posted on April 22, 2010 10:34:14 AM new
Update: The Oregon Attorney General's office received a response from eBay. I have already responded to eBay's statement which is below too.
Ebay's Reply:
Dear Attny General's Office:
eBay maintains a strong desire to work closely with members of our community to create a safe trading environment. eBay welcomes reports of suspicious activity and will investigate and take appropriate action as outlined in our User Agreement.
I have reviewed Mr. (Seller's) complaint regarding the dispute filed against him for item
#XXX. According to our records, Mr. (Seller) sold a New Olympus X-42 Digital Camera on March 8, 2010. On March 17, 2010, the buyer opened a dispute advising the camera was defective. An "Item Not Received" or "Significantly Not as Described" dispute can be filed as early as 10 days, but no more than 60 days after the listing has ended.
When a member decides to sell on the eBay site, they agree to the eBay User Agreement.
In an effort to encourage a safe and fair trading environment, we have created the Dispute Center where buyers and sellers can resolve issues working together. When this is not possible we have specialists that can assist with this process.
Please go to the following URL to learn more about the Resolution process:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/resolving-problems.html
In the case involving Mr. Seller, the buyer was claiming the item was defective. In these
cases we encourage the seller to work with the buyer to improve the buying experience
for their customer.
We do provide options to the sellers. These options can be found by going to:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/item-not-as-described.html
On March 24, 2010 Mr. (Seller) contacted our Customer Care team. He advised he
suspected the camera received back was not the same camera sent to the buyer. He sent in
pictures of the camera he received back and gave us the police report information.
Under these circumstances, eBay has not required the seller to refund buyer.
Additionally, eBay works in tandem with Law Enforcement to investigate concerns of
potential fraud. eBay will be pleased to work with your office (or any Law Enforcement
Agency) to provide information available in our files to assist with criminal
investigations.
Regards,
Fraud Investigation Team
eBay
--------------------------------
My response to this letter:
Thank you for forwarding eBay's response. Unfortunately, eBay’s response doesn’t address the issues of the complaint. It provides a basic analysis of the transaction, and shallow statements to cooperate with law enforcement, without any specifics.
eBay not only didn’t follow their policies, but they also misrepresented their policies to the Attorney General’s Office.
* In the 2nd paragraph of the response, it clearly states that the date of sale was March 8, 2010 and the dispute was opened on March 17th, 2010 (9 calendar days). This contradicts eBay’s claim in the next sentence that states "An "Item Not Received" or "Significantly Not as Described" dispute can be filed as early as 10 days..." Obviously, this dispute process was opened in less time than eBay states by their own admission in this letter.
* The eBay response claims that a dispute can be opened up to 60 days after the listing ended, however eBay's Bidder Protection Policy (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/buyer-protection.html) clearly states eligibility as, "You completed a purchase of an eligible item on eBay and submitted a claim within 45 days from the date of payment."
* eBay clearly states in its dispute decision notification to the seller (I can provide documentation to substantiate this) that the bidder is entitled to a full refund. The Bidder Protection Policy states, "A good faith dispute does not exist if you improperly claim that the seller has not fulfilled the transaction, if you claim you never received an item when in fact you did, or if you claim the item was different from the item description but the seller can prove otherwise." Also, "If the case is based on an "item not as described" case, the resolution would include: Responding to the case by providing proof to eBay that the item was described properly (for example, providing documentation that supports "original," "first edition," or similar claims.” eBay provided no means for the seller to dispute the claim during the dispute process. eBay made its decision entirely based on the bidder claim without any verifiable evidence or opportunity for the seller to respond prior to eBay’s decision being made.
*A formal review of the timeline in this case would also show that eBay processed the entire dispute process, including eBay’s decision in less than 24 hours, again disregarding the Bidder Protection Policy that states a dispute take 7 days to be opened by eBay after the seller has been notified.
In each instance, eBay disregards their User Agreement and/or its Buyer Protection Policy, which we are required to agree to.
