posted on May 23, 2001 12:31:37 AM new
It would seem that ebay's latest actions to totally control vendors is by every definition of the word an attempt to restrict trade, which should be absolutely illegal especially when the company claims to be 'just a venue'. Its the equivalent of AT&T forbidding you to use their phone lines to discuss MCI.
I would imagine that its time for complaints to be filed with the Attorney General's office as well as local state's attorney generals as a preliminary shot to the filing of a massive class action law suit for damages done by such illegal restrictions.
Are there any good attorneys out there looking for a good case as well as a fortune in fees if successful? If anyone knows a gutsy lawyer, please fill them in on whats going on with eBay!
As to the AG's - anyone have a list of their email addresses? Perhaps we should all make a concerted effort on the May 31 deadline to file complaints at the same time!
posted on May 23, 2001 05:21:04 AM new
what are they doing that's actually against the law? what are these trade restrictions? what are your damages? i don't feel damaged. where is my shift key?
posted on May 23, 2001 05:21:07 AM new
There have been other posts here suggesting initiating lawsuits against ebay.
I don't know how far they have progressed, but possibly you could join one of those.
It would be great if any of those posters still following this forum would update us all as to the status of their legal actions against ebay.
posted on May 23, 2001 06:47:58 AM new
I would like to see a major Class Action Suite against eBay, but it will take a concerted joint action by someone, or a group of someones in California (since that is where one would have to file), and I don't see any prospect of any of the endless talk on this and other boards turning into a real suit.
I don't think most attorneys want to donate the time it would take to institute such a suite, even with sound ground on which to sue.
A class action suit, with lots of publicity "might" gets eBay's attention - I say "might".
onlymyidhere
You asked what eBay was doing - on one hand they are passing themselves off as a "venue" only, and on the other hand they are denying our right to use space we pay for, as we see fit (based on decency and ca law). That is restricting links to web and store front sites, to mention a few.
Sadly, I have never seen anything get enough eBayers together to really impact eBay management - most sellers are small, I mean really small, and they aren't normally on AW, and they don't go to the eBay discussion boards, and they have no idea of any action or attempt to unite unhappy sellers, so they just go their merry way, selling one widget from time to time.
Only via publicity and the media can one really impact eBay - and the media is pro-eBay.
So, I think trying to find another auction home is the solution.....I can't see eBay listening, or sellers grouping together in enough numbers to impact eBay.
posted on May 23, 2001 06:57:08 AM new
What have they refused to do that was contracted with you?
You mean that they no longer want to give you free linkage to advertise your other sales outside the eBay auction you are paying a fee to run? That is too bad their generosity ran out. There are still a few other remnants of the days when eBay was a personal hobby instead of a Mega corp. Eventually they will all be gone.
posted on May 23, 2001 07:08:40 AM new
Some suggestions for fighting back on ebay's new policies:
http://www.auctionguild.com/generic.html?pid=57
The following is from their free newsletter (couldn't find where to link to it):
TAGnotes Mon 21 May 2001 Vol 3 Number 61 Issue 322
For sellers who feel they have not had adequate refunds, that ebaY is
restraining trade, defrauding sellers by not providing the services
paid for, or other situations not dealt with to your satisfaction,
you can file reports with The Attorney General of California and
also in your home state
http://caag.state.ca.us/piu/mailform.htm
The Better Business Bureau
http://www.bbbonline.com
The Federal Trade Commission
http://www.ftc.gov
The Office of Consumer Affair, US Department of Commerce
http://www.consumer.gov/sentinel/index.html
posted on May 23, 2001 07:09:50 AM new
Ebay pretends to be a "venue", that is, they compare themselves to a newspaper or magazine that accepts classified ads and has no further responsibility over the content of the ad or the bona fides of the listing person.
Whenever I put an ad in a hobby magazine I can put anything I want (within the limits of good taste). Of course, I put my email address and web site address.
But ebay only under complaints allowed email addresses, and does not allow web addresses. Obviously ebay is not "just a venue" when it controls the content of the ad you pay for.
I have no objection to the dis-allowance of my web address and other ebay rules... but don't pretend to be a "venue". And if ebay is not a venue (which presently it is not), it must take responsibility for its auctions and actions.
posted on May 23, 2001 07:22:15 AM new
Couldn't ebay also say the seller who is linking to an outside sales venue is restricting their (ebay's) trade.
I think that IF anyone (or a group of "anyones" ) tried to sue ebay for restraint of trade over the links ban the question might come down to "whose customers are the buyers". Ebay may have the more legitimate claim on the buyers...it is the ebay name, reputation, advertising and money that draws the buyers to the site.
