Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
from the oh-come-on dept
It seems you can find people to file a class action lawsuit against just about any crazy thing these days. The latest, as pointed out by Eric Goldman (with the complaint embedded below), is someone filing a class action lawsuit against eBay claiming all sorts of violations for the way eBay's auction system has always worked. Here's the basic issue. eBay developed a rather clever system back when it launched to handle bidding. You don't just put in your next bid -- you put in what's supposed to be the maximum you're willing to bid on an item. But the auction system itself always goes for the highest bidder's lowest increment above the second highest bidder. If that sounds confusing, let's take the language from eBay's own site, and quoted in the lawsuit:- The current bid for an item is $10.00. Tom is the high bidder, and has placed a maximum bid of $12.00 on the item. His maximum bid is kept confidential from other members.
- Laura views the item and places a maximum bid of $15.00. Laura becomes the high bidder.
- Tom’s bid is incremented to his maximum of $12.00. Laura’s bid is now $12.50.
- We send Tom an email that he has been outbid. If he doesn’t raise his maximum bid, Laura wins the item.
Well, according to the lawsuit, this all seems to be a conspiracy to defraud the seller of the full $15 that Laura bid. The fact that she only pays $12.50 is apparently due to eBay failing to "act neutrally" and instead "inject[ing] itself into the transaction by intercepting the bid aamount [sic] before it is received by the seller." Seriously.
Once again, this is how eBay has worked forever, and it's pretty clearly explained on the site. It's a business model choice that makes plenty of sense. It's not some breach of contract, or "tortious interference" or "unfair competition" or "unjust enrichment." It's just a business model. In fact, if eBay were really being nefarious, wouldn't it set things up the other way? After all, since eBay gets fees as a percentage of the sale price, if the company were really being sneaky, it would try to force everyone to pay the higher bid. If anything, it seems like eBay's structure is designed to help people, not to unjustly enrich itself...
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, automatic bidding, business models, class action
Companies: ebay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Where's the common sense
You go to a traditional auction house because you've seen an item you're interested in. You go to the auction with a predetermined maximum anount of money you're willing to spend on that item. As the bidding starts, you don't bid that maximum amount right away, you bid the minimum possible and only increase it when someone else has out bid you. If things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you have set as your maximum bid for that item.
Here's another example, you participate in an auction over the phone, speaking on the phone with a representative from the auction house. You start bidding on an item and tell the person on the other end of the phone, who is submitting your bids for you, that you don't want to bid more than a certain amount for this item, but you tell the person to keep bidding for you as long as the current bid is below that maximum amount. Again, if things work out in your favor, you've purchased the item for much less than what you had set your maximum bid to.
It seems to me that this is exactly what ebay is doing. When in an auction house, the seller has no idea what I have set my maximum bid to, so when I purchase the item for less than my maximum the seller is none the wiser that I was willing to spend more than I actually did. Just because ebay provides a means to set your maximum, it in no way suggests that this amount is the actual bid. The actual bid is the increment set for the auction above the previous bid.
Hopefully the judge will have the common sense to see right through this and dismiss the case right away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's the common sense
Furthermore, although I have not read the entire suit brought against eBay I have read enough and I am in an agreement with the plaintiff it is obvious there is a conflict of interest and has merit on all accounts but one. Nevertheless, it is not something I would bring a suit against because I in fact like the auto-bidding system.
Therefore, I will reinstate I my self would like the automatic bidding system more once the flaws have been removed. The only issues I have with this suit is that it does not address the issue of with the so-called confidential bid system which can easily be exposed to and by anyone that wishes to abuse the bid retraction system and this suit does address this but to the contrary.
In conclusion since this suit is a class action one person does not stand to gain millions that money will be divide amongst the potentially millions of people that have or may have used eBay and suffered some kind of harm if proven as the suit stated.
Again, I apologize to all and I will keep my idiot mouth shut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's the common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's the common sense
Unfortunately, you have proven you are simply too weak-minded and rather get personal than to keep it on the subject matter therefore this subject between you and I, is mute. Anyhow, I thank you for directing it at me, which it affords the opportunity to continue my point.
