eBay Has To Pay $63m Because A French Court Doesn't Know A Platform From A User
from the bad-ruling dept
A few weeks ago, we pointed out that a French court had made a very bad ruling, blaming eBay for actions of its users. The case involved the sale of counterfeit goods from LVMH. Rather than recognizing that eBay is just a platform and has no way of knowing whether products put up for sale by its users are legit or counterfeit, the court somehow ruled that eBay should know. Now the court has ruled on the fine, making eBay pay up $63 million for this exceptionally bad ruling. If you provide any sort of platform, a ruling like this should make you very, very afraid of doing any business in France. You can now be blamed and fined for the actions of your users. Update: As pointed out in the comments, this ruling is even more ridiculous than it at first appears. Apparently, eBay is even responsible for people selling legit versions of some products, because LVMH claims that no one is allowed to resell those goods without a reseller agreement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: counterfeiting, france, liability. platform, safe harbors, user
Companies: ebay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because it's LV
Basically, Louis Vuitton doesn't want anyone except authorized retailers selling their junk, so they will claim everything not sold by authorized retailers is counterfeit, whether true or not. And the French courts think that's just fine.
And I think the correct response is to never by anything made in France. And next time they're invaded, let them fend for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not a huge fan of eBay based on some of their practices, but if I were in their position, I would seriously be tempted to not pay and/or stop operations in France completely.
I guess thats why I'm a low level tech and not running a multinational corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
either way, that judge is a moron and i hope he gets dragged by a truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:French court rulling @Ebay
However, if you can supply a sensible reason why MS goods cost double over here than they do in the USA I will recant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:French court rulling @Ebay
However, if you can supply a sensible reason why MS goods cost double over here than they do in the USA I will recant."
Gee if that's all you have to complain about, count your blessings. Yea, software may be more, but try paying for health care & medicine here! You only have to buy a program once. Imagine buying it once a month?
The eBay thing by the French is just dumb. eBay does need to show some responsibility for knock offs. How they do that, I don't know. I do know that no matter what avenue they take, there will always be someone else or a court that rules that they should have done it differently or in a different way. Gee, that happens here in the US all the time. Businesses get suited because the 6ft fence they put up wasn't 7ft.
People get what they deserve. If you are buying a LV product off of eBay, YOU NEED TO ASSUME ITS COUNTERFEIT. Gee, a $1000 purse for only $29.95
Regardless of the country, all the courts are making decisions that are pointing the fingers elsewhere. Even if a corporation does take measures, there is always someone there arguing that they should have done something different. So instead of just issuing fines, how about actually doing something productive and ACTUALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEM??? I know this may be a novel idea, but why not develop a standard based on industry for selling online? LV doesn't need to waste time nor effort chasing down sellers, buyers who are too stupid to realize that the $29.99 handbag is actually not genuine will be protected, and companies like eBay will have a standard that THEY NEED to follow to avoid lawsuits.
Like the South Park episode, we are ALL quickly getting to the point where EVERYONE is suing EVERYONE.
Back to my hole I go..............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need I say more???
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373502,00.html
Perhaps they should return to placing more emphasis on their "Surrender Training".
They are much better at it and usually, fewer people get hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need I say more???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple and never problematic, then the ppl of France go to the complainers and beat them with a stick :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The suit was not only for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods, but also allowing the sale of AUTHENTIC goods:
"As for perfumer-plaintiffs Kenzo, Guerlain, Dior and Givenchy, the judge ruled that, even though the perfumes sold by eBay were legitimate, the company was liable for unauthorized sales. LVMH strictly limits their distribution to authorized dealers such as perfume chains and department stores."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chump change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay
Numb nutz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay
The only stupid comment is yours. It's nothing like cracking a bank card. It's more like suing General Motors because someone got run over by a drunk driver. Is General Motors and enabler of drunk driving?
numb nutz indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay
This is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay
Lawyers are one thing but for too long eBay has been able to hide behind the "we're a platform" B***S***. If the enabler (i.e. platform) is not policing these transactions, and the reputation is a scam, who else can do it? You, me, who?
