posted on May 23, 2001 04:51:04 PM new
amy, you need to do your homework before you talk about what Yahoo Auction does or did. You said, "Ebay is not a public utility so they get to make the rules of the site. They can restrict the ability of others obtaining a user's personal information which is what the new email rules are all about. From what I understand Yahoo was doing this long before ebay started...i think i remember some posters saying ebay should follow the example of other sites such as Yahoo who did this."
WRONG. Yahoo never reveals personal information of users (name, address, phone number, email address) to anyone (except law enforcement officials) in order to protect their users from wierdos and junk email spammers. eBay, until recently, FREELY gave out ALL personal information to any registered user who requested it....and still gives out enough information for a determined person to track down the user's address.
But Yahoo has NEVER restricted users from posting email links in their Auction listings. NEVER. Even now that they disallow links to seller websites on listing pages (and instead provide software and links for custom-designed seller "booths" which can advertise websites), Yahoo STILL allows email links in addition to the "question and answer" function to contact a seller.
And if you think that to "restrict the ability of others (in) obtaining a user's personal information...is what the new email rules are all about" is eBay's TRUE REASON for trying to ban email links in their listings, eBay has really, really pulled the wool over your eyes. In fact, you must be the ONLY eBay user who still believes that (some of us NEVER did)!!!
brighid868, you said, "For instance, if you rent out a local church hall, that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. They can set rules and they can change them at will. If they don't want drinking on the property, you can't sue them for 'restricting your trade' by not letting you make money off of drink charges. And if they allowed drinking during one event, but decided to change the rules and make all subsequent events 'dry', and gave you notice of the change before you rented (listed) again, then that's their right also."
Agreed. But what if a church advertises TWO identical halls for rent ON THE SAME NIGHT and allows the OTHER group renting to drink while YOUR group is banned from drinking. Both groups are responsible adults, both pay the same price to rent (or you pay more), both are purchasing the IDENTICAL accommodations---but your group is held to stricter, less favorable rules than the other group simply because the church wants the other group to keep coming back, and **couldn't care less** whether YOU rent from them again or not.
If eBay allows big businesses to have links to their websites in their Auction listings, but DOESN'T allow small seller John Doe to have links in HIS listings, I think eBay is breaking a law. If nothing else, it's leaving itself wide open for litigation.
JMHO pointed out the MOST FLAGRANT ways in which eBay is defrauding its customers:
1) eBay has DAILY functionality problems and downtimes which they DO NOT acknowledge and for which SELLERS ARE NOT COMPENSATED. You pay for 24/7 of full function uptime, you should GET 24/7 of full function uptime OR be extended OR partially refunded---whichever is most appropriate.
2) Indexing of new listings takes up to 36+ hours, while eBay knows the vast majority of buyers find listings through 'search'. Not to mention all the listings that, because they received bids before indexing, never showed up in search AT ALL. And on, and on.
3) Listing fees for auctions with non-paying winning bidders are NEVER refunded, nor are gallery and featuring fees. eBay thinks it's sufficient to just refund the FVFs when a buyer deadbeats, AND IT'S NOT.
posted on May 23, 2001 05:30:31 PM new
Granee..I think you missed the point of what I was saying.
I was saying that Yahoo restricted the access to the personal information of its users and that many at ebay wanted ebay to do the same thing...which they (ebay) now have. As for the reason WHY the PTB at ebay did this I don't know for sure...but I would bet PART of it WAS to keep the spam down and PART WAS to address the concerns of many users about privacy and PART WAS to keep us from transacting off ebay transactions. Which reason/result had the highest priority? Beats me! And it really isn't important...the results are what is important (see, I didn't have the wool pulled over my eyes at all! )
Also, I don't think I suggested Yahoo restricted email links in their auctions... I was talking about the access to private/personal information. There really was no reason to discuss that (email links in the auctions) as ebay isn't prohibiting them either.
May I offer you a nice marguerita...might calm the nerves!
posted on May 23, 2001 09:34:42 PM new) Listing fees for auctions with non-paying winning bidders are NEVER refunded, nor are gallery and featuring fees. eBay thinks it's sufficient to just refund the FVFs when a buyer deadbeats, AND IT'S NOT.
My Business teacher told me once:
Find any loophole and exploit it till it closes.
