[dexen]

Can Google Checkout (or any payment processor, really) be forced not to profit from transactions they refused to complete? Pass all the money either to the seller or the buyer, no fees, as they (rightly) refused to serve the transaction. Without delay, to ensure no revenue from interest either.

If there was no incentives in leaving transaction in such `limbo', the payment processors would be less hasty to lock up accounts.

[chc]

Seems to me it's nothing but an assumption on your part that they do profit from these transactions. The comments on the OP suggest otherwise.

You'll see two opposite complaints about payment processors:

1. They let fraud run rampant.

2. They're too hasty to lock accounts.

In order to have less of one, you have to have more of the other.

As for why customer service is so sketchy: Google's customer service is infamously bad across the board. It's not specific to Checkout.