posted on July 1, 2001 07:55:50 AM new
I am writing to see if anyone is considering a class action suit against ebay. I have heard from several people where ebay is in violation of their own policy as well as making arbitrary rules and enforcing them at will.
My personal complaint is that I received a 30-day suspension for having more then two photos within a mature category. Granted, I did not read that category’s rules carefully and that is my fault and I took my 30-day suspension without concern. However when 30-days came and went and my account was never restored and after close to a dozen emails ebay has not even the common courtesy of a reply it is now time to escalate in one manner or another.
It is not like I have been bad for ebay. My feedback in selling Rock & Roll collectibles is over 1200 Positives and ebay has earned close to $5000.00 from my participation.
Other concerns include ebay canceling auctions that are not in violation because of someone from VERO saying so, Auction for negatives being canceled due to copyright issue, when the seller is the copyright holder. Guns being sold via Live Auction (see previous elvis auctions - handguns and rifles within the elvis collection.) Ebay said it is different since they are being sold as part of a collection so in this case - handguns are OK, however I think it is because the starting price was 1/2 million.
If anyone else has actionable concerns, please contact me at your convenience. I have spoke with a few local attorneys and they feel if we have enough participation then we have a case, however they don’t specialize in class action. If there are any attorneys out there who read this who do specialize in these types of suits, I would appreciate hearing from them as well.
There has to be a point where the seller community comes back to ebay and says “We are mad as heck and we are not going to take it anymore!”
I have been saying all along that eBay is ripe for a Class Action Lawsuit. Not simply for their heavy handed, and very partial behaviour, though. I feel it should center on gross violations of the Sherman Anti Ttust act, and specifically with restraint of trade issues, such as banning links, and interfering wih=th communications between buyers and sellers. SInce their anti-competitive actions have effectively removed them from classification as a 'venue' they need to be held accountable for their actions.
The 'links' issue is the same as AT&T threatening to cancel your long distance account if you recommend MCI to your grandma on the phone.
posted on July 1, 2001 01:39:34 PM new
and when you do file suit against them, they will raise fees again to pay their lawers, and a lot of people who rely on eBay for their livelyhood will lose it all.
posted on July 1, 2001 01:50:29 PM new
If eBay's nut is cracked, the publicity and the consequences will bring alternate auctions to the attention of the public.
Just as Microsoft's heavy handedness and lawsuit caused an upswell of support for Linux. Even from big leaguers such as IBM and Intel.
posted on July 1, 2001 02:59:40 PM new
Let me know when you figure out which legal principle you are going to hang your hat on because as I see it there is no legal principle being broken when ebay makes the rules for its private business site or when ebay enforces those rules unevenly.
Its their ballgame in their ballpark and if they decide they don't want you in the game that is their perogative.
There is no god-given right to use the ebay site.
There is no law that says they have to treat all customers the same.
posted on July 1, 2001 07:39:03 PM new
No one ever said you *had* to use Microsoft Windows for an operating system. Or AT&T long distance for phone calls when a letter would do just fine. Or Standard Oil, or that railroad that started all that silly anti-trust business...
When a company reaches a certain size and becomes anti-competitive as well as deliberately seeks to restrain trade, all the while calling themselves 'only a venue', then the public has the right to call that company to account for their actions. This is what class action suits and anti-trust laws are about.
eBay has grown rich and fat by using and abusing the system. Its time they be hoisted by their own petard.
posted on July 1, 2001 08:07:17 PM new
From dictionary.com
pe·tard (p-tärd)
n.
1. A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
2. A loud firecracker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pditum, from neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind. See pezd- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
[ edited by Crystalline_Sliver on Jul 1, 2001 08:08 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2001 09:35:08 PM new
amy - when a business is a public accomadation it has certain behaviors it must follow that are different from a private club or a fraternal organization.
Lunch counters may be owned by a private individual but we have pretty well established that you can't turn people away from your lunch counter for being black/italian ugly or fat.
posted on July 1, 2001 10:00:48 PM new
Hey, it's your time and your money
Did anyone read the article a couple weeks back, about some settlement for holocaust survivors and their families. Each of them would get something like $4,000......and the lawyers would get???????? $600,000 each. Got ta love'em!
posted on July 1, 2001 10:12:57 PM new
CS, thanks for that fascinating revelation. BTW, my Mom hates that word. She's pretty straight-laced. So I make sure my kids learn the four-letter words early on. Mom freaks when she hears her four-year old granddaughters say "Oh, damn it!"
If you're talking class action, get a lawyer and save yourself some headaches. The stuff you are talking about isn't actionable. But I do agree with Snakebait (?) about restraint of trade, etc.
. Internet Pioneers
posted on July 1, 2001 10:36:23 PM new
uh oh, the ugly threat of a class action rears its head. This is the first call for a class action I've seen this weekend against eBay.
posted on July 1, 2001 11:38:26 PM new
The type of actions that are being listed in the opening post do not come under civil rights laws.
A lunch counter can say "no bare feet allowed" and there is nothing wrong with that rule. The management of that lunch counter can make an exception to that rule for a favored customer if they so desire...doesn't mean the other customers can win a lawsuit against the lunch counter for not letting them be barefoot.
My question was...on what legal principle will this class action lawsuit hang its hat on? Meaning, what law has been broken?
It isn't civil rights (the black/italian angle).
Restraint of trade is an interesting theory...please give some examples of ebay's attempt at restraint of trade.
According to a recent thread, ebay has only 64% of online auction business...that leaves 36% of the auction business being conducted elsewhere. Although it is only my gut feeling, since I do not have the statistics to prove it, but I would be willing to bet that ebay's share is down from a year or two ago. A monopoly would be getting bigger not smaller.
Paypal claims to be bigger than billpoint, so ebay isn't restraining trade on that front. In fact, paypal's "preferred" program seems more like an attempt at restraint of trade, than the things ebay has done.
I may be wrong and ebay would get clobbered big time with a class action suit, which is why I asked what the foundation of this "lawsuit" would be.