Still a bunch of numb nutz on this rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay
I think you really should create yet another pointless ID to use for your pointless posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That country has some "reality" issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
european ebay lvmh ruling correct, ebay looks the other way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: european ebay lvmh ruling correct, ebay looks the other way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ? Me worry ?
So - have at it you greedy designer morons, drive another nail in your coffin. Soon no one will even remember that you existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with ruling......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with ruling......
And that's why AT&T is liable when you commit a crime over the phone. After all, AT&T made money from that user, right?
And it's why Dell is liable when you commit a crime via your computer. After all, Dell made money from that user, right?
Oh wait, that's totally ridiculous.
The fact that money was made has nothing to do with it. eBay has no reasonable way to know if the good is counterfeit or not. It is not the liable party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with ruling......
Any online selling platform of a reasonable size-let alone ebay,have TEAMS of experts to police counterfiets and fraudulent sellers.
They cant see everything so they rely on buyer reports and complaints.
Now this is where it gets difficult as in my experriences on ebay and one other local site,they ignore the reports of fake or counterfiet goods being sold because they make oddles of cashvfrom fees.
Effectively they are condoning the sale of these fake or counterfiet products.
Please correct me if im wrong but in the US that would be called conspiracy to defraudd and defrauding wouldnt it?.
and that is why the platform owner needs to be accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
By this logic, my landlord can be sued if I sell fake goods at my garage sale, right? He can be thrown in jail if there's a meth lab in my basement? Actually, let's take that one step further. Based on the logic presented by 'The whos', the city makes money from my property taxes, therefore they should be responsible for what I do on that land, right? If I break a federal law, they can go after the mayor, right? Oh, and the President's pay check comes straight out of my taxes too. So if I do anything wrong, you can just go after Bush.
Actually, that's not a bad idea....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
If you are paying taxes, but the contractor who is supposed to pick thrash is doing that then of course you should sue the mayor (or ur landlord if he had promised that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you owned a valuable brand?
If SOME fakes of your products were being traded on a site would you want to take action? Would you want to stop your products being traded on that site again whether real or fake?
Carp all you like about the headlines and spin being put on this judgement but it took a Court in an established free market economy and democracy (with a Legal history dating back many, many years) about two years to reach this verdict. Don't you think eBay employed some heavy duty Lawyers to argue their position? But yet this is NOT the first such judgement against eBay outside of the US.
Let's get a few things straight, eBay may claim the "venue" argument. If you are happy that claim should absolve you from all legal responsibility for the content of your website then try running a store on main street selling second user items on a commission basis. Now put lots of stolen items or fakes in the window with attractive prices on and see how long it is before you get a visitor asking questions. When you shout "but they're not mine" ask yourself why they are still putting the cuffs on you and look up the dictionary meaning of "fence" in the criminal sense.
eBay has long tried to divorce itself from any and all responsibility to police it's own site. While I can agree that not all fakes are easily recognised, eBay have long had an uncanny ability to ignore user reports about bad listings. Responsible behaviour?
Of course, if you just hate the French or hate big business then carp all you like. But that wont change Laws fortunately.
Copyright and IP Laws in the US are, in the main, similar to most European countries but there are some subtle differences. When European companies trade in the US they must play by US Law so I don't think it's unreasonable for eBay to play by the Laws of the land of the countries they choose to trade in. You cannot apply US Law in France. Would you expect Frech companies to be governed by French Law in the US?
Just recently eBay has been trying to foist a Paypal only policy on Australia. It is perhaps the most extreme anti-competitive behaviour possible and it is now on hold because it's tied up with Australian regulators. eBay wouldn't have had a hope in hell of getting that policy past US watchdogs and they wouldn't try - but it didn't stop them trying to do it in Australia where they probably thought they could get away with it.