First and foremost in the opening commentary it also spoke of confidential bidding this is false there is no such thing on eBay and by people believing this is true are heading into a false since of security because anyone can expose your highest bid amount at will simply by over bidding.
Example 1: The start bid is set at $19.99 and you bid $100, you are the first and only bidder at this time and your bid becomes $19.99 by the eBays so called concealed bidding stair stepping process. Subsequently someone else comes along and intentionally bids $250 instead of $25 with the intent to retract under the right laid forth by eBay policy to retract a bid if an error has been made.
This not only allows the second bidder the opportunity to learn your maximum bid amount this could also allow this person to cause you harm regardless if you are willing to bid $100 dollars or not example as follows:
Example 2, this person learned your high bid amount because theirs become $101 discovering your bid of $100. Subsequently this person learns your highest bid and realizes it is more than they are willing pay, they then retract the bid and place a new bid at $99 dollars sticking you with your highest bid amount (no harm no foul right? “WRONG!”) At this point, you must understand this does not matter if you were willing to bid $100 or not a harm (aka a tort or a tortious act) has been committed against you. When ideally if this so-called concealed bidding were to work as intended your chance to get the item at a lesser amount has just been stolen from you even though this is in contrary to the fact it would make the plaintiff/eBay seller in this suit very happy nevertheless it is wrong.
Example 3, other harms can be caused to the honest seller because it could place them under question as shill bidding may be taking place when in fact the seller is innocent because this person is working on their own trying to gain unfair advantage over thee other bidders/buyers.
In conclusion, I know my point is in conflict with one of the plaintiffs allegation in fact the only one I am in disagreement with as mentioned in one of my earlier postings. Although, I did not go into detail on it at that time because I was waiting for a fish to take my bait and thrash me which I chuckle here because I hooked one so easily.
Either way one of the complaints this person alleges in the suit is that, they are being deprived of your highest bid when they as the seller can simply place a start bid at a minimum they are willing to accept and anything above it is a hell yes! For that reason, in my opinion I do believe no matter the arrangement, this one point would be ruled against.
With that said be forewarned; “PEOPLE” never place your highest bid until the end and hope to snipe it. Additionally always, check the bidders/buyers history you are up against and be sure to check for retraction bids before placing a bid in the first place that way it will allow you to be on guard and bid wisely.
The bad part about me exposing this different kind of shill bidding taking place and for everyone reading this leaves each of you with an ethical dilemma. 1. Do you use this info to protect yourselves, or 2. Cause harm, or 3. Gain unfair advantage to win the item you want.
Take care, I am junkmanbilly and that was my nickels worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FleaBay
Just a shame eBay has not been sued for valid reasons and I can sure name a few examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FleaBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FleaBay
But I wont.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FleaBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line is this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Hit 'Sell' in top right bar.
Hit 'User Agreement' near the bottom of the login page.
Went down to the section 'Fees and Services' and actually read it.
Followed the link for 'Fees Schedule' offered there: http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/fees.html
The entire process from start to finish took considerably less time than composing this message but far be it from me to accuse you of a lack of effort and bitching about your own ignorance after the fact as if that was somehow someone else's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You linked right to it, Dude
The sale percentage fee is right on the page that you linked to. They call them "Final value" fees and the price is different depending on how much the item sold for and whether it was an auction or a fix-price sale. It's right in the fee schedule on the page you linked (bold below):
Insertion fees for auction-style format listings
Final value fees for auction-style format listings
Insertion fees for fixed price format listings
Final value fees for fixed price format listings
Business and Industrial equipment fees
Optional feature fees
Reserve price fees
Buy It Now fees
Listing upgrade fees
eBay picture hosting fees
Seller tool fees
Half.com fees
Other terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't read, can I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
There is no way in hell those fees aren't spelled out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Maybe you should have read ALL the words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These people probably want something like that to occur, where someone doubles the previous bid at the last second and writes them a check on the spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motive!
