Slashdot Mirror
Attorney Sues eBay over Negative Feedback
Mephie writes "MSNBC is running a story on an attorney who is suing ebay over negative feedback a seller left about him. It sounds like a classic case of buyer leaves negative feedback for seller; seller responds accordingly. The plaintiff claims he'd not be filing the suit if he didn't feel ebay's policy needs revision, stating 'They can control content and for them to fail to do so is unconscionable.' Yeah. That's great."
C'mon, you idiot. Not everyone is going to be pleased with your business, and eBay can't say "Only say positive things about the buyer, even if they screwed you over!" People have opinions, and eBay allows you to voice them on the buyer. eBay isn't going to change their policy now over something that has made them sucessful. Deal with it; not everyone's going to distrust you if you manage to keep your positive feedback up.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Although libel is obviously not protected under "freedom of speech", the banning of certain words (such as fraud, liar, cheater, scam artist, con man) as proposed by this lawsuit, certainly lends itself to a slippery slope.
How can individual words represent libel out of context? Who is the judge of this libel-ous words? Where does it stop?
According to the article...
"alleging in the online forum that the magazines he bought had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised"
It's not like he said anything all that bad - They probably did arrive late, which could be blamed on the shipping company or any other factor, And the part about them being in worse condition then advertised was also probably true, but that is open to interpretation.
Why do people have to be such whining little babies these days? so someone left you bad feedback, which, was more then likely true. EBay gives you a chance to publicly reply to feedback - simply reply there stating your own side of the story and leave it at that. If a user has to worry about being dragged into court for leaving negative feedback, then nobody is going to leave feedback and the system is going to be ruined.
And where does he get these figures?
"In his lawsuit, Grace demands $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Neeley."
I'd like to see him prove that one bad feedback is going to cost him that much.
Don't Tread on Me
Ebay clearly states: "WARNING: Once placed, comments cannot be retracted. If you later change your mind about someone, you may leave a follow-up comment to explain the misunderstanding. See the Feedback Forum for an explanation about how your comments affect a user's feedback rating.... eBay cannot remove a comment once it is submitted, nor edit a user's feedback profile. For this reason, we encourage you to contact your trading partner directly by email or by telephone before leaving a negative feedback comment."
The purpose of the ebay feedback system it to create social governance. If you have one or two negative feedbacks out of a hundred or so, I will still buy from or sell to you. If, however, you have a 50% negative feedback I will not. That is the point.
(sig on loan to Smithsonian)
Obviously, the guy is a whiner... but the last paragraph of the MSNBC article is interesting:
" The lawsuit also demands that buyers and sellers, who use aliases in eBay transactions, register their screen names with the state of California as fictitious business names, and that eBay be forced to collect state sales tax."
This seems to have little to do with his complaint; but making everyone register with the state Secretary of State would be a big deal! So your name would be Your Name, d.b.a (doing buisines as...) screename. Christ, what a mess... Can someone who is a Calfornian and or a lawyer comment on paying sales tax on USED items? I know that here in RI, sales tax is only on (some) new sales - used goods (and many new goods) are exemt.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
When it clearly states in the feedback section that you should talk to the other party BEFORE posting negative feedback to try to resolve complaints... I am amazed that people dont do so.
Out of 20 or so auctions I've won on eBay, only once have I wanted to leave negative feedback. A guy quoted shipping of 18 dollars US, and in the end, the USPS shipping he used was only 8. I felt sort of angry that he'd ripped me for 10 dollars but in the end we just agred NOT to leave feedback for the auction, as the draft I sent him was (according to him) 'uncashable' and he ended up waiting an extra week for a different pay type to show up.
Moral of the story is that if you have a negative experience, and don't get any satisfaction from the person, leave negative feedback as a last resort. Otherwise, just never ever deal with that person again. It's pretty easy.
As for this moron and his suit, exactly how much libel can be fit into 80 characters? And how bad could it really be? I mean... come on! Man, I am glad I live in a country where spurious litigation is thrown out so fast it would make this blood sucking parasite's head spin! Maybe there would be less of these sort of nuisance lawsuits if, when it is thrown out, the plaintiff is made to wrestle an aligator...
Actually they do. No URLs allowed (I'm not talking about links). Also, if you get suspended from eBay, you can't leave feedback for a legitimate transaction which occured when you weren't suspended. No profanity either.
Point being, they do have rules. If violated, feedback is removed. I suppose you could ask eBay to include libel/slander as well.