In signing off I'd like to point out to sonofdot that the last time France was invaded by the Germans in 1940 the US did look the other way and allow them to fend for themselves and it wasn't until the very end of 1941, after Pearl Harbor, that the US came in to the War in Europe by which time the French had been occupied for nearly two years. The Brits did have forces in France when they were invaded by Germany and, being overwhlemed by numbers and suffering heavy losses, fought a rearguard action before evacuating back to England from Dunkirk.
Of course the US coming in to the European theatre in 1942 was a turning point for the War in Europe and any right minded European, including myself, has a humble sense of gratitude toward the US to this day.
But let's not use facts to spoil a good opinion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you owned a valuable brand?
Well, you have a great argument, but I'd like to make a couple counterpoints:
Yes, I'm sure e-bay had some great lawyers. I'm sure the opposition had some excellent ones themselves. In the end, though, the judge made a pretty poor decision. Sure, it took two years, but you don't seriously think two years of time were actually spent on the case, right? Generally, due to the large case load, these things get rather rushed. Each party has a time period measured sometimes in minutes to state their case. And when things are rushed, mistakes are made. Yes, e-bay is a horrible company. But this damages a lot more people and companies than just e-bay. And yes, I would expect a large company to do whatever possible to protect their bottom line, but that doesn't mean it's right.
And yes, Europe has different IP laws. So does that mean they can do no wrong? China has different laws too. So does that mean that just because it's legal under their law we shouldn't care about their speech restrictions and such?
Oh, and the difference between running a store on main street selling goods and e-bay is that e-bay doesn't and can't inspect everything sold there. With that store on main street not only would you easily be able to physically inspect everything that comes through, you'd have to at least glance over it in the process of selling it. Oh, and pricing it, putting on barcodes, etc. E-bay isn't a store, they're a service provider. You don't ship things to E-bay's warehouse and let them sell it for you. E-bay only provides tools that make selling things easier. That and a bit of drive space and bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you owned a valuable brand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you owned a valuable brand?
For example, before there was much innovation in a country, pirated goods were encouraged and this is seen repeated in history. For example, Britain forbid the movement of artisans to others countries at one time. Yet United States without any manufacturing industry encouraged the opposite knowing it is against the law of Britain. Now fast forward few hundred years, much of Eastern Europe and the United States became industrialized and wanted to have IP law to protect its own industry. These countries came together to established basic guidelines on IP by signing treaties during the Paris Convention and TRIPS.
My impression of verdict by the France court is that it sends out a bad message to the rest of the industrialized world.I, myself lives in the States and the IP law of U.S. tells me that if you sell legit goods, you are abiding under the I.P. law because once the seller sells the good to a buyer, the seller don't have a control over what the buyer do with the good and buyer can certainly resell the good he/she bought from LV for that matters. I just don't see where the court has the power or where in the French law that says you can't resell legit goods that you bought.
A nation will always be protected of her own industry but at least do it in a way that does not stir public outcry. Even in the U.S., the courts tends to favor its own industry. The U.S. government had been pushing for stronger IP aboard and had tried pushing it on developing and under developing countries so U.S. high tech industries can receive the same protection at home. This case is just another sign of the government looking out for their own interests but at the expense of a bad publicity and lost of respect in the eye of what law should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you owned a valuable brand?
I would make sure I continue to sell top notch products. What's wrong with that? What I would *not* do is accuse the wrong party of selling counterfeits. That's counterproductive and LOWERS the value of my goods.
If SOME fakes of your products were being traded on a site would you want to take action? Would you want to stop your products being traded on that site again whether real or fake?
Two points: First, I actually would not. Because the fact that someone wanted to fake my goods would be a huge vote of validation.
Second, though, if I somehow DID decide to go after the counterfeiters, I would go after the ACTUAL counterfeiters -- not the software they used to sell the goods.
Why is this concept so hard to understand? You're blaming phone company for the guy doing the crime.
Carp all you like about the headlines and spin being put on this judgement but it took a Court in an established free market economy and democracy (with a Legal history dating back many, many years) about two years to reach this verdict. Don't you think eBay employed some heavy duty Lawyers to argue their position? But yet this is NOT the first such judgement against eBay outside of the US.