I'm betting it is only being brought on the hopes eBay will pay to make it go away...
So, nothing more than a cash grab--trying for the vaunted "out of court settlement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drain...
I have sold MANY, MANY things on eBay. I know how it works. I APPRECIATE how it works. I see no issue with the way it works. It really is no different than me telling an agent at an auction my maximum bid and allowing him to slowly increment it.
This happens ALL THE TIME in the art world and at other high end auctions. The fact that some backwards idiot doesn't like it is now causing eBay to defend itself, which means they have to spend money... which eventually means they'll end up raising fees to compensate for having to defend themselves against frivilous lawsuits with no merit.
Thanks idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is ebay's model any different than a 'book' bid?
http://esty.ancients.info/numis/auction.htm
I think these people are going to have a hard time explaining to a judge (or a jury) how Ebay's system is any different than a book bid (which has been used in traditional auctions for many, many years).
Even if it was some new thing (as opposed to a tweak to a very old model), I fail to see where it's Ebay interfering in anything - Ebay makes sure everyone obeys the pre-stated rules.
If the rules were different, the bidders wouldn't put up large bids anyway. Instead it would end up resembling the silent auction at my local farmer's market - where you DON'T get maximum price because people have to come back to bid it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is NOTHING wrong with proxy voting.
Look at it this way:
I'm selling a rare Leonardo da Vinci sculpture.
The CIA wants it so they send an agent to do their bidding, and tell that agent he can only bid a maximum of $12.
The Vatican wants it so they send a nun to do their bidding, and tell the nun she can only bid $15.
If mister CIA agent doesn't go over $12, why would misses Vatican nun bid more than $12.50
The only difference is with eBay, the CIA agent and the Vatican nun are electronic so the President and the Pope don't have to sit there all day bidding themselves.
What this/these clown(s) want if for everyone to be a Mayflower and just keep upping the bid to outbid themselves until the reach the magic number.
Fine, I reserve the right to blow up the auction and sing a little song
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second-price auction
The major advantage of second-price auctions is that they encourage a bidder to bid their "true valuation" of a product. I.e. if I am willing to pay $20, I have motivation to insert that as my bid.
A first-price auction, on the other hand, makes it so the bidder has motivation only to bid minimally above the person below them.
It's a classic game theory problem and the second-price auction is better for both the buyer (no sniping required) and the seller (again, no sniping)
TL;DR, this is a stupid lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Second-price auction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Second-price auction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Second-price auction
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Second-price auction
Was more truth ever spoken?
Intended meaning is derived from words taken in context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Second-price auction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about...
I agree that they were upfront from the get-go about how their auctions work. I also don't use them much. Bought a few items in the early days, but have not really gone there much lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
Isn't this the whole point of an auction, compel people to bid? That is why it is called bidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
But what's mystifying about eBay (to me anyway) is why most people don't just set the max they're willing to pay, and leave it. Apparently virtually all auctions are won by sniping now, so I can't even tell by entering a bid if I'm going to win. The "99 cent" current bids on almost everything, and even the higher bids on some items, are meaningless, because they're just going to get sniped at some unknown higher price.
I would probably use eBay more if everyone just entered bids and left it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
I don't agree. If everyone bid their max immediately, I could see which auctions are still in my budget and which ones are already more than I want to bid, as well as take some guesses. For example one that's close to my max and still has a week to go probably isn't worth the time to bid on it. As it is now, the price might as well be listed as "?". I have no idea how much someone is planning to bid on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
I have a lot of free time, so I just bid the minimum amount to qualify for one of the sets. If I get outbid, I bid again. Y'know. Like an auction. Amazing, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
As such, I started the practice of "bid sniping" as well, although I would usually just bid in the last hour of an auction, and then put my maximum bid in within the last couple minutes to circumvent other snipers.
At this point, most sellers aren't going to mess with it, as they may risk having to buy their own item back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
I suspect there's quite a bit of that type of fraud going on, which is another turn-off of eBay. The real problem is eBay isn't directly hurt by this, and in fact benefits from it in the short-term, so they don't particularly want to crack down it unless it's necessary to retain buyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
Could eBay neutralize sniping software? Absolutely. Just use a captcha (random numbers and or letters you must type in to validate) or reset the last minute.