And yes, I know some claim they have buyers who find their website first and then are directed to ebay by the seller...and yes, I can see those sellers claiming those buyers are their customers...but those customers don't need to be directed BACK to the website by a link as they are already aware of the website. The links are designed to direct the ebay generated buyer off site to another's business and therefore siphoning off the buyers ebay cultivated.
It would be interesting to see how a class action suit like this would play out. I wonder if it would end as the sports memorabilia lawsuit did...with ebay's position being found correct. There were lots of people who predicted THAT lawsuit would end forever ebay's claim of venue only. Didn't happen.
[ edited by amy on May 23, 2001 07:23 AM ]
What would happen if you sent a proposed advertisement into your hobby magazine and the editor was informed by an expert (NOT a paid up VeRO member, but a real expert who doesn't believe in this scam-plan) that the item itself you are trying to sell is illegal to be sold? Would the magazine pull your request, or would they take your money and run the ad anyway hoping nobody would notice?
If the magazine has any class and cares about their reputation, I suspect the former.
If the magazine has little class and is so big that it could care less about offending a few people or breaking the law, probably the latter.
eBay always prefers the latter - it's generating all kinds of dough for them.
As far as allowing members to adverstise themselves or not (the email/web site issues) in their listings, I don't agree with their policy (seems to me you sellers are paying for that space), but, it's their site and their rules.
As far as them knowingly allowing some members to use their site for illegal gain, which also puts money in eBay's pocket, I have a major problem. In my mind, they are breaking the law the same as the guilty seller. Calling themselves a venue or telling us that they cannot possibly police their site is meaningless after they have been made aware of a specific offending auction. All they have to do is put a temporary hold on the listing and contact the seller with a simple question. Depending on the answer, or lack of, they can decide what to do next ... either release the hold or end the auction.
What can possibly be so hard about this??
As for any class action suit, a few people have already suggested that it wouldn't work. Too much apathy here, and I also agree with that. Lots of folks complain about eBay and make all kinds of threats, but at the end of the day, they are all still selling and buying on eBay.
posted on May 23, 2001 08:30:13 AM new
You can be a venue and still restrict what people do in that venue.
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.
Just because you rent a space (list an auction) doesn't mean you control it.
Ever sold at flea markets? Those 10 foot by 10 foot spaces for $30 come with two pages of rules and regulations about what you can and can't put in them. They are a venue, but even venues have rules.
Save the legal firepower for something real. Ebay doesn't owe you a link to your website, sorry....
posted on May 23, 2001 08:38:25 AM new
I think either Perry Mason or Matlock are the lawyers that should handle this case. Imaginary lawyers for an imaginary lawsuit!!
I rent space from eBay to post an auction or advertise my goods for sale with buy it now.
I should be able to post a reasonable advertisment. I am willing to reduce the size of my link to just be a one sentence blurb for my website. I am willing not to use a graphic to catch a shoppers eye. I am not willing to make it not be an active link.
I make an agreement with eBay to use this space for this auction or ad to run a certain number of days. If their system has problems if even for one hour I did not receive what I agreed to pay for. This is especially true for 10 day auctions.
They run hours and hours behind on search.
They have constant functionality problems.
They lie about what is working and when.
They refuse to issue listing fee credits for the deadbeats they won't do anything about.
They refuse to issue any credits for not running my auction or ad for the time we agreed upon for the fee they charged.
If a real world landlord messed with your business like they are doing you would have legal grounds for a law suit.
I have tried to go back to eBay since Yahoo self-destructed but they are so "all for me and none for you" that I, as a person with some self-respect, have problems doing business with them.
When the auctions I have running now end; I am going to do what they so obviously want me to do MOVE ON.
It can't be MY "fault", I've NEVER owned a "fault"!
posted on May 23, 2001 09:24:24 AM new
"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."
What happens if they are told by an observer that during one of the rentals where drinking is allowed, they found out that booze was being sold to minors, and they ignored the warning and allowed these sales to continue?
What would happen if they didn't even bother to check it out - "investigate" it themselves?
Would they be absolved of all responsibility?
That's EXACTLY what eBay is doing in thousands of cases on their "venue" ...
posted on May 23, 2001 09:47:48 AM new
"What happens if they are told by an observer that during one of the rentals where drinking is allowed, they found out that booze was being sold to minors, and they ignored the warning and allowed these sales to continue?
What would happen if they didn't even bother to check it out ("investigate" themselves?
Would they be absolved of all responsibility?