This is totally bogus, and you know it. Accounts on ebay are simply that: an account. There is nothing that says: use your real name or your real business name (mind you, most selling on there (right now) is mostly individuals).
If some company is relying on feedback on ebay for your employment, then it isn't a place anyone should be working at. Anyhow, the point is that feedback on ebay should be held within the context of ebay, not towards anything else. It is an ebay transaction, and nothing more: not personal, not political, and not anything astrological!
In the broader scope, on-line slander is one thing. There is definitely a line, but people have a right to their opinions about a person, place, or thing. Not everyone will like you, and that is one guarantee in life. If they put it in print, so be it.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, feedback is feedback. If you get negative feedback, you have the option to respond, permanantly, to it. When future buyers investigate your feedback, they see the negative and neutral (does anyone leave neurtral?!) comments and your responses.
It is the truth about the transaction! Why hide it? It is up to the future buyer to weigh your overall record and your response to the negative feedback before they decide to trust you with regards to a purchase.
For example, if I buy from someone, I check their feedback. Mentally, I make a couple of rules:
o Buying online from some joe schmoe out there is risky. I don't care who it is or via what forum (ebay, newsgroups, etc), you still have no idea who they are.
o No one describes their product as "slightly worn" or "damaged piece of crap I want to unload." Everyone describes their items as being "MINT" or "Nearly MINT" or "slightly used". Consider reality when purchasing a product.
o People with no feedback, sunglasses next to their name, or very very little feedback should be dealt with gingerly as they have a limited record of transactions.
o People with a LOT of feedback (doesn't matter if it is 50 or 50000) can be trusted only slightly more than those with little or no feedback.
With those rules in place, I always look at the feedback. Negative feedback from one person doesn't usually mean crap. There are a whole mess of people out there with chips on their shoulders, and they are usually trying to get something for nothing. However, the feedback record will show trends.
For example, over Christmas, how many people were selling those ZipZap knock-off cars? And how many of them were so overwhelmed with sales that they couldnt keep up, and hence, people left them negative feedback? I would see that and skip right past them because it would show that they could not handle the intense load, but otherwise were good sellers.
YOU need to evaluate the person you are purchasing from. Experience in BUYING as well as SELLING helps make sense of it all.
Don't let one bad apple (or feedback) spoil the whole bunch.
That's the problem. EBay shouldn't be the one to hold the liability for the customer's libel (if it is such). This is an area where libel law falls down in the Internet age. Historically, the owner of the printing press could be held liable for libel. However, (as Slashdot's little reminders constantly tell us), in an era when every post is its own little printing press, the Web site owner should not be held liable for the words of the customers.
I have no problem with the feedback-leaver being sued for libel. However, holding EBay liable for its users' libel isn't the way things should work. The law must adjust to the new medium.
My mother sells costumes on eBay and makes a pretty good business, but she is terrified of negative feedback, or even a mere neutral. She's got 200-something total feedbacks now, all positive, but I swear she's going to kill herself at the first negative. Conversely, she's also afraid to buy from anyone who has any negatives or neutrals, even if it's something like only 1 in 500.
I've sent numerous emails to EBay asking why they won't change their policies. I've yet to get a reply.
The main problem is that many Sellers hold Buyers hostage for ratings. The Seller refuses to leave a feedback for the Buyer, until the Buyer leaves a Positive Feedback for them. This puts the Buyer at a huge disadvantage, if you're not satisfied, and leave a Negative Feedback for the Seller, you run the risk of him retaliating with a Negative one for you. This artificially inflates Seller's ratings.
If a Buyer makes an appropriate payment, either instantly with some form of internet payment, or 'the check clears the bank', he/she has fulfilled his part of the transaction, and should be given their Feedback immediately.
Only when the Buyer gets the package, in good condition, has the Seller fulfilled his half of the transaction, and be eligible for their feedback to be made.
The only way to make it an equitible marketplace is to just require that Sellers don't get Feedback until they've left feedback for the Buyer. For Sellers who feel like noone will take the time to leave feedback for them, put in an "Automated Positive Feedback" after say 15 business days. This gives Buyers about three weeks to leave a personalized Positive (or Negative) Feedback, or else one would assume things went well, and the Seller should therefor get their Positive Feedback.
Problem Solved.
I used to have a good sig...
To be honest, though, when I buy things on e-bay, I expect feedback after the seller RECEIVES PAYMENT. At that point, my end of the transaction is complete, and the seller should have already updated my feedback profile accordingly.