Think about it; a band of sellers and a band of "deadbeat bidders" make up a charade of having auctions that are not paid for and the selelrs have to file FVF. Multiply this by 100 times, and you have enough edvidence to get a Class-Action Lawsuit.
Of course, to make sure that this cannot be linked somehow, assume false ID's, use terminals in other locations (Universities, Internet Cafes, etc.), use Proxy Servers, etc. And, while their at it, screw over a few other sellers and "pull" them into the game.
When theirs a will, theirs a way.
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on May 23, 2001 09:56:13 PM new
Just curious here...but under what legal principle would you be able to file a class action suit in the scenario you described?
If you put an ad in a newspaper to sell your car and you get a live buyer on the last day the ad runs and the buyer is to return in 24 hours with the money but he never does (he deadbeated)...does the newspaper refund your "listing fee"? No, because the listing fee was to list the ad...to place the advertisement, which they did. They provided the service, you still have to pay. If they had also taken a percentage of the sales price before you got your money, then when the buyer deadbeated the newspaper would owe you a refund on the percentage of the sales price they took...but not on the service of listing the ad.
If you list on ebay you pay a fee to list and take your chances the item will sell. If it doesn't sell ebay doesn't owe you back your listing fee...they didn't guarantee a sale. but ebay also takes a percentage of the selling price (before the seller gets his money)...so if the buyer doesn't pay then you are back to the position of not having actually sold the item and you get back the FVF. You are now returned to the same situation as if the item never sold in the first place..but the fee to place your ad is not returnable because THAT service HAS been rendered by ebay.
I doubt if a court would see it any differently.
Try again with another possible lawsuit! this one won't fly!
posted on May 23, 2001 09:59:40 PM new
If you list on ebay you pay a fee to list and take your chances the item will sell. If it doesn't sell ebay doesn't owe you back your listing fee...
quote from Amy
You are getting screwed out of your one free relisting fee refund if the item sells the 2nd time so if the only bidder was the dead beat without his bid you would have relisted and gotten the 2nd round of basic listing fees refunded automatically if it sold the 2nd round.
http://www.lovepotions.net
posted on May 23, 2001 10:06:18 PM new
If you only got a refund for FVF for dead beats and you sell unique and collectibles then you would essentialy have a case.
You can add up all those listing fee refunds you didnt get to excersize for items you had to list 2 times. Ebay states it would be refunded if it sold the 2nd time. But as it has a bogus bid on it even though Ebay has declared it was not in fact a sold item by refunding the FVF keeping the original listing fee and charging for the relist with no refund on the basic listing fee in fact is a violation of their terms of service.
http://www.lovepotions.net
posted on May 23, 2001 10:24:15 PM new
And it could be argued that ebay didn't have to give you a free relist..it is nothing more than a sales incentive...a gift, so to say.
Show me the law that says ebay HAS to refund your second listing fee if the item sells the second time around. Lets hear some legal principle that would make such a lawsuit acceptable to the court.
Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me...one lacking in merit.
posted on May 23, 2001 11:07:53 PM new
when do lawsuits HAVE TO do with broken laws.
Class action suits are hardly about broken laws and many times have to do with price fixing.....unpaid refunds, bait and switch practices, misleading advertising, insufficient warnings of possible drug side effects.......
Take a look at any class action suit where a big corporation lost..........how many of them actualy had to do with broken laws??
Buyers went against ebay for losses in buying fake sports memorabilia......they say they are a venue and got it thrown out.
If a couple thousand sellers take on ebay on their policy of refunding basic listing fees for unsold items in the first round that were sold in the second round then they have grounds to get those refunds back. By refunding the FVF Ebay after a non paying bidder complaint Ebay has concluded that IT DID NOT SELL The 1st time around and is eligible on those grounds to get the fee refunded if the item sells the 2nd time around.
Yet Ebay won't refund the basic listing fees due to it being relisted because it had a bogus bid the 1st round. BUT WAS NOT SOLD the first round. It is a fault in their software and management that these fees are unable to be recouped. But those sellers are entitled to that relist refund.
If for example I went to ALL of your auctions and bid on every last one of them then POOF disappeared without a trace leaving you SCREWED out of those refunds you are entitled to when you relist all of those items and leaving you ONLY with a FVF refund after a lot of stress and anxiety you'd see things differently.
posted on May 23, 2001 11:53:04 PM newamy, I did NOT miss the point of what you were saying, and perhaps if you were't guzzling all those "nice margueritas" yourself, you could think more clearly.
eBay actually HASN'T yet restricted personal information enough to protect their registered users, because they still give out *more than* enough information to identify and locate a person. And you said that restricting that access to personal information is "what the new email rules are all about."