The "Item Not as Described" dispute process is nothing more than a formality to force sellers to issue full refund including shipping costs without any verification process to legitimize the claims by a buyer. Though my return policy is clearly stated in my listing as per eBay requirements, eBay forced me to accept the return, against and outside of my exchange policy. The eBay dispute process for “Item Not As Described” automatically circumvents all seller return/exchange policies which are in place to prevent fraudulent returns.
Unfortunately, in this case the buyer returned a camera that was not the “new, sealed in the box camera” mailed to the buyer. The buyer returned an old, defective, scratched, and obviously altered camera that had the serial number plates switched before returning it to me. I still have the returned camera in my possession if anyone wants to inspect and verify my statement.
I spent over 10 hours filing reports with the Portland Police Department, the US Postal Service fraud department, with the Oregon Attorney General’s Office and on the phone with eBay. All the while, eBay repeatedly stated I had to issue a refund upon receipt of the item. Only after a formal review by an eBay supervisor, submission of photographs, and a police report did eBay decide not to charge back my account, keeping me under the assumption I would be forced to issue a refund based on a flawed eBay policy that intends to hurt sellers like myself. All factual evidence had to be supplied by me, and only after I was told by eBay that I would have to refund the buyer.
I have incurred well over $300 in lost time spent on this matter. I ask that the Attorney General’s office ask eBay to answer the following questions.
1) Why was their response to the Attorney General’s office contradictory to their own User Agreement and Buyer Protection Policy?
2) How did eBay investigate this dispute (including specific actions to verify the bidder’s claim)?
3) What criteria does eBay use to determine the decision made by eBay during the dispute process?
4) Why did eBay ignore its own policies in handling this matter?
5) What actions have been taken by eBay to investigate and cooperate with law enforcement in this matter?
If eBay cannot, or refuses to answer these issues, I ask that the Attorney General open an investigation into this matter.
posted on April 22, 2010 07:01:36 PM new
I doubt if your State Attorney office is going to spend more time dealing with this case!
You may have to hire your own lawyer to do so.
Good Luck!
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on April 22, 2010 07:44:42 PM new
The AG will forward my response to eBay, and more importantly it lets eBay know they can't just make up things from thin air and not have someone call them on it.
I read the response and initially almost deleted it. A day or two later when I had time to read it again I found the response humorous and insulting all in one.
If other people in Oregon share similar stories with the AG, they will put an attorney on it and send eBay notification they may be investigated.
The key in all of this is to document eBay's practices, and because eBay misrepresented their policies to the AG, that should be another red flag. Besides, filing a complaint with the AG legitimizes my claim, especially when eBay gives such a poor response. A consumer protection investigative reporter may find it of interest.
posted on April 22, 2010 08:28:46 PM new
You may want to look into other auction sites such as Aspire ,it is a very nice site and they do sell some nice things !
Ebay has no business taking $$ from seller and giving back to the buyer,I recalled Ebay used to reimburse the buyer if the seller refused to do so.
Question-if this happens on your own website outside Ebay,how would you handle this when the VISA/MC decided in your buyer favor?
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
[ edited by hwahwa on Apr 23, 2010 08:45 AM ]
i am under the impression that eBay actually issued the buyer a refund from their account. most of us think this is good because eBay didn't charge me for the refund... however i would have to disagree with that assumption. this policy of eBay issuing refunds in a case like this only makes the possibility of fraud even greater.
eBay is doing a disservice to sellers even if the refund comes from eBay instead of the seller. it gives criminals a green light to continue this trend knowing full well that they can file an INAD claim and they will get a refund. It doesn't matter from who, because a criminal doesn't care who the victim is. They just want to steal your product and get the money back in the process.
posted on April 24, 2010 12:39:39 PM new
shagmidmod, great job on the reply. Most who complain, just send an email, or send a poorly researched and written letter. And, never follow-up on a reply.
posted on April 24, 2010 04:50:36 PM new
thanks bill.
i'm sick of eBay putting the doubt on the seller, especially when we've been selling for so long.
i made the effort to make this right with the buyer in offering to exchange it. by returning this old POS broken camera, it was painfully obvious that his intentions were to steal from me all along.
eBay's dispute process is a contradiction of it intent. It shouldn't even be named dispute, as an INAD isn't a dispute, it is a pre-approved way for buyers to return an item for a refund.
