As usual for this kind of complaint, this is a person who does not understand copyright very well: without being granted a universal license to reproduce, store, and modify modified your content, websites on the Internet would not be allowed to resize, truncate, or cache your content, and quite clearly would have right to show it to absolutely anyone else. Therefore, essentially every website not only will but must have a clause that reads similarly to this one. In the case of PayPal, while this user waxes on about not even providing content to PayPal, 1) if that is true then this clause has no effect (so he should stop whining about it), and 2) that isn't true for everyone else: I believe PayPal caches the brand images one posts for hosted buttons (and if not they probably should), payments themselves can have descriptions that might themselves be trademarks or even long enough to be copyrighted... what I imagine happened is that PayPal had previously made essentially the same argument that "we don't host content" and so never added this boilerplate, and someone just recently realized that there really is at least small amounts of content involved, so they added the required language.