Hogwash.
"There really was no reason to discuss that (email links in the auctions) as ebay isn't prohibiting them either....As for the reason WHY the PTB at ebay did this I don't know for sure...but I would bet PART of it WAS to keep the spam down and PART WAS to address the concerns of many users about privacy"
The banning of email links in listings, which eBay PLANNED to implement (until there was an enormous user uproar) has NOTHING to do with the restriction of personal information OR "addressing the concerns of many users about privacy". How COULD it??? Those who "wish to remain private" simply DON'T put their email addresses in their listings---no one is forcing them to. Even when any registered user could get your eBay email address, ISPs have never given out client information, and anyone can register on eBay with an anonymous email account like hotmail. Privacy and personal information don't even factor in eBay's email address decision because they CAN'T.
As for "keeping the spam down", I find it hard to believe eBay is concerned about users receiving unsolicited spam when they are CONSTANTLY changing my user preferences to say that I WANT to receive "notices about special offers and promotions", that I WANT to receive "telemarketing calls and direct mail regarding eBay related products and services". The worst spam offender to hit my email box is EBAY!
"And it really isn't important...the results are what is important"
You can just keep thinking it isn't important, as long as you have a pom-pom to hold. The rest of us can see the INTENT of eBay's planned email restrictions, and the ATTITUDE behind their decision.
As for your comparison of an eBay listing to a newspaper classified ad to sell a car, it's OBVIOUSLY not the same analogy. A potential buyer for your car doesn't make a public "offer" in the ad which other potential buyers can see....and which causes others to decide not to make an offer themselves because they don't want to pay MORE than the current offer. The newspaper ad simply lets you state "it's for sale, if you're interested contact me", and you work with EVERYONE who answers the ad. On eBay, you're stuck ONLY working with the high bidder, NOT with all the parties interested in your car at your asking price. If that high bidder defaults on eBay, you don't get to work with all the other interested parties like you would had you placed a newspaper ad.
A deadbeat bidder can SQUELCH all other bidder interest in your item. Whether a deadbeat ends the auction almost immediately after listing (with Buy It Now), thereby preventing ANYONE ELSE from bidding, or he bids a high amount several days later, discouraging countless other people (who WILL complete the sale) from bidding....the seller loses. But eBay doesn't lose---they get to keep the listing/gallery/featuring fees.
You're wrong when you say that "You are now returned to the same situation as if the item never sold in the first place". EBay gives a relisting fee refund if an item sells the second time. Whether or not this is a "sales incentive" or "gift", as you call it, it's their policy---and by NOT coding it in as a refundable relist after the first winner deadbeats, eBay is violating their OWN policy. I never SAID they were "breaking a law" by doing so, I just said they're dealing unfairly with their customers.
By the way, my nerves are tranquil, thank you....and I don't need alcohol to get by....as you apparently do.
posted on May 23, 2001 11:58:38 PM new
Lovepotions...in order for a lawsuit to win in court it does have to be based on some law
to use your examples..
price fixing...against the law
bait and switch...against the law
misleading advertising...against the law
every lawsuit, in order to be heard, has to have some basis in law. It can be that the arguments are such that the lawyers are attempting to broaden the scope of a law that doesn't specifically apply to the case at hand but they are grounding their case in some legal principle that they feel applies to their case.
Try to draw up the case, using the law, to prove to a judge or jury that ebay has to give refunds/free relists for listings that ended with a deadbeat bidder. What arguments are you going to use, based on the law, to prove your case.
Also, try to determine how the other side is going to counter your arguments and explore if there is any way their arguments may be seen by the court to have more merit. You also need to determine what arguments the other side is going to use to prove their case and have counter arguments for them.
So back to my question...WHY does ebay owe a refund/free relist under the scenario your presenting. What are you basing your argument on?
posted on May 24, 2001 12:37:13 AM new
eBay would argue that they do not guarantee the sale. They would also argue that they provide mechanisms to catch and remove deadbeat bidders from the site. eBay would say they are doing everything they reasonably can to prevent deadbeats.
