posted on September 29, 2000 12:34:11 PM new
"shilling was condoned by ebay until a few years ago."
Nope- what eBay used to allow is far different than what we're discussing here. They never called is shilling, and it wasn't the deceptive shilling we're discussing.
eBay used to allow a seller to make a single bid on his own item, using his seller's ID, to capture the high bid on an item and close the auction. This was essentially a way of "buying back" an item that didn't meet seller's expectations, not a means to deceptively inflate an unaware bidder's proxy bid.
posted on September 29, 2000 02:12:57 PM new
magazine_guy:
Shilling if NOT a crime if you truly buy-back your item.
Ever had an item you paid $300.00 closing at auction for $20? It happened to be at a B&M auction, and I bought my own item back to prevent giving it away.
I also bid on many of my other items, with the full knowledge and consent of the auctioneer. Perfectly legal.
posted on September 29, 2000 04:31:05 PM new
JSmith99..I beg to differ with you (politely of course).
I was at an auction (in Calif) where I was outbid on an item. About an hour later a woman came up to me and said she had been the winner of that item and her husband was angry with how much she had spent..wanted to know if I wanted to buy it from her at my underbid amount. I agreed and purchased the item. Later the auctioneer came up and asked me if I had bought the item from her. When I said yes he got visably upset at me. I had no clue why since she had already purchased it and the item was hers to "do with as she wished" (or so I thought)
The next day, at another auction, I asked that auctioneer why the "Frank" had been angry (the second auctioneer had been in attendance at the first auction).
He explained that the person I had purchased the item from was the consignor, who had outbid me to "buy back" her merchandise. When I expressed dismay about the consignor "shilling" I was told it was perfectly legal. When I asked why we weren't told the consignors could bid on their items he told me it is not neccessary. He explained the "absolute" auction and the default to a reserve auction unless specifically stated "absolute". Because of the clause that "all items are considered sold with a <reserve> the consignor had the right to bid on their own items.
He was the one who explained the auctioneer's right to bid up to the reserve or to have an employee in the audience bidding for the house "up to the reserve". And he said it did not have to be stated at the beginning of the auction.
He also explained that many auctioneers won't allow the consignor to bid because when the other bidders found out it created bad feelings and could damage the auctioneer's business. He also explained that a lot of auctioneers won't accept consignments with reserves because, again, it creates ill will.
But, the practices were legal.
I go to many auctions and see many different ways an auctioneer will protect the price of an item. I still go to the one who allows the consignor to bid...normally it is a consignor who has consigned a large number of items. I have learned to figure out who the consignor is and to watch them. If they are bidding on their items I have my husband watch them while I bid..if they bid against me, I stop bidding.
Another auction, the auctioneer starts the item at the lowest price he will accept (most of his items are items he owns). He acts as if he has gotten that bid and needs a higher bid. If his opening bid is more than I'm willing to pay..I don't bid.
Another auctioneer does not accept reserves and starts the auction where the audience wants to start. ( I like this one, but, the prices go high)
Ebay, by allowing us to set a minimum bid has given us a way to set a "reserve" without calling it that.
Plus..ebay is NOT a brick and morter auction...IMO, it really isn't an auction but a hybrid...and in some ways, a lot better than a real life auction.
And on ebay...bidding on your own item, or having you "friends" bid for you, is against the rules. So no matter if it is legal anyplace else, the rules here say "NO" and ebay rules the roost at their auction"house"
posted on September 29, 2000 04:31:40 PM new
sellers on ebay and all person to person sites are allowed the frist bid and alway were its called a starting price thats bid 1.
if you didnt have that frist bid all auction would start at $0
WWW.dman-n-company.com
posted on September 29, 2000 06:03:06 PM new
Let me state up front I do not shill and I am aware that it is an illegal practice on ebay and elsewhere. Mine is a philosophical question. I don't understand why. To me, this is the same as sniping. You know what you are willing to pay, you bid that much and no more. If you are outbid, so be it. If a seller is bidding on their own auction, if you have bid your maximum, this won't affect you.
I don't understand the difference between bidding on your own auction and setting a high reserve other than ebay will miss out on some fees. If the seller decides not to sell the item, they do have the option of canceling all bids at any time and closing the auction early. If you get in a bidding war with the seller or someone else, it doesn't matter, don't bid more than you wish to pay.
Now I understand. The auction company (which found itself involved with a seller who bid on their consigned merchandise without prior notification to the bidders) told you this was legal.
"In addition to other requirements and prohibitions of this title, it is a violation of this title for any person to do any of the following:
...
(h) (2) Allowing the owner, consignor, or agent thereof, of any item or items to bid on the item or items, without disclosing to the audience that the owner, consignor, or agent thereof has reserved the right to so bid."