Yes, France has a long history of ridiculous rulings along these lines. Still doesn't make them right.
Let's get a few things straight, eBay may claim the "venue" argument. If you are happy that claim should absolve you from all legal responsibility for the content of your website then try running a store on main street selling second user items on a commission basis. Now put lots of stolen items or fakes in the window with attractive prices on and see how long it is before you get a visitor asking questions. When you shout "but they're not mine" ask yourself why they are still putting the cuffs on you and look up the dictionary meaning of "fence" in the criminal sense.
First off, that's quite different, because the store owner chooses what is being sold and personally handles all of it.
It's a bad analogy.
eBay has long tried to divorce itself from any and all responsibility to police it's own site. While I can agree that not all fakes are easily recognised, eBay have long had an uncanny ability to ignore user reports about bad listings. Responsible behaviour?
Is it the responsibility of automakers to prevent people from speeding?
The only one doing any "divorcing" from "responsibility" is you: taking responsibility away from the actual sellers and putting it on eBay.
Of course, if you just hate the French or hate big business then carp all you like. But that wont change Laws fortunately.
Yeah, no one EVER changed a law by pointing out how it didn't make any sense at all... /sarcasm
Copyright and IP Laws in the US are, in the main, similar to most European countries but there are some subtle differences. When European companies trade in the US they must play by US Law so I don't think it's unreasonable for eBay to play by the Laws of the land of the countries they choose to trade in. You cannot apply US Law in France. Would you expect Frech companies to be governed by French Law in the US?
Indeed. But the point is that this French law does not make ANY sense whatsoever.
Just recently eBay has been trying to foist a Paypal only policy on Australia. It is perhaps the most extreme anti-competitive behaviour possible and it is now on hold because it's tied up with Australian regulators.
A totally different situation -- which we've been hard on eBay for. But just because they did something dumb in one location, doesn't mean that all their actions are bogus. Or is it too difficult to understasnd that?
But let's not use facts to spoil a good opinion....
Yes, of course, it seems that you have a lot of your facts wrong, so maybe you want to start again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you owned a valuable brand?
I mean that in the literal sense. eBay does not warehouse items, it enables sellers to sell their product to buyers. Do you even remotely have a clue HOW MUCH it would cost to police even 10% of their auctions, much less all of their auctions? Seriously, at some point in time you have to stop drinking the fucking kool-aid and say, this law is stupid.
I'll say it again, if you think this actually makes sense, you are an idiot. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder both, can see that this is a stupid ruling, (which potentially could snowball into even more idiotcracy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give em a dose of their own medicine
In Aus, eBay are tyring to force people into only accepting PayPal as a method of payment because it will "make transactions more secure". The real reason is so that they can make a lot more money. Probably an extra $60m a year.
A dose of their own medicine might serve them right for being so money hungry, monopilistic and arrogant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
In Europe we have a long established business method (legally protected) that allows manufacturers to appoint exclusive distributors of their products. LVMH is one such company that sells via approved distributors. eBay is NOT an approved distributor and the Court has acknowledged that eBay therefore cannot sell LVMH items on its website (regardless of where the item comes from).
This does not stop individuals from excercising the 1st sale doctrine under copyright Law. Individuals can sell any genuine LVMH item they own but eBay cannot act as an "agent" to sell them. Seem wrong to you? Then tell Ford and General Motors for example who make use of such "aproved distributor" arrangements to sell cars in Europe and are protected the same way.
I appreciate individuals here may think the world is flat and there's really nothing outside the US but big corporations shouldn't be trading in countries when they don't understand or respect the Laws of those countries. That is simply poor management.
The good news about the legal differences between us? Come over to the UK and have a beer in a bar when you're 18!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
And let's see, eBay is an agent? No, eBay is a platform provider (like the phone company), otherwise by extension, Microsoft and Dell are guilty too, because they're "agents," not providers of a platform (plate-forme, for you frogs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think its great that France did something about both the counterfeit and gray market merchandise.