It seems to me that you'd have to prove, for example, that eBay was aware of fraudulent items being sold, and did nothing to stop it. eBay is pretty well protected. With over a million listings a day, or whatever the number is, they really can't police all the auctions. And there are programs in place, such as VeRO, and free insurance. No doubt eBay pays a pretty penny to its legal department.
I don't think what eBay is doing is always 100% legal or kosher. For example, I don't think eBay can legally regulate contact between buyers and sellers. eBay's rule is that if you are contacted by a buyer asking you to sell off-site, and you do make a sale, that you may be suspended. The whole class of rules that eBay affectionately calls "spam" is really about restricting sales to eBay's site.
eBay claims they are responsible for bringing buyers and sellers together. That is only partly true. eBay is a public venue, and anyone, member or otherwise, can view the listings. So to some degree, the listings are in the public domain. If a seller chooses to publish their email address, who is eBay to say how the seller should respond to emails such as "I saw your item on eBay, etc?" That is why eBay is doing everything they can to erase email addys from the site. They know they have no legal ground to restrict sellers' trade.
Let's say Sun Microsystems is selling its X-1000 server on eBay. And one day Sun Microsystems gets an email from Joe Blow saying, "I'm interested in your X-1000 server." Does eBay have a right to jump in and demand a piece of the action? Obviously not. But that is exactly what they are trying to do. It amounts to twisting the arms of little sellers who can't defend themselves.
There are other chinks in eBay's armor. Eventually these matters will be tested in court. I doubt any judge knows what really goes on at eBay as well as sellers who deal with eBay on a daily basis.
posted on May 24, 2001 12:40:38 AM new
Granee...can I ask you a question?
Is it possible for us to have a discussion of our respective opinions without the rudeness both your posts to me have shown?
My offer of a cyberdrink to you was a friendly, hopefully gentle way of suggesting we could discuss our respective opinions without the name calling and rudeness of your first post to me.
Far from being a person who "guzzles" any alcoholic drinks...I have very few drinks. I am diabetic and alcohol plays havoc with my bloodsugar level. Even before I was diagnosed with diabetes I rarely drank. But, an offer of a drink is considered a sociable gesture, one that I made hoping we could converse without rancor..it was a symbolic, friendly gesture
Back to our discussion...
We have no way of knowing exactly what the motives are for any of the rules ebay makes. We are just speculating. You seem to prefer to speculate that ebay management makes the rules based on some "dark" motive...i prefer to speculate that ebay management is trying to do what is best for the majority of the users. You could be spot on or I could be..or the truth may lie somewhere in between...we don't KNOW for a fact what the motives are.
Ebay's new email rules do restrict access to personal information..it may not stop it completely, but it does restrict it more than the prior rules did. It allows those who desire more protection to have it yet allows those who do not want it the ability to still put their email address in their listings.
What was possibly planned was a ban on clickable links to ones email, not a ban on the placing of one's email address in the auction ad. And I say possibly because we only had one customer service rep say publically on a ebay board that the clickable link would be banned...we don't know if she misunderstood the new rules or not.
And if it was planned but dropped because of user outcries, then that just proves that ebay does try to satisfy the users.
I can agree that in the case of a deadbeat bidder the seller isn't moved back completely to the position of a "no sale" situation because the seller cannot use the free relist feature on the auction. But in regards to the original listing fees themselves it does move the seller back to the position of not having sold the item because if the item didn't sell the seller could not get his original listing fees back.
I don't think there is any legal basis in thinking ebay HAS to refund listing fees in a deadbeat situation. If a court WERE to find for the sellers because they were being treated unfairly when they couldn't get a free relist in a deadbeat situation like a "no sale" seller can...then all ebay has to do is stop free relists period..for everyone. then one group is not being unfairly treated over another. I don't think you can find any legal principle that would compell ebay to refund a listing fee when a no sale occurred because ebay DID provide the service that listing fee paid for.
I look forward to hearing your courteous response to my statements
posted on May 24, 2001 01:09:30 AM new
Twinsoft (thank you for addressing me in a civil manner )
The reason why I kept asking for legal principle was to keep it away from criminal matters.
All civil lawsuits are based in law too. The situation you describe of letting your lawnmower run out of control and ruining your neighbor's roses would also be based on law principles. Major principle here would be that one is responsible for one's actions and if one's actions causes another financial damage then one has to make the other person whole again. Its the same principle that product liability is based on. The same principle (law) that let that woman sue McDonalds over the hot coffee and win.