A search of California caselaw shows that in Nevada Natl. Leasing Co. v. Hereford (36 Cal. 3d 146) the California Supreme Court affirmed that auctions in the state are covered by UCC rule 2-328 and that "The only exception to this rule of commercial law occurs in the case of a 'forced sale.'".
I don't doubt that some auction companies regularly engage in this practice. Nonetheless, it's only legal under 2 circumstances, and the fact that an auction has a (hidden) reserve isn't one of them.
posted on September 30, 2000 05:55:55 AM new
Yes, shilling can be prosecuted as a State or Federal offense. The laws of the US allow interpretation on a case by case basis. There does not have to be an exact law that describes exactly what you did. That is why we have a court system. That is why every new court decision is entered on the books as a new "ruling". (ie: new interpretation of an existing law)
To bid on your own auction without clearly stating that you reserve the right to do so up front, is fraud and false advertising. It can be prosecuted by any federal or state's attorney.
Since you are using an online service to post the auction, they can also persue charges for Wire Fraud.
If you actually send the item to the buyer, you can also be prosecuted for Mail Fraud.
If you engage the assistance of another person to bid in your auctions on your behalf you are then committing "conspiracy to commit ...." ( any of the above offenses )
All because you failed to inform the buyer that you ( as the seller ) may bid against them.
The internet is too new of a media to find existing laws on the books that specifically identify "shilling at online auctions", but eventually there will be numerous rulings that will directly address the issue. It is doubtful that the average Ebay seller/shiller will be prosecuted anytime soon due to the fact that there are much more pressing issues of internet fraud that are exhausting the goverment's investigative resources.
The laws for "Brick and Morter" auctions are very clear. If you intend to bid on your own auctions you must make the bidders aware prior to the auction.
posted on September 30, 2000 04:39:25 PM new
I think everyone is getting too wrapped up in the exact terms used. What we're really talking about is a seller bidding on his/her own items.
In some places this is illegal while in others it's not. I don't mind this AS LONG AS IT IS DISCLOSED!!! (A seller has to make a living.)
What I think everyone objects to is *deceptive* shilling, i.e. I'm told that it won't happen (in a given auction) and then find out that it is happening.
It is illegal on eBay. It's their auction site - they make the rules. But let's be honest - they didn't change the rule (that used to let a seller place one bid on their own item) because it was *wrong* - they did it to try and steer people toward reserve auctions and then upped the fee on those types of auctions. So now a seller either had to start at a fair price (and risk not getting many looks) or start low and use a reserve (and pay the extra 'only-a-dollar' fee).
posted on September 30, 2000 06:16:38 PM new
Barbarake ..... Not quite. Back in the days of the eBay *Live Support* board there were numerous complaints from new users [and some not so new] that were shocked & disgusted that sellers could snipe their own non reserve auctions if they weren't happy with the price.
I personally saw scores of complaints on that board every month, and I would assume it's fair to say that numerous complaints were emailed to eBay as well.
I think it's also fair to assume that the sellers who used that "one bid rule" were few & far between. I never used that option, nor did I ever run across any sellers on items I was bidding on that used it.
I would love to see a show of hands from long time sellers like myself that did.
IMO eBay changed that rule because of the constant complaints from buyers, and I for one am glad they did.
posted on September 30, 2000 06:52:21 PM newIMO eBay changed that rule because of the constant complaints from buyers
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Eliminating the seller's option to bid on his/her own item forced people to use a reserve (if they wanted to start w/ a low price and get hits and still protect themselves). Then they started charging for a reserve within a year. Too coincidental for me. Besides, I've never noticed 'numerous complaints' affecting eBay's decisions so far.
Back several years ago, I ran across several sellers that used it. I was disappointed not to win the auction but I understood their position (because the items really were underpriced).
posted on September 30, 2000 07:53:02 PM new
Oh, I agree with you, a seller can't always have their cake & eat it too.
BTW - 99% of the biz I do on eBay, is selling.
I think if you stop & look at the "one bid only" rule from the perspective of a buyer only you can understand how upsetting it would be to find out that this rule even existed on eBay. I'm going to go out on a limb & state that the vast majority of sellers never used it. I can't prove that with stats, but I imagine someone somewhere can. So when it did happen it usually came as quite a shock to the bidder that "thought" they were about to win an auction.
I'm also not saying that the sellers who used that option were doing anything wrong or immoral, but I'm certain that's how most buyers viewed it.
posted on September 30, 2000 08:47:12 PM newI think if you stop & look at the "one bid only" rule from the perspective of a buyer only you can understand how upsetting it would be to find out that this rule even existed on eBay.