Now, if only someone wou;d do something about all the stolen merchandise that is fenced over eBay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I assume you blame AOL every time you get a piece of spam?
Why not blame whoever is actually responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay
This is part of a big worldwide picture whereby IP law provides the last possible link of big corporations to their profits. They no longer have any connection with those who produce (i.e. 'what's good for GE is good for America' is over - the jobs are gone and they aren't coming back). The fakes are made by the same people who make the real products, while the 'brand owner' does nothing but buy the brand from someone who may at one time have had control over production. Anything that threatens that final link will be bashed by increasingly compliant courts. Bashing France may make you feel better but the trend started in the US. Europeans frightened of their declining role in the world merely jumped on board. Increasing criminalization of even minor acts of 'infringement' combined with declining privacy is the big threat to us all. Don't waste your precious energy playing superior to France. Wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You produced the above comment and now you are responsible for the way in which I use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All part of the modern eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing business in Europe
Take this choice soundbyte from the EBay side;
"Today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday."
Quite aside from the buzzword bingo ('empowers'? Haven't heard that one in a while) the sheer stupidity of this comment is quite astounding. The entire French establishment is all about protecting uncompetitive commercial practices, because frankly the French don't care much for capitalism, which is something Americans have a hard time dealing with. And if that is the best that EBay can come up with, then they shouldn't be doing business there in the first place.
I worked for credit-card acquiring company that got stung for processing French-issued cards without being a member of the French card associations (which was a closed shop and not open to new members). Unlike EBay, we didn't bang our heads against the establishment wall, we just adapted and processed all extremely profitable the NON-French cards, thanks very much, and left the small-scale domestic rubbish to the French.
Mike, please don't go rubbishing other people's judicial systems from your very American-business-school view point. The Napoleonic code is completely differen to US/UK common law, and while it might not be your system, 64,473,140 French people can't be all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doing business in Europe
Actually, I think the quote is remarkably accurate. What's incorrect about it?
The entire French establishment is all about protecting uncompetitive commercial practices, because frankly the French don't care much for capitalism, which is something Americans have a hard time dealing with. And if that is the best that EBay can come up with, then they shouldn't be doing business there in the first place.
What's wrong with pointing out how these laws hurt consumers?
Mike, please don't go rubbishing other people's judicial systems from your very American-business-school view point.
Why not? If those judicial systems are WRONG and are blaming the wrong company, hurting both companies and consumers, then it makes absolute sense to rubbish them. They deserve it.
What I don't accept is the idea that "well, those are France's laws, so live with it." If those laws are bad and dangerous and lead to bad outcomes, it's your *responsibility* to speak up about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doing business in Europe
Today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday
It's not accurate at all - it's the French state protecting uncompetitive practises by their native industries. By blaming LVMH directly, this spokesperson is spinning madly.
I guess the thrust of my post was that if one's doing business in France (or anywhere else), one needs to be very aware of the local laws and customs, daft or otherwise.
An ex-employer of mine does business in France in a very closed business sector (closed to non-French companies, that is). In the first year, they got stung legally, had a rethink, re-did their business plan for France, and when I left had garnered a significant portion of their market and were making a fortune there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lot of agitation here...but...
I think that ebay is lucky with this fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay.fr != French Company
But France, apparently, does. They get to decide how an American company conducts its business. France gets to fine eBay when FRENCH citizens violate FRENCH laws while conducting business in AMERICA. Explain to me how that isn't imposing your laws over other countries?
If France doesn't want counterfeit goods coming in to their country, they should go after the shipping companies that deal with the transport, or the individual users on eBay.
And lets not forget: they're not just talking "counterfeit" goods - if I inherited a LV bag and had no interest in using it, I am not allowed to sell it at auction in France.
So I guess I'm confused here why it would be extending US laws unfairly to allow, but isn't extending French laws unfairly to forbid and fine heavily.
Again: it is not the responsibility of any other platform to police it's users - that's the job of the POLICE. If you think French citizens are breaking French laws (in buying or selling), go after them. Not the bulletin board they posted it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French Term
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply stop doing business in France.
