eBay Tells Judge It Doesn't Sell the Items on Its Site

by: COVID-19

Aah. The ol' "We are just a venue" defense. eBay loves to trot out that one.

by: COVID-19

eBay's very own stupid AI says that there are no problems whenever people try to report items that are illegal (counterfeits, intellectual property violations, etc.) Clearly eBay doesn't care.

by: Rexford

Many of you may recall the many times that I have stated "eBay is only "just a venue" when they are in court.

So if an eBay bot can take down a legitimate listing why can't a bot take down a listing that has terms like "pesticides" and "emissions"?

Examples of eBay's control on their marketplace: Vero, Managed Payments, User Agreements (that are constantly updated to eBay's advantage), taking a percentage of sellers' shipping, giving buyers refunds out of sellers' pockets when cases are filed with no recourse for the sellers, controlling which items are seen, hiding items, hiding item descriptions, booting sellers off the site with no explanation, seller metrics which are another means of throttling sellers, payment holds, throttling sales, sales caps....shall I go on?

eBay sound like Facebook and Twitter executives in court, not wanting to take any responsibility for their platform.  Just another opportunity for eBay to throw their sellers under the bus.

by: toolguy

When I collected the money "I" sold the item.

I'm just a consignee, consignor and carrier for eBay!

eBay wanted to wear the pants in "MY" store so be it. . .

by: toolguy

Facebooks going to take the same stance for fake stamps and silver coins.

We don't sell them!

But they do collect a fee on the "Sponsored" ad. . .

by: Snapped

“… at what point does it bear legal responsibility for the items sold on its platform?”

The moment, and thereafter eBay unilaterally decided what NOT to make visible from listings submitted, they bore responsibility for everything they did and do show and facilitate any sale for, no matter who holds legal title to it.  

Next thing ya know, eBay’s going to start claiming buyers are not their customers either.

by: ebayout

''Knowingly complicit'' should carry some weight.

by: RL15

when someone uses a credit card to buy a item off of the cesspool the credit card bill shows the cesspool as the merchant.

when a seller buys UPS or Fedex shipping from the cesspool, item gets lost, shipper can not file a claim as the cesspool is the shipper of record.

just a venue, not at all.

time for the walmart dope to get out his magic wand....poof..
more magical innovations..

by: pace306

eBay is trying to "burn the candle at both ends" - and I'll be very surprised if it works.

eBay (being the Mafia organization that it is) has total control over every single aspect of the site - and has worked hard to make it that way ON PURPOSE, so to come back and say "we arent responsible since we dont actually make the sale" is BS.

Did you tell the "seller" how big the picture could be?
Did you suggest that he/she pay %25 more to get MORE visibility?
Did you tell the seller what their returns policy MUST be?
Did you run the buyers card THROUGH YOUR SYSTEM or the sellers?
Did you/were you going to pay the taxes on those sales?
Do you allow the VERO division of your company to file false DMCA and/or Trademark complaints?
Do you allow listings that sate "REPRODUCTION" in them to run, even though you knew they violated DMCA?

eBay has a LONG history of playing fast and loose with the facts and how things work on it site not to mention (2) other judgements against them.

If the US Attorneys Office is reading this - please ask ecommercebytes for my contact info - Im MORE then happy to help your case in EVERY/ANY way I can.



"'m just a consignee, consignor and carrier for eBay!" - geez ... no comment

by: my2cents

Try looking at this a different way.  If there ends up being a ruling by the court system that Ebay is not protected by the Section 230, what that would mean to selling on line ANYWHERE.  

I get it many here don't like Ebay and that is fine, you have the right to your opinion.  But rooting against Ebay on this will likely backfire on all internet sellers that use a site similar to Ebay.

It would mean more rules, stricter rules, more hoops to jump through, lots of seller losing their ability to sell on line at all and so much more.

You think Ebay is too involved in your business on their site, it would get worse as they would have no choice.  Other sites would follow because they could have the same issues legally at some point.

Talk about making a seller's life miserable.    

by: None Such

I can understand eBay’s concern.  Then again, their defense became shaky when they start finding ways to increase fee revenue from sellers through advertising fees, promoted listing fees, fees on shipping, fees on payment, etc.  If they just charged a flat fee on sales, like ecrater, i would more readily believe that it is “just a venue”.  But they don’t.  They are involved in so many ways in transactions, including manipulating search and ad placement to pit sellers against each other, etc.  Can’t have it both ways.  

by: Snapped

“ It would mean more rules, stricter rules, more hoops to jump through, lots of seller losing their ability to sell on line at all and so much more.”