I don't know - I was strictly a buyer at the time and it never bothered me. Of course, I read all the rules before I bid on anything so I wasn't surprised by it.
Many buyers don't like reserve auction (they're not 'true' auctions or something). Placing a bid on your own item allowed a seller to start it low, get hits (and hopefully bids), yet still protect themselves *if necessary*. They typically placed their bid a day or so before the end of the auction (in my limited experience). Remember, they don't really want to 'win' their own auction, they just need to get the price to something they can live with. This way they had the best of both worlds (low start price = hits *and* protection).
Did buyers like it? Maybe not. But if they had read the rules, they would have known about the possibility and - by bidding - agree to them. I would guess that many of the buyers that complained the loudest thought they would get a $500.00 item for $5.00. The same people are still on the boards - but now they're complaining about snipers.
(Many buyers don't like snipers - yet I haven't seen eBay make any laws against them.)
Heck, this is all a moot point. Ebay has it's rules and we should all follow them. I guess I just get a bit irate when people (not reddeer) say things like 'any seller that would bid on his own auction is a total scumbag, etc. etc.' yet this was perfectly legal three years ago. What's changed?
Just because something is a rule, doesn't mean it's a *good* rule. It should be followed while it's in effect but anyone can still disagree with it and try to change it if they wish. Ebay's present rule about this is not something I'm trying to change. It doesn't rank as either good or bad in my book - just something we abide by. I guess I'm just a bit suspicious of eBay's motives in the whole matter.
posted on September 30, 2000 09:01:23 PM new
I think the reason that people on this thread got a bit irate is due to the way it it was presented. All one needs to do is read the first post on this thread.
I personally never had a problem with sellers bidding on their own auctions, because my bids pretty much always land on the zero second mark.
But that's not what this thread was/is all about. It was about some weenie bragging that he used this "art form" to get his prices up to where he wanted them to be, using a bogus secondary ID.
Shill bidding & sniping is like comparing apples & day old milk. One is sweet & succulent, the other just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
I guess I'm just a bit suspicious of eBay's motives in the whole matter.
I can't fault you for that. I'm suspicious of everything they do.
posted on September 30, 2000 09:45:41 PM new
Hey Folks, lets get something strait, ebay is not an auction, and the sellers are not auctioneers, if you think you are please post the state you live in, and your auctioneers license number.
Ebay is a glorified clasified ad venue, with live responce to ads that say I will take the best offer until 5:03 pm PDT.
This is not an auction house so the auction laws do not apply. Someone show me just one case in the last 4 years of someone convicted of shilling on any on site auction! Yes shilling has been involved with faudulant sales on Ebay, but it was the fraud that caused legal problems, not shilling.
The law will look at shilling the same way it looks at best offer ads in the newspaper, you call on the ad, they tell you the best offer is x, how do you prove that it was raised by the seller.
Shill bidding is a offence to ebay only, in this venue. Do it and your accounts will be NARUed, and thats it, unless you are commiting another fraud. Pleae stop quoting laws that do not apply.
posted on September 30, 2000 11:37:15 PM new
"ebay is not an auction, and the sellers are not auctioneers, if you think you are please post the state you live in, and your auctioneers license number"
I agree, neither eBay nor most sellers are auctioneers under existing state law- excepting some folks that take things on consignment. A couple states (North Carolina and New Hampshire) made aborted attempts to apply their decades old laws to online auction sellers, and retreated in the face of opposition by sellers groups and media attention.
CA and many other states do not require that auctioneers be licensed. CA, in particular, abandoned its licensing requirement some years ago, with little ill effect. There still exists a bonding requirement, and plenty of statutes regulating online auctions.
Deceptive shill bidding with the intent of increasing the final bid amount is a crime. At it's most basic, it's theft, or larceny, or fraud. As another poster indicated, it would be impossible to create a statute to cover every fraudulent scheme crooks can find to steal other's money (although it seems that legislators continue to try). That's why some statutes are written in general terms, and courts are left to interpret the law in a reasonable fashion.
That's why it would be federally investigated or prosecuted as wire fraud- since theft isn't a federal crime, and wire fraud is. In CA, it could be prosecuted as a theft (484PC), or as a Grand Theft if over a certain amount (487PC), or as a Theft by False Pretenses (532PC).
As long as the essential elements are there:
1. Taking money from another with intent to permanently deprive,
2. Using deception of false pretense
the elements of the crime have been satisfied. Just because states haven't legislated specific criminal statutes prohibiting shilling in online auctions, doesn't make it OK. Any more than using a dummy PayPal page to harvest user's passwords with the intent of draining their accounts is OK, just because there isn't a "PayPal impersonation" law on the books.