Since there have been many analogies to "real" auctions, I'd like to point out that the auctioneer does not stop the auction when there is active bidding. That is why I like the last minute reset.
I think there should be as little "friction" in the transaction as possible. Currently, the friction goes against the seller when maximum bids aren't achieved because the bidding closes when there are willing bidders with more money.
My biggest complaint with eBay is the PayPal monopoly. You are virtually forced to use PayPal (owned by eBay). As far as the seller is concerned, PayPal takes a second bite of the apple after he's already hit with auction fees. PayPal then holds the sellers money (without interest) and charges the seller (a third time) if he spends that money using a debit card.
I remember when Microsoft was king of the hill and there was this little "niche" player in Cupertino California that now has beat the "king" in a big way.
I see eBay as a lot like Microsoft. They abuse their "monopoly" and will continue to do so. In the meantime, it's only a matter of time until somebody comes along and makes a better online auction site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always Worked?
I remember sitting at my computer waiting for the timer to tick down to 5 seconds and place my bid. I'd pray my 28.8K modem would be fast enough to get my bid in. Then the wait for the refresh of the screen was agonizing. Would someone else have done the same thing but bid more the I?
Then they implemented an incremental "end time". Every bid within the last minute reset the timer to add another minute for bidding. Or something like that.
I was singing praises when they came out with the "maximum bid" concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone sues someone else for not maximizing their profits for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, as the basic premise can take many forms, I feel there's plenty of value in calling attention to the different forms.
The more times one is exposed to all the variations in an idea, the easier it is to spot them on one's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone sues someone else for not maximizing their profits for them."
Yes, but no, what it is, is someone suing someone else for not doing something that they in their ignorance believe would maximise their profits but would in fact cause utterly different behaviour which would actually reduce the profits that they make.
You know, like claiming piracy is destroying their business when there are more movies making more money and more musicians writing more songs and more able to make a living etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, I at first thought that it was the highest bidder of an item complaining over what is essentially a 50c tacked on price, not a SELLER complaining that "max bid" doesn't automatically get submitted instantly.
What the client here fails to notice is that this is essentially a live auction, not a silent auction. Live auctions you pretty much just know that you were out-bid, and have time to determine if you wanna go again. Silent ones, you put up a price, and if you are highest you win. Ebay is NOT hiding which one this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am I guess not counting the kinds that inform people if they aren't the highest bidder, but won't say what is highest at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this work?
Ebay is the new Google and needs to be auction neutral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Case of the Clueless Seller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
I believe it is separate from the starting bid. I dunno. I've only ever bought stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
Both setting a reserve and setting a higher starting bid incur higher fees to list an item, so that's why they try to avoid it if they're sure an item will reach their predicted market value.
The fees for selling items on ebay are ridiculous these days, and on top of that, if you use paypal, they double-dip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auction explanation confusing
To make this example make sense I would removed the "current bid is $10" from #1 because it is irrelevant and adds confusion. And in #3 add "because ebay has $0.5 as a minimum increment".
After that it makes sense, but I would remove all the crap about "bid" vs "maximum bid". Your bid *is* your maximum bid. The whole thing comes down to simply, "The maximum bidder actually gets the item for the cost of the second highest bidders bid plus a small increment."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: auction explanation confusing
On E-Bay when a seller creates an auction they can set a starting bid, and the minimum bid increments. When someone puts in a bid on a given item they can set what their bid is and set their bid to automatically re-bid the next increment up to a maximum bid if another person bids on the item.
For instance I put something up for auction with a starting bid price of $10 and minimum increment of $0.50, Tom comes along and bids on the item for $10 and sets the maximum he wants to bid on the item to $12. Well when Laura comes along and bids on the item for $10.50 and sets her maximum bid to $15, the E-Bay system will cycle through the intervening bids very quickly. Meaning Laura bids $10.50, well Tom said he would pay more than this so the system bids $11 for Tom, then $11.50 for Laura, then $12 for Tom, and finally the system bids $12.50 for Laura which is above Tom's maximum bid.
