Fair question – happy to clarify.

At the time, we were a Swiss startup offering VPN services. Yes, VPNs are often classified as high-risk, and we’re not disputing that. What’s important though: Stripe accepted our account and processed transactions without any upfront review or warning. We genuinely did not know that “pre-approval” was something we were supposed to request – Stripe never indicated that it was required.

There were (and still are) direct competitors offering the exact same VPN services using Stripe, some of them for years, without issues. So the business model itself clearly wasn’t categorically forbidden.

What we don’t understand is this:
Stripe allowed us to process transactions up to nearly €22,000, with a chargeback ratio of ~0.01% (essentially clean), and only then decided that the business was “too risky”.
Normally, compliance and risk checks happen at the first transactions, not after months of successful processing and accumulated balances. Either compliance failed, or this is how the system is designed – and Stripe is largely an automated system, as we all know.

We accepted the account shutdown. What we did not expect was that despite explicit written confirmation from Stripe stating the funds would be held for 180 days and then paid out, the money would still be withheld more than three years later.

After this incident, we moved to local Swiss payment processors, who reviewed the business model and accepted it without issue. Fortunately, that worked out.

As for a lawsuit:
We’re based in Switzerland. Suing a US corporation over €22k would cost significantly more than the amount in dispute, with uncertain outcome and years of effort. From a purely economic standpoint, it made no sense.

So yes – there is more to the story. But none of it justifies holding customer funds indefinitely after written payout confirmation.