When you trick someone to take their money, or to take more of their money than you could have honestly, it's theft. It's not that hard to understand.
posted on October 1, 2000 01:09:22 AM new
As long as the essential elements are there:
1. Taking money from another with intent to permanently deprive,
2. Using deception of false pretense
95 % of all shill bidding, is a unanounced reserve, so the shiller stops bidding when his cost has been met. So number one never comes into play. Number two is never used unless number 1 is there. Thats why no one reading this thread can point to one arrest in for years for shill bidding only. The last 5% has other fraud attached, and thats the one that we hear about in the news.
edhdsn
posted on October 1, 2000 10:30:02 AM new95 % of all shill bidding, is a unanounced reserve, so the shiller stops bidding when his cost has been met... The last 5% has other fraud attached, and thats the one that we hear about in the news.
Interesting stats- I wonder if you might be willing to share with us who compiled and verified them.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:10:28 PM new
I am enjoying reading all of these "junior attorneys" give their interpretation of the law (existent or not).
Everyone seems to want to thrill the next guy with what undiscovered statute they've found, which, as far as they can tell, pertains to this so called violation, more commonly known as "shilling".
This is like listening to a bowling team debate the merits of a bowel resection vs. a transverse colostomy.
The fact is, "edhdsn" is right. Ebay "auctions" are not actual auctions indeed. This is according to state law---and that's all 50, not just a few. Ebay does not adhere to the fundamental structure and execution that a statutorally pertinent auction does from state to state.
Edhdsn's example of a classified ad is a good one. You should all learn from it.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:19:03 PM newEveryone seems to want to thrill the next guy with what undiscovered statute they've found, which, as far as they can tell, pertains to this so called violation, more commonly known as "shilling". This is like listening to a bowling team debate the merits of a bowel resection vs. a transverse colostomy.
Luckily for us there are plenty of posters like you who'll tell the rest of us what's legal "in all 50 states", without bothering to provide any evidence for your "facts".
posted on October 1, 2000 03:22:01 PM newJsmith99:
With all due respect;
You cannot show what IS legal, you can only define what IS NOT legal. You will NOT find evidence that Ebay shilling is illegal. This is because Ebay is not technically an auction, at least not statutorally speaking.
Perhaps you are privy to a whole new set of statutes designed by Ebay, with which we are now to be governed by.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:31:03 PM newSir, with all due respect, you cannot show what is legal, only what isn't.
Nonsense.
Any time a law is written describing what is illegal which then goes on to detail activities which are excluded from its scope, those activities are legal.
For example, the text of section 1812.608 of the California Civil Code I posted earlier clearly shows that it is legal, in the state of California, for the owner of an item up for auction to bid on that auction personally as long as the audience is notified in advance that the owner might do so.
Additionally, since anything not specifically prohibited is therefore permissible, one can show what is legal simply by pointing out that there is no law prohibiting it.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:36:33 PM new
Once again, your argument is inherently flawed, because you have yet to understand that Ebay auctions are NOT statutorally recognized auctions.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:37:02 PM newYou will NOT find evidence that Ebay shilling is illegal. This is because Ebay is not technically an auction, at least not statutorally speaking.
If you can show that is the case, then you will have shown that doing so is legal (thereby refuting, on your own, your contention that one cannot show what is legal).
You have not done this. All you've done is to show that you believe it. Your belief doesn't make it a fact.
posted on October 1, 2000 03:58:16 PM new
As I stated previously, you CANNOT show that it is legal, only that it is not (if not).
Your statement that "showing something is legal by showing what is not legal" is insufficient. To assume that all legal points are derived from the limited amount of statutes is both convaluted and irresponsible.
My point stands intact.
You seem to just want to persist with this excersize in masturbative argument.
posted on October 1, 2000 04:09:07 PM new
Jeff5050,
Your comments have come very close to crossing the line. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the AW Community Guidelines, particularly concerning basic etiquette, before posting again. To continue in this manner may jeopardize your posting privileges.
With all due respect dear, I realize you are new, but I have seen far worse permitted on these boards. We are all adults, and as adults there is nothing wrong with having words with someone.
Adults DO have words. This is not kindergarden, nor is it a social tea with the ladies.
Why do moderators here insist on such heavy censorship? I have visited many, many message boards across the net, and I have to admit, this has been THE MOST stiffling in the way of free speech and expression.
posted on October 1, 2000 04:27:00 PM new
Jeff5050,
If you wish to discuss moderation policy, please do so in the Moderator's Corner, per the CG's. If you have issues with the level of moderation on this board, you are welcome to address your concerns to [email protected].
