Tiffany Still Confused About How Liability Works; Appeals eBay Decision
from the let's-try-this-again dept
Last month a US court correctly pointed out that eBay was not liable for counterfeit products showing up on the auction site. That doesn't mean that it's legal to sell counterfeit products, just that eBay isn't liable for the counterfeits showing up there. Instead, it should be the person who actually lists the item that's liable. That makes perfect common sense. Except to Tiffany, apparently.The company is now appealing the ruling, making some bizarre arguments in its own defense:
"If one were a flea market operator and you become aware that counterfeiting is going on with the individual sellers at the flea market, you have a duty to investigate it. Why is eBay any different from that analogy?"Well, two things, actually. First, it's the individual seller in that situation that's liable, not the flea market operator, and much more importantly, eBay is quite different than a typical flea market in that it doesn't pre-vet any of the sellers. A traditional flea market involves the flea market operator finding sellers. eBay is just a platform where anyone can sell. That is, eBay has simply no knowledge of what anyone is selling on the site -- nor should it be required to. The law is pretty clear on this, so it's not at all clear what Tiffany thinks it's going to accomplish here other than to waste a lot of money on lawyers who seem to be giving the company really bad advice.
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: auctions, flea markets, liability, section 230
Companies: ebay, tiffany
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by MLS
You must like your food pre-chewed as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by MLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not what the lawsuit is about. eBay already does that -- when made aware of the counterfeits.
What Tiffany is claiming is that eBay should police those sales even if it's not made aware of counterfeits. In other words, Tiffany is saying that it's eBay's responsibility to make sure all goods sold are legit, even though eBay has no pre-screening process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
sry if double post: but the way i see it its just another form of safe harbour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, maybe something like one might not be such a bad idea, and not just to stave off lawsuits. Counterfeit goods and similar scams often only get reported after someone gets fleeced out of their cash, and fairly or unfairly, it reflects on eBay's reputation; becoming widely regarded as being overrun by scammers is going to cost them a lot of business. Going wholly by some of the comments on previous eBay-related articles, a purely reactive approach to enforcing their terms and conditions isn't cutting it any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's your point? It shouldn't need to be mandated by law; surely eBay must realise that a reputation for prolific scammers on their lists is costing them revenue?
Yeah, because the fleabay fees aren't high enough already, huh.
It wouldn't have to be that expensive; some sort of bot to look out for suspect ads and a few dozen interns to review the results would catch a lot of these scams before anyone got burned, and just as importantly would have great deterrent value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mall
According to http://www.bcrelinks.com/articles/lm2.htm the answer is "no" in most sane jurisdictions, unless the owner is involved in some way in the infringing business beyond just charging them rent; for example, actively aiding the concealment of infringing activity.
That hasn't stopped trademark holders from going after deep pocketed landlords, though, in a manner analogous to Tiffany suing eBay. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fleaBay
Based on that eBay has very little integrity to me. I wonder how many items are reported as suspect that still end up being sold and making eBay money. Perhaps more responsibility should be placed on eBay to police the commerce taking place on their site.
They're more akin to a pawn shop - people are using their store front to sell their goods, legit or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you ask me...
Regarding this issue, however - eBay, like any site, takes no liability for what its users post. As much as I'm not a fan, Tiffany is wrong, here. Even the flea market analogy made by Tiffany is wrong.
My mother and sisters like to go to flea markets to get great deals on "designer" handbags and clothing. Dolce and Gabbana bags for $5? They'll take 'em!
So, you see, flea market operators really don't care, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay dug their own hole
By doing so, they admitted that they were liable for those listings, or at least aware of them and their illegality. ...and chose to take some responsibility for policing the site against such listings. Then they began restricting what could and couldn't be listed in certain states and countries based on national and state laws...another step in implicating themselves in all future cases of illegal listings.
Then the restrictions came, as did the removal of listings, based on obviously counterfeit or fraudulent listings. Then came the restrictions and filters based solely on certain keywords (ie. Tiffany etc.) that prevented some sellers from even listing the items for sale on ebay.
ebay's ineffective, and often prejudicial, VERO program only adds to the acknowledgment by ebay that their site is used by criminals, counterfeiters, and copyright violators.
Knowing your site, property, business etc. is used as a place to conduct illegal activity may not in itself necessarily imply liability. But, eBay actions to try and prevent the crimes on the site certainly starts to imply that they are liable. Add the fact that ebay continues to make tens of millions of dollars from counterfeit listings, Paypal scams, and other rip-offs and suddenly they look a whole lot liable.
If ebay had maintained their self described "venue" status from the beginning, these lawsuits would have no traction. But eBay did not, instead they chose to try to regulate hundreds of millions of listings by tens of millions of sellers. ebay should lose every lawsuit like this for their sheer stupidity and complete lack of foresight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay dug their own hole
... but if they try to make their website a better place by at least filtering out the low hanging fruit of dodgy content, then they immediately become liable for anything else that slips through the net?
That's nonsense - there's no such thing as a perfect filter, so your approach would see every website operator turning a blind eye to any and all criminal activity occurring on their site.
A website operator shouldn't be liable for criminal activity being perpertrated by the site's users, but at the same time they shouldn't become liable the instant they try to curtail such activities!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ebay dug their own hole
A hands-off approach is basically what search engines do. ...and it is exactly why they are not liable for child pornography and why they don't get sued for enabling copyright and trademark infringements. Look at Google, the search is not liable for anything, yet Google is constantly being sued over their Adwords. Why? Because Google has rules in effect over what kind of links can be put into Adwords, but not what anyone can have on a particular website that might be spidered.