That's EXACTLY what eBay is doing in thousands of cases on their "venue" ... "
Seems that this was the argument used by those who filed the lawsuit in the sports memerabila case. They claimed that ebay was made aware that "fake items" were being sold and therefore ebay was responsible . the court didn't see it that way.
posted on May 23, 2001 10:09:28 AM new
Bottom line is that its their sand box and if you dont like it play somewhere else. I do not wish to sound harsh, but it is a fact of life.
posted on May 23, 2001 10:31:25 AM new
I'll get flamed for this, but this is my opinion on this....
eBay can legally change the terms and set restrictions on how you can use the venue. Just look at renting space in a mall as an example. Not only do you get two pages of rules, but more like two volumes of rules you must accept to get the lease or renew it. If you don't agree you don't sign and move somewhere else. If you stay, it's because you agreed to the new terms. I don't think Sears, Walmart and other large renters get the same deal as the small boutiques. You can bet, the small owner pays a lot more per square foot in rent.
In Atlantic city, a group of identified card counters tried a class action law suit against the casinos for losses they felt were caused by unfair rules. The judges rejected their claims because from their own admission they knew the rules were not in their favor but chose to continue playing. Any alleged damage was ruled self inflicted, nobody forced them to keep on playing. They had the option to simply walk out. They appealed and lost again in federal court.
A seller that doesn't approve of eBay's terms is not forced to use the site. The option to simply walk out is always there. Any damages you may claim to suffer by using eBay's venue will be deemed as self inflicted and rejected by the courts.
I wouldn't spend money and energy on a law suit. I would concentrate on improving the eBay business I have or finding viable alternatives. The latter is very difficult. Yahoo auctions was the best hope, but it comitted hara kiri. You can always use the money that you would have spent on a lawyer to publice your dot com website instead.
posted on May 23, 2001 10:51:48 AM new
"Seems that this was the argument used by those who filed the lawsuit in the sports memerabila case."
I'm not familiar with that one, mind you, sports memorablia is not my expertise.
Let me ask another question though: "If eBay were brought to court again with a similiar argument, do you thing the results would be any different?" In other words, would the courts take into consideration the fact that this is the 2nd time eBay has been brought before them for the same "offence", and would they perhaps investigate a little harder (call more witnesses) before they pass judgement?
In spite of our emotional feelings on this (it rips my ice sliding body part to see bootleggers and pirates get away with big sales on eBay without even being challenged), gs4 is right. IF I were a seller, I'd probably get a little more uptight.
posted on May 23, 2001 11:02:08 AM newAs for any class action suit, a few people have already suggested that it wouldn't work. Too much apathy here, and I also agree with that. Lots of folks complain about eBay and make all kinds of threats, but at the end of the day, they are all still selling and buying on eBay.
It doesn't take a large group of people to file a potential class action lawsuit. It also doesn't take any money --- just a lawyer hungry for the possible windfall. (There's one lawyer in the southeast who's made a living going after Merrill Lynch.)
And apathy on the part of the class doesn't matter either. If the lawsuit is deemed to have merit, given class action status, a settlement is proposed and you're deemed to be a part of the "class," you're sent a notice outlining the settlement.
If you do nothing, you remain a part of the class and are bound by the terms of the settlement. You only act if you wish to be severed from the "class" to pursue legal action on your own.
Of course, it's the lawyers who get the windfall. Everybody in the class generally gets a pittance. Remember the settlement involving airline coupons? You only got anything (the coupon discount) if you spent more money with the airlines.
I've been part of the "class" in more than a dozen of these settlements.
The largest class action settlement I've received was $2,500 -- the smallest was 25 cents.
All it takes to start things off is one really teed off seller -- and one hungry lawyer.
Whether they really have the grounds to get anywhere is for a court to decide.
posted on May 23, 2001 11:11:48 AM new
Hi, Amy. I don't think the question of linking off-site is the only issue. This is not just sour grapes. The issue appears to be whether eBay can restrict the content of ads, restrict the nature of private communication between members, and still maintain their claim of "only a venue." eBay avoids responsibility by comparing itself to a newspaper classified ad, when it really is not.
Any damages you may claim to suffer by using eBay's venue will be deemed as self inflicted and rejected by the courts.
Again, this is not a matter of who makes the rules. Look at it this way. Suppose there is a flea market in a certain town. At the flea market, there is a small sign that says "no guns, booze or porn allowed." But at the flea market, one booth after another sells guns, drugs, booze, porn, etc. The owner of the flea market lives in the next town over, about five miles away. His claim to law enforcement agencies is, "I don't live there, I don't know what items are sold at the flea market, it is too big for me to police it personally, and I am not responsible for what happens there. If illegal items are being sold, customers are free to call the cops themselves."