In the example above remember that Tom, or someone else says Steve, could come back and bid more for the item since auctions last for days or weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snipe
It is much better to snipe the auction. Just figure out the maximum fair price you want to pay and bid at 3 to 10 seconds before auction close.
The snipe service I use is PhantomBidder but you can get PC software like HammerSnipe.
Doing snipe saves you much time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay
One time, I bid on an item and it did not make it over the seller's listed minimum price. I negotiated with him and he posted it for a lower minimum price and I won that bid as well. (Mostly for covering shipping costs.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The price is not set but is negotiable, depending on the demand of those parties interested in purchasing the given item. The point of placing your items for sale in this way, is to try and get the maximum amount the market will bear in a given time period. Sometimes the seller gets more than they would have asked for the item. And sometimes the buyer gets a the item for below what the seller would have originally asked for the item. But throughout the transaction, the market demand is what drives the price/value of the item.
If you dislike this business model, don't sell your items at auction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do these nutters spring from?
But, how could any one, even this idiot lawyer, think that it was lawful/ethical for the auctioneer to disclose the maximum bid of an "absentee/proxy" bidder?
Well, as most of us already know, if the seller is smart enough, the eBay system will disclose the maximum proxy bid. This dill apparently has not yet figured that out.
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do these nutters spring from?
But, how could any one, even this idiot lawyer, think that it was lawful/ethical for the auctioneer to disclose the maximum bid of an "absentee/proxy" bidder?
Well, as most of us already know, if the seller is smart enough, the eBay system will disclose the maximum proxy bid. This dill apparently has not yet figured that out.
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do these nutters spring from?
But, how could any one, even this idiot lawyer, think that it was lawful/ethical for the auctioneer to disclose the maximum bid of an "absentee/proxy" bidder?
Well, as most of us already know, if the seller is smart enough, the eBay system will disclose the maximum proxy bid. This dill apparently has not yet figured that out.
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how ALL auctions work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proxy bidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you really want to open the unscrupulous eBay's "can of worms":
A tale of two unscrupulous and clunky commercial entities: eBay and PayPal
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24533
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #1
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22659
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #2
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22904
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #3
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22986
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #4
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23540
PayPal claims PayPal Is Not a Payments Processor!
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24148
Amazon and eBay on the collection of state sales taxes
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24517
And from along the way a compilation of (mostly inane) quotes from eBay executives:
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24159
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proxy Bid lawsuit
This suit's pretty clever in its simplicity, and everyone leaving comments on various websites are fixated on the proxy bidding process. It's like one of those weird pictures you have to stare at the right way to see.
The suit contends that eBay is breaking California state law by inserting itself into the auction. Among other things, EBAY DOES NOT HAVE A CALIFORNIA AUCTIONEER'S LICENSE. I honestly don't know how many suits have argued that eBay is hardly a hands-off, neutral third party, etc. But this specific avenue might get someone's attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auction Law, Dual Agency and a mine field
It gets into the debate of dual agency which is a mine field in the auction world. Auctioneers normally only represent their client the seller and that makes it nearly impossible to represent the buyer. Dual agency is like having the same attorney represent both the plaintiff and defendant in the same case. Most of us realize the problems with that situation.
I believe the attorneys in this case will argue that eBay must represent the seller and not the buyer. If they are successful on that issue eBay has a problem because they are being made aware that the buyer is willing to purchase the item for a much higher price than what was paid. If eBay is representing the seller, shouldn’t they then sell the item at the higher price? I’m sure the attorneys will be making that point.