If ebay is unable to police their own site (even to the extent of their own rules / policies / contracts etc.) then they should be held liable for counterfeits and other fraud that results in economic gain for the company. That said, ebay probably shouldn't be liable for the portions of the site (blogs, Kijiji, forums etc.) where there is no profit made and where ebay is not actively acting as police, judge, and jury.
I agree that it isn't really ebay's fault that scammers and counterfeiters are selling things. I also agree that those responsible for listing those auctions should be prosecuted. But I also believe that ebay needs to be held responsible in some context for the fraud. If ebay were fined the exact amount or more that they make off of those fraudulent auctions, they would have incentive to actually police the site fully, but as it is right now, counterfeits that go unreported and unremoved from the site equals revenue for ebay. See the conflict of interest?
Finally - ebay has a very weak record of actually reporting violators to local or federal authorities. If they did so on a regular basis, their liability (or the hint thereof) would decrease and their reputation would improve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ebay dug their own hole
Why? eBay is merely providing the platform. The company itself is not selling the counterfeit goods. The only one liable for that would be the individuals selling the counterfeit goods.
Finally - ebay has a very weak record of actually reporting violators to local or federal authorities. If they did so on a regular basis, their liability (or the hint thereof) would decrease and their reputation would improve.
Actually, you should read the original decision in the case, where the judge detailed how much above and beyond eBay goes. The court was impressed that eBay goes well beyond what the law requires, and Tiffany is trying to force them to go even beyond that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay dug their own hole
Did you actually read the post? Yes, Ebay filters out counterfeit stuff when it's brought to their attention, as they are legally required to do. Tiffany's is trying to make Ebay liable for the counterfeiting before anybody reports it.
I'm just curious at this point. Do you think Ebay should refund the listing money, etc. to counterfeiters when they pull down their listings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay dug their own hole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ebay dug their own hole
The law doesn't say you're suddenly liable if you do some policing. That wouldn't make much sense.
ebay's ineffective, and often prejudicial, VERO program only adds to the acknowledgment by ebay that their site is used by criminals, counterfeiters, and copyright violators.
That still doesn't make them liable. Otherwise no one would ever try to help at all. That's the opposite of what the law is trying to do.
If ebay had maintained their self described "venue" status from the beginning, these lawsuits would have no traction. But eBay did not, instead they chose to try to regulate hundreds of millions of listings by tens of millions of sellers. ebay should lose every lawsuit like this for their sheer stupidity and complete lack of foresight.
Again, doing some work doesn't mean that you have to police everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robbed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that is one thing but when a seller sets up shop selling fakes that are "new" and genuine the burden of proof should be on eBay for allowing the listing. Same with the listing with the word "sterling" only silver stamped with the word "sterling" can be "sterling" and yet there are hundreds of listings that use the word as a keyword to draw in unsuspecting buyers. Buyer beware? Yes there should be a warning on eBay that it's a Sleaze mart. "Everything is fake unless proven otherwise". I think that's what Tiffany should be going after. I use Ebay and it's the biggest sleaze mart in the universe. Some good sellers and a bunch of crooks for the rest. You should see some of the stuff my mom buys because she does not understand most everyone selling on eBay are thieves in one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why is the burden on eBay, rather than the person doing the listing? That makes no sense. eBay is just the platform. Is the burden on the automaker if someone speeds? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
counterfeit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about CragisList? Newspapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tiff wants it like its California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay/Counterfits
PS: I keep selling off my webpage and through other sources. I would love to be back on Ebay but can survive without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need a volunteer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While Judge Sullivan brought up the famous Fonovisa flea market case, he distinguished it by emphasizing that the flea market owners could not only vet the merchants, but the actual goods, as well. eBay never comes into contact with any of the goods that are sold over its platform. This lack of control keeps eBay at arm's length from Fonovisa. As for its reputation among users, that's an issue for its internal management.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Likewise...file sharing sites are not committing copyright infringement, but many of their users are. I'm not saying file sharing sites should be liable for copyright infringement...but several judges have.
Actually, you should read the original decision in the case, where the judge detailed how much above and beyond eBay goes. The court was impressed that eBay goes well beyond what the law requires, and Tiffany is trying to force them to go even beyond that.
I've read your coverage of the case, and the "above and beyond" was referring to ebay's efforts to prevent, filter and remove counterfeit listings, correct? If ebay actually reported each counterfeiting violator (or at least repeat offenders) to the police/FBI, the perception of liability would disappear. But while it remains so easy to break the law (counterfeiting/copyright violations/other fraud) on ebay without getting caught, and while ebay continues to make millions from the criminals - the perception of liability will remain.
Hyperbolic analogy - If a nation knowingly allows Al-Qaeda groups to live and train within that nation's borders, receives huge tax payments or payoffs from Al-Qaeda, as well as benefits by having other economic benefits (ebay gets lots of traffic from counterfeit listings), but the country kicks out other tiny terror groups....does that mean it's OK to harbor Al-Qaeda?
...and should possible target states (we'll say Belgium, they just said ebay was not at liable in L'Oreal case) be responsible and required to invade a middle eastern terror harboring state to track down and eradicate the terrorists?
Anyway...the whole argument is sort of silly from both sides. Fact is that ebay is losing tons of potential revenue, lots of potential traffic, and getting a horrible reputation for itself because of the counterfeits and scams. Whether ebay is legally liable is debatable and not clear-cut, but the effects are pretty obvious - ebay benefits in the short term, but will suffer down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new file engine search!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]