The fact of the matter is, there is _no_ practical way for them to determine which products are legitimate, and which are not, or which products the seller has a "right" to sell, and which they do not.
None of the people who support this ruling have given any ideas. The only solution to comply with this law would be to completely disallow the sale of items by a certain company as soon as a complaint is received.
That would make Ebay France not worth using for the French citizens, and they'd be forced back into the expensive stores to buy 1st hand merchandise rather than quality used stuff.
Which is exactly what the French corporations want, incidentally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NetChoice chimes in
With the ruling in the Tiffany v. eBay case in the Federal District Court in NY imminent, there is the risk of the same anti-competitive behavior coming to our shores.
I work with NetChoice, the DC-based advocacy organization that fights for choice, competition, and innovation on the Net. Their take on the ruling and its implications for ecommerce are here: http://blog.netchoice.org/2008/07/french-court-er.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: A French Court Doesn't Know A Platform From A User
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General ebay discussion
1. I agree with those who say that e-bay should just not do business in France; France gets to make/enforce the laws that they want to, and it isn't our's to determine if that is right - French citizens need to make that determination. They are more a socialist than a capitalist environment, and that requires different laws.
2. In the US, once the original manufacturer has sold a product, they do not have any claim to any resale. Don't know about other countries, but that makes it clear that products can be resold by their owners. Period.
3. Classified ads in newspapers have done this for years; e-bay and cheap (well not so cheap shipping now with fueld prices) shipping work together to provide a broader reach for the products. If you want to see a product first, you do not have to buy from e-bay - go to the local consignment shop, antique store, flea market or garage sale. You have a choice.
4. All of the above provide a source of goods for people who want to "get a bargain". Getting a bargain doesn't usually entail getting a very expensive brand name item in demand for a low demand price. Buyer beware, it simply makes sense.
5. 10 years ago or so I was introduced to a handbag purveyor in HongKong who had a "back door" - I bought, for $85 a knockoff Chanel handbag - this guy has since been shut down, I think, but my understanding was that he was the manufacturer's rep - the manufacturer took left over materials and made knockoffs - so my bag had one year's material, another year's style, another year's chain, etc - a Chanel knowledgeable person pointed out the differences to me. All I know is that I could never pay $1500 and up for a handbag, and so I was thrilled to have my knockoff - even if it didn't "fool" anyone. Two key things to consider here - Chanel should institute controls on their materials, and monitor destruction of second quality or unused materials (probably not worth the cost) - and second, Chanel did not lose a customer, or money, but gained "advertising" - if I can ever afford a Chanel bag, a real Chanel bag, I would buy one!!!
6. Given the ever growing concerns about data privacy and security around credit cards, and the very expensive laws and regulations relating to credit card processors and retailers, offering PayPal only seems to be to be a good business decision. It is more secure, because it limits the transmission of your personal data, and there are fewer places to search if your data is compromised. But I can understand if no other choice feels like pressure.
7. I never understand the rationale of people who write in to be vulgar or nasty about others - whether toward individuals or countries. France has brought a lot of positive beautiful things to the world - take what you need and leave the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay was really stupid.
Had Ebay reacted QUICKLY, this would not have happened. Right now, at least one store is selling "Genuine Coach Purses" with a wide range of styles...for about $15.
Clearly a fraud. And yet, Ebay does not respond to remove such items in a timely manner, at all, and makes it very hard to even REPORT the fraud.
Sorry, but Ebay deserves every bit of a financial slap it gets from this. Fraud report needs to be easier, false fraud reporting should have resulted in a fine, and they could have avoided this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poor eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Ruling
sites being sued for enabling illegal file sharing ? How about gun manufacturers being sued for enabling murderers.
What country has hosted these nefarious lawsuits ? While I am
no great fan of the French, one has to look no further than ones own back yard to see that big pockets make the best targets. Thats international thinking !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay accountability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay accountability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, they did know
eBay will not ban fake items unless sued. Take SanDisk memory cards for example. They sell on eBay for about 20% less than local stores - that's about a $10 savings.