There are lots of facets of the law that are not criminal, but they are still law and legal principles. I think you may be thinking that "laws" only have to do with criminals, but it doesn't.
Laws govern contracts, business, property, etc. When I worked for the county assessor we had two volumes of laws that related specifically to the job of the assessor. One of those laws was passed by the voters of this state back in the 1970s (1978?)...remember proposition 13? That is a law...it isn't a criminal law though...its part of the revenue and taxation code of the state of california..and that code has the force of law. My job was to apply the law as it related to change in ownership for real property.
I have just been trying to find out if this "class action" talk is based on any current law or code..or if it is just wishful thinking...a "it should be this way" position based on no legal principle.
PS...we COULD talk about our state legislature who seem to have sold us down the river with the "deregulation" of the electric industry. I wonder if we have a "class action lawsuit" ...think so?
posted on May 24, 2001 01:36:47 AM new
amy, I fail to see how "May I offer you a nice marguerita...might calm the nerves!" can POSSIBLY be construed as "friendly, hopefully gentle" or as a "symbolic, friendly gesture".
It sounded patronizing, demeaning and condescending, and I took it as such.
You "have no way of knowing exactly what the motives are for any of the rules ebay makes". Fine.
You "prefer to speculate that ebay management is trying to do what is best for the majority of the users." Fine.
You can believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe.
As for the planned ban of email addresses in listings, about which you said, "What was possibly planned was a ban on clickable links to ones email, not a ban on the placing of one's email address in the auction ad. And I say possibly because we only had one customer service rep say publically on a ebay board that the clickable link would be banned...we don't know if she misunderstood the new rules or not."
It was also stated at an eBay University several months ago....I guess by ANOTHER eBay employee who "misunderstood the new rules".
"And if it was planned but dropped because of user outcries, then that just proves that ebay does try to satisfy the users."
My interpretation: eBay reversed their decision in the face of losing $$$$$$$$$ in fees from disenfranchised sellers.
"...then all ebay has to do is stop free relists period..for everyone. then one group is not being unfairly treated over another."
AT LAST, you acknowledged that "one group" (i.e. sellers with deadbeat buyers) is being "unfairly treated". So your solution is to "stop free relists period..for everyone"????
posted on May 24, 2001 02:04:00 AM new
Amy, well, you caught that before I edited it out. But it is not a law that coffee can't be served hot, and it is not illegal to lose control of a lawnmower. The reason I mention it is because you seem to be saying that eBay isn't accountable as long as they don't break any laws. That is not true. A simple case would be negligence. I'm getting in over my head here, but I think what we're talking about is legal principles, not statutes. (That is, applying existing laws to new types of cases.)
This thread has taken some turns, so "class action talk" refers to several subjects. No, I don't think eBay would be held accountable for deadbeats. They are too careful about that. They could demonstrate to a judge that they have policies regarding deadbeats. But, as I wrote before, in my opinion, most eBay policies (excluding those which affect eBay's income) are largely window-dressing.
Regarding deadbeats, it has been argued that deadbeat bidders actually benefit eBay, Inc. eBay gets the listing fee, and then another listing fee because the seller has to relist the item. eBay does unofficially allow sellers to offer the item to the second-high bidder, but publicly they discourage it by reminding buyers that such transactions are not covered by eBay protections such as feedback or insurance. It just begs the question, does eBay really make an effort regarding deadbeats, when it is in their own interest not to?
There is a far cry between what slick lawyers might be able to convince a judge, and what eBay sellers who work every day at eBay know about the site's goings-on. Just as most eBay investors probably look no further than the announcements page.
The question that I observe most often is, "To what extent can eBay censor, rule, filter, item listings or seller behavior, and still maintain they are 'only a venue?'" (And you didn't respond to my question about a newspaper that prohibits telephone numbers in its classified ads.) I am sure I don't know the answer to that. But I don't necessarily believe that eBay is making every effort to be 100% honest with us, or with the feds. For that reason, a class action suit might be a good thing, if only to raise these issues. (And not necessarily to nail eBay.)
Class action against the electric companies? Yes, if there was evidence of price fixing or manipulation. Actually, there may be benefits to having a nuclear waste dump in your backyard. Though I can't think of any.