Well I can tell you that flea market would be shut down right quick. And that's exactly what we have with eBay. It's a fact that eBay looks the other way when it's a question of their profit. Back when OEM copies of Microsoft Office were being sold at eBay for $25 bucks ($600 retail), it took a lawsuit from Microsoft to stop it. eBay could care less what is sold, as long as they get their cut.
That "just a venue" policy may have worked when eBay was a hole in the wall trading site, but it won't work on a big scale, and the feds are just starting to pick up on what's happening. I don't know who would win a class action suit, but eventually the feds will step in, as they did with firearms sales.
[ edited by twinsoft on May 23, 2001 11:13 AM ]
posted on May 23, 2001 12:40:36 PM new
Twinsoft...forgive me if my writing is a little shakey...we JUST had a jolt that shook the house a bit (dang San Andreas fault!).
I'm not suggesting any of this IS sour grapes...just that I think the angst is misplaced.
Using the newspaper want ads as an example of a venue...those ads WILL restrict what is listed. Many will not allow ads for porn. In the real estate section (here in California) there is frequently a notice that it is illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing. The newspaper will stop you from a listing that they feel is discrimainatory but those that get through anyway the newspaper is not responsible for. A newspaper can censor any ad they want to and still be a venue.
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.
The flea market example is flawed because it isn't a venue. and I'm not sure it WOULD be shut down. Local computer swapmeets haven't been shut down because of the sale of bootleg software...BUT the sellers AND the swapmeet organizers HAVE been brought to court. I think in some of the cases the organizers were found to be culpable but I'm not sure if the cases have wound completely through the legal system yet.
We are doing nothing more than speculating when we say ebay is or isn't a true venue. This is all so new (in regards to the internet) that it will take the courts to decide just how the current laws relate to cases such as ebay. It could very well be that the defining difference between a computer swapmeet and ebay is that in the swapmeets (fleamarkets) the organizers CAN see the merchandise for sale and determine if the items being offered break the law whereas ebay never has the items in their hands and so cannot make that judgement. It will take a court case to determine this...so far the one case I have heard of (which was filed here in California) hasn't changed ebay's claim of venue.
RB asked if "If eBay were brought to court again with a similiar argument, do you thing the results would be any different?" In other words, would the courts take into consideration the fact that this is the 2nd time eBay has been brought before them for the same "offence", and would they perhaps investigate a little harder (call more witnesses) before they pass judgement?".
Although a different judge could interpet the law differently, rulings will all be based on the law as it is in effect at the time of the court case. It doesn't matter how many times the "accusation" is made...what determines the ruling is the law. Once one rulling is made in a jurisdiction, then subsequent judges will look to the prior rulings in making their decisions. They could rule differently, especially if the law seems vague..but just because the accusation is made again and again doesn't affect the application of the law.
posted on May 23, 2001 12:57:53 PM new
"Of course, it's the lawyers who get the windfall. Everybody in the class generally gets a pittance."
Good point Vargas. In my case, I wouldn't be doing this for a monetary gain. I don't have anything invested that I can lose and subsequently demand to get back. Remember, they won't let me sell without a CC so fees don't apply to me as a buyer.
It just irks me that in some areas, eBay thinks it is above the law, and I really think they need to have their collective heads given a good shake to snap them back into reality.
Amy - "we JUST had a jolt that shook the house a bit"
WOW - you guys OK? Living on the prairies of Canada, this is something I will probably never experience. Scary stuff!!
posted on May 23, 2001 01:04:22 PM new
You want some fodder for a class-action lawsuit? Look into the fact that there is a company called Squaretrade that for a price will have your neg/neutral feedback entries (possibly and most likely)removed. There is no other way to have feedback removed (according to Ebay).
I am a seller with over 2500 positive feedback entries. I have 7 negatives and 7 neutrals. There is a possibility that two of the neutrals have some merit although an email from those buyers would have resulted in me fixing whatever problems existed. The others are non-paying bidders, bidders that shorted me on payments or retaliatory (again from non-paying bidders). What impact these 14 entries have on my business I cannot say.
That's not the point anyway.