That’s the same old tired argument eBay trots out every time eBay faces some question of process or potential application of restriction that would hurt them worse than any seller.  eBay ‘concern’.  Right.

Except of course, those sellers who already shouldn’t be selling what ever the object of concern du jour is in focus at the moment.  Who eBay turns a ‘not my responsibility’ blind eye to.  Or those already engaged in counterfeiting, or import export violations.  And if those sellers become ‘hamstrung’ because of anything eBay actually HAS to impose and enforce, how is that a bad thing?

Concerned about false accusation - worse than such already occurs?  Concerned about prohibitions and ‘more hoops’ - than what already occurs for NO good reason?  History and fact has shown eBay doesn’t need a reason, law, or outside compulsion to “make a seller’s life miserable”.  In fact, they don’t even need facts to apply.  What’s worse than that?

Sellers should be concerned anyway - more over, also educated about and adherent to - selling restrictions imposed by legal authority.  

It’s not a matter of who to “root” for here.  This isn’t a contest.  Either eBay is not the seller,  or they ARE.  If they are not, then they have no right to impose the level of control over a sale they do, albeit retaining responsibility for content regarding legal prohibitions.  

And if they ARE, then they need to face the music when it’s being played to march them to account for THEIR violations.  And if that makes everyone adhere to ‘rules’ and jump through ‘hoops’, those would apply whether one sold via eBay or anywhere else.

This isn’t any ‘user’s’ argument to make in the end.  It’s eBay’s.  And trotting out any ‘defense’ intended to stoke fear and anxiety (where once again none applies) is the wrong way to make it.

by: windsorbear

In my humble opinion, eBay became the seller as soon as they started controlling the money!!!  We, what used to be the sellers, are nothing more than eBay's SUPPLIERS now.

by: David Steiner

@my2cents - "Try looking at this a different way.  If there ends up being a ruling by the court system that Ebay is not protected by the Section 230, what that would mean to selling on line ANYWHERE."

To add to what my2cents posted, Section 230 also allows sites - such as this one - certain immunities in regards to speech on their platforms. If 230 were to be struck down, I can't imagine any content-producing site would continue to allow user-generated comments. That would likely mean the end of online community forums, since the risk of being held responsible for someone's remarks would be too high.

The argument the government is making is that Section 230 doesn't apply in this case because eBay facilitates most of the transaction, except for providing the product.  

by: AddyUp

eBay needs to make up its collective AI mind.

Does it still regard buyers as its customers or not?

by: Snapped

“ If 230 were to be struck down,…”

Possibly.  But it can’t stand as a blanket to cover eBay’s cop-out here, as much as it just might this time.  Perhaps ‘rewritten’ would be a better outcome, if it’s not clear enough.  Speech, to include presentations, can have utilities divorced from responsibilities pertaining to 1st amendment protections. Even unto that butting up to executing malfeasance, insofar as any ‘carrier pigeon’ is protected.

So the language could be stated to retain protection from liability for the ‘statement’ (e.g., listing), while exempting protection from any claim or accusation pertaining to unlawfully facilitating anything related to it.  

And last I checked, eBay nor anyone else needs any excuse to censor their own forums, eh?

Anyway, the government’s case pertains to the illegality of the sale itself.  A sale that eBay at the very least unilaterally accomplished most of what is required to facilitate it without curtailing it, as they have claimed to be within their power and perview, either way.  Who holds ‘title’ and when is not relevant, which is likely why the government didn’t mention it.  And so, 230 wouldn’t seem to apply if they’re not holding eBay responsible for the ‘listing’ itself…

by: Jono77

A fine of 65 million is no deterrent for a company that turns over 2.7 billion. It's like me paying a $10 fine. Totally useless.

by: ebayout

eBay has put itself in a position to force sellers to take back merchandise.
That goes beyond their being a mere conduit.  

by: my2cents

Thank you David for the additional information.

by: my2cents

@windsorbear

"In my humble opinion, eBay became the seller as soon as they started controlling the money!!!  We, what used to be the sellers, are nothing more than eBay's SUPPLIERS now."

So continuing with that point of view, that would mean when PayPal was our money processor, PP was the seller?  FYI, Ebay controlled much of what PP did with the funds from Ebay sellers.  Just askin.