mobile Payments: Resolving Current Deficiencies in Money Transmitter Regulation, N.C. Banking Inst., Vol.18, 2014, p.553.
[10] 上文提到，货币转移服务商的概念和相关立法最早是适用于开具履行支票、汇票等支票的非金融机构的，因此相关法案采此名称很好理解。
[11] See PayPal, Who We Are, https://www.paypal-media.com/about, last visited on 2014-10-6.
[12] See Money Services Act, http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Money Services Act, last visited on 2014-10-6.
[13] 《统一货币服务法案》在净资产要求的数额上规定较低，但是各州在采纳该法案时可对该数额进行调整，如德克萨斯州规定的净资产要求为50万—100万美元不等。
[14] See Paul T. Clark, Just Passing Through: A History and Critical Analysis of FDIC Insurance of Deposits Held by Brokers and Other Custodians, Review of Banking & Financial Law, Vol.32, 2002.
[15] See Paul T. Clark, Just Passing Through: A History and Critical Analysis of FDIC Insurance of Deposits Held by Brokers and Other Custodians, Review of Banking & Financial Law, Vol.32, 2002.
[16] See Bureau of National Affairs, Electronic Payments: PayPal Funds Eligible for Pass-Through Insurance from FDIC as Deposits by Agent, BNA Newsletter, Vol.7, No.12, March 20, 2002, p.254.
[17] See Ronald J. Mann, Regulating Internet Payment Intermediaries, Tex. L. Rev., Vol.82, 2003—2004, p.681.
[18] Ibid.
[19] 实际上，对于TILA/Z这一规定的理解并非没有引发争议。美国运通公司（American Express）曾经认为这个交易实质上和从PayPal账户付款没有区别，应该理解为客户首先将资金转入PayPal账户当中，然后在逻辑上的一秒钟之后再转给收款方。但是从交易结构来看，这种理解显然存在问题：1）如文中提到的，直接付款只存在一次授权；2）直接付款和先存入PayPal账户的另一个区别是资金并没有进入PayPal用于保存客户余额的专用账户。纽约州总检察官质疑了American Express对该条款的理解，American Express随后即放弃了这种理解。See Ronald J. Mann, Regulating Internet Payment Intermediaries, Tex. L. Rev., Vol.82, 2003—2004, p.681.
[20] Ibid.
[21] See Ronald J. Mann, Regulating Internet Payment Intermediaries, Tex. L. Rev., Vol.82, 2003—2004, p.681.
[22] 参见朱丽娜：《美国第三方网上支付法律监管体系研究》，湖南师范大学2010年硕士学位论文。
[23] Privacy Policy for PayPal Services，https://www.paypal.com/c2/webapps/mpp/ua/privacy-full#1，last visited on 2014-10-6.