The fact is what Ebay and Squaretrade are doing in collusion is against the law. A seller is not given any other options and that's a monopoly. It's not only a monopoly but it's a monopoly enforced by another company that doesn't want to deal with a problem that is their own. Rather than Ebay fairly looking at these unwarranted, patently false marks against otherwise-honest sellers, they have chosen to pass the buck and make you pay for it! If I'm wrong here, please let me hear it...
posted on May 23, 2001 02:00:19 PM new
RB..everything is fine...it was just a short, sharp jolt so is probably the tail end of a quake quite a ways away. Hopefully it is NOT a pre-quake jolt.
posted on May 23, 2001 02:26:56 PM new
Amy, point well taken and my example was not a good one. However, we're not talking strictly legal/illegal items. eBay is also setting policy regarding content of auctions (off-site links) and private communication between "members." Can they set rules which prohibit members from pursuing their own private enterprise, and still maintain they are "only a venue?" I don't know, this is certainly a complicated legal matter which hasn't been tested, but I would be curious to see the results tried in court.
What newspaper are you aware of that doesn't allow classified ads that contain a phone number, for example? I can't think of any. So eBay is not really a classified ad. Whether they are just a venue (emphasis on "just" ) or some other type of sales mechanism is (to me) the real question.
My own personal feelings are that I'd love to see links to private web sites banned. That would discourage big business and level the playing field. It's frustrating to see eBay create policies which are either not applied fairly or for window-dressing only. I believe eBay needs to take more responsibility for what goes on at their site.
(I am in CA too. I guess this summer we can expect to see our power turned off for several hours a day. Don't get me started on that one!)
posted on May 23, 2001 03:30:39 PM new
I too thought is was a bit strange that someone would be involved in a dozen class action lawsuits. Makes you think........
posted on May 23, 2001 03:34:30 PM new
Twinsoft..."I am in CA too. I guess this summer we can expect to see our power turned off for several hours a day. Don't get me started on that one!)"
Blackouts are one thing...but the rate hikes that were just approved are something else again!! Me thinks it is going to be a LONG, HOT summer, especially here at the edge of the desert! YUK!!!
I agree...venue as it applies to online auctions hasn't really been defined yet. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Personally, I think we need to hope that ebay's definition of venue is correct because if you really start to think of the consequences of them NOT being a venue I think the final conclusion would be that online auctions will become an extinct species...something I don't think many really want.
posted on May 23, 2001 03:53:13 PM new
Roofguy and Brooklynguy...you mean you guys have not recieved letters from a lawyer involved in a class action lawsuit asking you if you want to be part of the "class" or do you want to opt out?
Over the years I have recieved these unsolicited letters in regards to lawsuits against Bank of America, Sears, Levi (I think..it was a jean company, that I remember), an insurance company and an airline. The only one that i made a claim to was in the lawsuit against Mazda years ago in regards to their first cars with the wankle engine...got a settlement of $700 to cover the money we spent repairing the engine on our car.
When a class action is filed the lawyers HAVE to try and contact all potential members of the class. Unless you opt out, you become a member of the class suing and are eligible for any monetary settlement.
In one of those lawsuits (I think it was Sears) we got a coupon for a very small discount on our next purchase.
posted on May 23, 2001 04:33:52 PM newbrooklynguy says: I too thought is was a bit strange that someone would be involved in a dozen class action lawsuits. Makes you think........
You never bought anything brooklynguy?
I've been a member of the class more than a dozen times --- all for purchases or services. I've been a pretty prolific consumer.
I did not initiate any of these lawsuits. You think I'd settle for 25 cents (mortgage company escrow practices lawsuit) --or $2,500 (Merrill Lynch investment practices that wiped out my mother's IRA)-- if I did? The lawyers and the plaintiffs walked away with much more in each of these cases. What's left is divided among the hundreds of thousands to millions of people who are deemed to be part of the "class."
Let's see, I also got:
*$50 after buying a television (price-fixing lawsuit against the manufacturer)
*$7.00 because I leased a Volvo (lease terms suit)
*airline coupons in that big lawsuit against the major airlines several years ago
*a few dollars per year on my life insurance in some lawsuit against a major insurance company
*free premium channel upgrade for a few months on my digital satellite dish in a terms lawsuit against a programming service.
*Now I'm waiting for the final settlement in the Johnson & Johnson contact lens lawsuit.
The list goes on. All I did was buy or lease something -- open my mail when the class action pending settlement notices arrived and wait for the tiny settlements to roll in.
Oh, I actually read all the tiny print in the proposed settlement terms in each of these cases -- and learned a little about class action lawsuits along the way.
I do have a friend however, who's getting nearly a half-million dollars in a class action suit against a government agency.
She didn't even know there was a lawsuit until the settlement hit the news --- and she called to see if she was part of the class.