Some of the other users have mentioned auction houses and I believe they have slightly missed the mark. EBays bidding rules and process are closer to that of accepting absentee bids at auction. Believe me its something that is very tricky for auction companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Auction Law, Dual Agency and a mine field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking
http://www.businessinsider.com/ebays-transformation-when-do-we-start-calling-ebay-a-payments-compa ny-2012-1
A picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. This linked “Business Insider” article contains a graph of eBay revenues since 2003. It shows, quite starkly, how eBay’s Marketplace revenue has stagnated since 2008, about the time that the headless turkey from Bain & Co, John Donahoe, got hold of the tiller and started his “destructive renovations”, and eBay’s share price has moved little in the same period; ergo the eBay Marketplace has effectively been in decline since 2008.
It should be obvious, even to the simplest of analysts, that as time passes, the Amazon River flows ever more strongly, whereas the eBay Marketplace now consists of little more than a chain of stagnant ponds covered in slimy green algae—and isn’t that a couple of rusting Chinese-made shopping trolleys that I can see dumped therein?
The graph also shows the eBay-underpinning increases in revenue eBay has received from PreyPal during the same period, that is, from roughly when the “eBafia Don” effectively mandated PreyPal’s use on the eBay Marketplace. Some analysts therefore think then that eBay’s future lays in PreyPal.
Well, if anyone thinks that the retail banks are going to let such a clunky, parasitic, flea-sized, upstart, middleman, “merchant of sorts” such as PreyPal—who after all does no more than ride precariously on the back of those banks’ own payments processing systems—continue to nibble away at one of the banks’ principal areas of business for any length of time, all I can say is, dream on …
PreyPal is little more than a clumsy, fraud-enabling middleman that also nullifies the statutory protections that, in many countries, would otherwise be available to users paying directly with a real bank’s credit card.
Then there is PreyPal’s current testing of “mobile payments” at POS in Home Depot stores. Are people actually leaving their funds “on deposit” with this clunky, unlicensed, prudentially unregulated, PayPal “non-bank” that is itself not even licensed to provide credit? Otherwise, how are the funds for such mobile payments being sourced by PreyPal from the payer’s real banking account in a way that the merchant can be sure of ultimately getting paid by PreyPal? Not with the standard non-guarantee of payment that PreyPal serves up to its online merchants, I hope.
And, unfortunately for eBay’s chief headless turkey, Visa’s professional online offering “V.me”, when it is up and running later this year, will undoubtedly put paid to whatever success that the clunky PreyPal has had with professional online merchants outside of its mandated use on the eBay Marketplace—and soon thereafter both these unscrupulous and clunky entities should commence/continue their long-deserved journeys down the gurgler.
Scott Thompson saw the writing on the wall; John Donahoe remains delusional, that fact confirmed by the many reported sightings of him waving his mobile phone about and mumbling about UFO sightings over San Jose.
“How secure is PayPal for sellers?”—UK “Guardian”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/27/is-paypal-safe-protection?commentpage=last#e nd-of-comments
And an interesting follow up to this UK "Guardian" article at:
http://www.hadess.net/2012/01/getting-conned-ebaypaypal-fun.html
“Vendor Claims eBay Plays Dirty” (Who could have believed it?)
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/43529.htm
Scott Thompson abandons the struggling eBay for the struggling Yahoo
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=166803#post166803
PayPal claims PayPal not a debit card or payment network!
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24148
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They rely on other members that are jealous to report other members yet watch each week millions of auctions go by with out flagging or removing these auctions.
Case in point even many members that are violating this policy that are top rated sellers and even being reported none of there auctions were removed or there accounts suspended.
Case in point when you see an auction in the wrong category for a penny start bid with free shipping and the seller has listed 100's even a thousand of the same auction and the highest auction won is 40 cents with most selling for a penny what does ebay think they are doing? paying 44 cents to ship each auction:) they have been told over and over to do something about this and yet to date they offer zero solution except to flag who they feel they want.
Ebay's stance is if it does not say by email in the listing it's okay because we can not investigate all these auctions.
Simple to prove they are doing it regardless if they put by email in there listings, check out there feedback. when you see 100's of comments the same day the auction ended saying fast shipping um does ebay think an auction that just ended for a penny that this was shipped by a rocket ship.:)lol.