The problem is - 90% of all SanDisk cards are fake. I found out after ordering one - it was a poorly made knock-off, with no memory - just an empty shell!
I complained to eBay. I found out after emailing other buyers that they had already complained to eBay - some several weeks later. eBay has over 100 counterfeit complaints against one seller - but they will not ban him. They want a court order!!!
So, yes, eBay should be sued and sued often. They should be liable for any losses after they were informed that the seller was sending fakes. SanDisk verified it was a fake - they contacted eBay. Then sent me proof - eBay refused to accept it from me.
Why won't they close these crooks down? Simple. eBay makes arond $30million a year on these counterfeit sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this
I gave 3 times reported an indian seller for listing ""red anenturine" as jade.
Firstly there is no such stone as"anenturine ".
secondly there are only 2 types of jade-nephrite and jadeite,everything else is fake.some of the fakes are dam fine stone in thier own right and also commercially expensive material,some more than jade,but still mot jade-and ebay wonrvremive the lusting(quite a few hundred in 3 months)
if ebay was SEEN to be proactive in policing ALL fakes,especially when repoeted they may not have been fined at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoever wrote this article is ridiculous and incompetent. Of course Ebay is definitely responsible and yes platforms should be held accountable because they do nothing to enforce counterfeits as they say they do. eBay just turns the blind eye playing stupid anytime a counterfeit is reported.
eBay constantly lies saying they Will remove the fraudulent seller and fraudulent item, but meanwhile they never get taken down and remain on the site even after being reported and confirmed by eBay that the particular seller are selling fakes. eBay continues to make $1.6 billion in counterfeit items and statistically 40% Of items on ebay are fake.
It Is time that platforms such as, eBay do not stand behind loophole lies saying they are just a platform putting buyers and sellers together which they cannot do anything to Enforce counterfeits is complete nonsense!
Any individual can literally go through eBay and within an hour pick out thousands and thousands of fake listings report them and still nothing is done and at the same time you have to report each individual fake listing a fraudulent seller has instead of just reporting the fraudulent seller making it even more tedious for consumers to have to police something that Ebay should be doing a million times better!
It’s some lame excuse so Ebay could continue to make billions of dollars on fake counterfeit items and use the excuse it’s not our fault. It’s the buyers and sellers fault which is total nonsense... It is Ebay‘s fault for having a platform that has no concern for removing FAKES since they are collecting 1.6 billion from counterfeit items...
They need to be held accountable because many sellers are not removed after eBay even confirms that seller is selling FAKES!
That is why Ebay should be held accountable because they hide behind some law saying they are not responsible when clearly they know after they acknowledge that particular item reported is fake, but meanwhile still leave it on their website is ridiculous!
Things will change Ebay! You will be shut down by governments like TRUMP wants to! You deserve to be shut down eBay until you comply with NOT SELLING FAKES!
I HAVE GREAT IDEAS TO GET ALL FAKES OFF Platforms like eBay, but when a company is making billions of dollars on fake counterfeits and no law or a government telling them not to stop selling or collecting money on counterfeit items is the problem!
Ebay are the biggest legal crooks in the world!!!!! EBAY CEO I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL AND CHAINED FOR ETERNITY! You deserve the worst in LIFE; COUNTERFEIT SCUMBAGS!
I am so happy that eBay was fined 63 million and heres hoping to many more lawsuits on Black HEARTED eBay that doesnt care at all to stop FAKES!
PLATFORMS YOU CANT HIDE ANY LONGER BEHIND LOOPHOLE LAWS and you WILL BE SHUT DOWN BY GOVERNMENT... THE PLATFORMS ARE RESPONSIBLE and they can do MORE!!
STOP LYING TO YOURSELVES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Governments meed to shutdown eBay Until a real plan to battle counterfeits is in place.. ebay is too greedy to change their loophole law tactics! SCREW LARGE CORRUPT CORPORATIONS LOBBYING TO BENEFIT ONLY THEM AND SCREW THEIR CUSTOMERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]