They should not have a policy even the members can not keep up with. It's unfair to flag a few and let millions of auctions and 100's of members get away with it.
Sound like a fair policy to any of you? I hope ebay continues to suspend more accounts for this stupid policy because the more peoples accounts they suspend the more to join a class action against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably not gonna fly
I do have something I believe is class action worthy.
Has anyone lost money using eBay as a seller? Recently, I have had several cases open against me by one individual. He is claiming I never shipped the items he purchased. Not only do I have a receipt from the USPS, it had tracking and delivery confirmation which comes back as delivered. If eBay awards this user his money despite the fact that I have rock solid, legitimate proof, I will be taking my case to a lawyer.
I will also be filing mail fraud charges with the USPS. What's funny to me is, with the solid proof I have, the postmaster general has given me 100 percent confirmation
that I have not done anything wrong and my charges will stick. The user in question will have to provide proof without the slightest doubt that I never shipped them, and that is impossible. Hopefully stealing 30 dollars worth of records is worth several thousand dollars in fines plus criminal charges. WOOT WOOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class Action Against eBay
I don't know how to start a class action on eBay for this --- but someone who knows how should. There is a lot on money eBay should be returning to all sellers it has taxed with this ploy. If anyone knows how to go about a class action on eBay --- please do --- or let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay-fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay Fraud
Case in point,
I ship via UPS through the eBay site. I ship within 1 business day of printing the UPS label that eBay claims is discounted, but is in fact on average 30% more expensive than printing on the UPS.com site. The buyer leaves glowing remarks about my products, service, communication, price blah blah blah, but leaves the worst possible rating for shipping.
I lose my "Power seller" status, lose my 20% seller fee's discount, lose my top-placement on products that are shown to buyers, etc, etc, etc........
If you can't see the fraud lining my issues, the collusion with the other sellers on eBay, the fraud and non truthful and deceiptful-advertising about discounted shipping, the collusion with its eBay owned payment system "PayPal", the unfair trade practices related to larger resellers who are ticked off at my lower prices and initiate targeted attacks through eBay against smaller sellers with bays blessings because of the fee's ebay collects from the large volume houses, (Proof?) Big Box Seller sells 2K items per month, gets 144 negative ratings still has top-rated, power seller status. I sell 124K worth of products in 350 transactions, 298 Positive feedbacks, and only 2 negatives ever!! (IN EIGHT YEARS OF DOING BUSINESS ON EBAY, I lose my seller status and my fees go up. (HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?)
If you don't see the issues and fraud, interstate collusion with other sellers, Paypal on fee's, (Should be clearly stated that PayPal charges on top of eBay fees, not hidden or buried) the efforts on the part of eBay to fleece its smaller sellers for unfair trade practices that are CLEARLY highlighted through their own feedback system, and the outright support of fraud by the criminal element that scours the eBay system looking for victims, and eBays refusal to credit sellers who have been scammed in their system. You need to pull your head out of your proverbial ass and take a refresher course in Business Law.
IN SUMMARY, I call out eBay, with its snarky airheads that operate the business, at best, A FAULTY PRODUCT. I call them out on all of this fraud and really hope some politician on "Capital"-Hole puts together a BILL for Congress to Ban eBay from doing business until they address these issues.
Time to clean out the RATS NEST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost Revenue
Seriously, though, the model Ebay has chosen and enacted on their site has worked.... and is understood by everyone except seemingly the plantiff. This guy needs to stop dreaming of being the next bill gates and simply own up to the fact that he's Homer Simpson. Doh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lost Revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud on eBay
Now, if you want to see real eBay calculated and knowingly facilitated fraud in action ...
“Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay: Case Study #5”
http://www.ecommercebytes.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=167554
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay final value fee
Is there a class action lawsuit going on?
I was never notified of an actual percentage, was never told of final value fees until the invoice came out. They state it's in their agreement (of course it is), but just because you write out that an unknown percentage will be invoiced at the end of the month it doesn't mean they cleared stated it. That is a hidden fee.
What can I do or who can I go to so this doesn't go to to collections agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terminated Account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terminated Account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
samsung s3g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay getting to big for its britches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eBay getting to big for its britches
What utter nonsense ...
And the ugly reality for consumers dealing with the clunky, unscrupulous eBay/PayPal complex ... http://bit.ly/11F2eas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eBay Criminal Complex ...
eBay is demonstrably the greatest calculated facilitator of auction fraud on consumers that the world is ever likely to know ... http://bit.ly/11F2eas
And the ugly reality for consumers, particularly smaller payees, dealing with the clunky, unscrupulous PayPal ... http://bit.ly/UVXx53
Regardless, hello "MasterPass", goodbye clunky PreyPal—it has not been nice knowing you ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Injury Attorney Northridge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fgdfg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is complete fiction, please do your research. When eBay launched there were no maximum bids, that came later. Back then a bid was a bid was a bid. There was no proxy bidding at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebay always sides with the buyer - Case in point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay need to go
I am sure soon , govt will close it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay, oh Ebay
I buy on Ebay but will never sell on Ebay again. Buying is the only win on Ebay if you're up on pricing and bargaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shill Bidding! Ebay doing nothing about it..
This seller has now listed the item for the fourth time after some "mysterious reason" that the 'winner' has decided to opt out of buying.. Is it because Ebay's so busy? Or can it be because Ebay doesn't care cause either way they're getting their cut?
Now, I would normally never do something like this unless I'm positive-but I am positive and so am producing here what is already public information anyways. Of course, you won't be able to see anything less you keep tabs on the item-watch it-make a low bid-the seller will not sell it for under 150..actually, he's relisted this time with a "Buy It Now" option for 169.99.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/171240963534
item number: 171240963534
Seller : faithandfavor1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay
on the main page the people cant even use their last name or people will find em and punch em in the nads.
they are the most evil awful buncha loan shark low life there has ever been
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seller at ebay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay
Oh and yes the case of the flooded markets. On occasion. Markets will be flooded with items that have been clearance or auctioned on other sites. This leaves a huge surplus on the open market. Retailers or brick and mortar stores in no way shape or form can compete. Currently there is an item that retailers ask anywhere from $799.00 to $2,200.00 each for. They are current and not outdated or antiquated but due to these auctions, close-outs, pallet sales. They are selling on Ebay for $40.00.
If this starts to become the norm. Retailers will be out of business. I guess packing warehouses or order pickers. Which is what my daughter does. She boxes around 600 items an hour. Can you imagine a sales clerk doing that? These companies are raking it in.
Maybe a few years from now a day of shopping will be not getting in the car with the family and enjoying the experience, rather huddled in front of a computer or on smart devices doing searches. Pathetic. We are becoming more and more disconnected as a society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re ebay class action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daft
and this model is based on traditional auction practices.
If you go to Sotheby's and do a phone bid they will act for you...if you decide you dont want to hang about on the phone, you can leave your max bid with them and they continue to represent you.
It is not their job to hand the seller your highest bid, it is their job, here, to represent you as if you were in the room.
bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: daft
Ebay is a seller of advertising revenue to outside merchants beyond just the people who sell on eBay by listing on eBay,
eBay does not benefit from their members getting less money do to proxy bids in any way in the traditional sense of business, so it makes absolutely no sense that they would remain using a proxy bid system.
The reason they do it is because it keeps the auction price as low as possible until the last possible minute.
Why would they do that you might ask.
They do it because low auction prices next to listings are click bait to eBay site viewers.
These low interim auction prices generate more views to listings and result in MORE revenue to eBay in the form of revenue paid by third party advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay auction lawsuit
I have a problem with an online auction house that conducts normal auctions too, with real people, real-time. This mob takes online bids til close, and if you have bid a maximum of say, $15 and the item is only bid up to $12 by the last bidder after you, then this mob actually invoices you the full 15 bucks. Now that really sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay and PP
So I couldn't get back on and ended up using this guide www.auctionstealth.com so far so good
in fact I don't think I would have made it if it wasnt for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]