Anyone who waits for the buyer to leave feedback (regardless of what that feedback is) is just waiting to ding the buyer if said buyer is unsatisfied.....
Karnal
The answers to both of those situstions would be yes, the building owner and server/website operator would be libel.
;)
The reason is simple: you can't leave stuff up like that forever without taking the effort to remove it. Imagine if a kid did write all kinds of slanderous statements on a public wall, or billboard facing a public highway. Someone called the owner to complain, and the owner ignores the complaints or tells them to "piss off". They would then be libel.
Why? Well who's to know if the owner didn't do it themselves? I mean can you say for certain a policital opponent didn't pay some guys to spray paint a billboard saying horrible things about the competition? I don't think so.
Think of it this way: Someone spray paints the billboard in front of your school, home, work, etc with slanderous statements. You call the owner to complaint, but they say "oh well, not our fault, find the guy that did it, we're not responsible." What would you do?
eBay is a very large public forum that is viewed by millions of people every hour, I could understand why someone would be upset over slanderous statements about them on eBay. I know some people that go so far as to list their eBay business on their resume, how would it look for a potential employeer to see that feedback?
I agree that the ebay feedback system needs work, and I think ebay should at least review feedback complaints. Why don't they enact a system like slashdot, giving certain members moderator status? They have millions of members, they could probably appoint a few thousand long-time members as moderators, and develop a point system so if complaints get a certain number of points it's reviewed by eBay personal.
Course that idea is now copyrighted by me, anonymous coward, and I expect no less than 1 million dollars if a similar system is used on eBay in the future
Ebay is a gathering place where people can come on and sell their stuff. In a sense, Ebay is nothing more than a msg board almost. However, over the past years, people used Ebay as their median of business. That serves as a new opportunity for many (as well as TAXES for uncle Sam)
True, I agree that Ebay should have quite a bit of protection for the sellers as well as buyers (remember the little kid who bid for millions worth antique and thought it was a game?). Protection DOES NOT EQUAL to babysitting. There's no easy way to prevent 5 year olds giving negative feedback or bidding on crap they don't want, just for kicks. The drawback is that ebay do not have the necessary information to take drastic actions, they are, again, a median. I have seen and thought about ways to avoid that, but since I don't work for them, nor I use their services, oh well =P
That lawyer better start selling his logic on ebay soon. If he can put a monetary value on his reputation in a MSG board, then those who didn't leave him positive should be in the case. His reputation cannot be quantified, Ebay has risks, and I am sure he AGREED before entering. If he wins, thousands of ebay sellers will follow. He probably should sue himself too, since I doubt anyone will EVER bid on his sales for the fear of being sued.
He might win, actually. Even some extreme cases have their doubts....(McDonald Case - I am clumsy so I will sue your ass to be responsible).
"I see dumb people"
-The Common Sense
Cmon... even with all absurdity aside, demanding 2.5 million dollars (plus 100k from the actual comment writer) is a bit much. Is this guy so pretentious that he thinks the value to his precious reputation is worth 2.6 million total dollars? Unless this guy sells Monets, I'd say he's bidding a little high.
If he misrepresented his items, and the buyer didn't like it, he can't very well sue the buyer for speaking the truth. Always remember that truth is the ultimate defense against slander/libel. This case, while ridiculous, should come down to the merits... either the items were misrepresented, or they were not. If the seller tried to pull a fast one, and is just upset that he got called on it, then tough... he should be countersued by all parties involved, including Ebay.
Honest feedback is the only thing that Ebay has going for it. Think how great it would be if every place you bought stuff from (car dealers, mechanics, electronics stores, LAWYERS, etc) had this feature...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I wonder if maybe EBay isn't just interested in having their cake and eating it too. One of the reasons Ebay is so monumentally successful as a business is that they have all the margin and none of the responsibility. Get ripped off? Not our problem. Get untrue feedback? Not our problem. Not our problem. Not our problem. We didn't get our cut of your sale? Now its our problem, and our only problem.
I've bought only 2-3 things off of Ebay, primarily because I don't want to get ripped off and I'm a little disgusted with their willingness to create a marketplace but not enforce any rules of fairness or any kind of justice.
I'm not naive -- I know that the more they get involved in sales, the less profitable it is for them. But because their sole interest is making a percentage off of sellers they seem to have every incentive to just generate sales of any kind, regardless of the integrity of the sale.
I'd have more faith in Ebay if they didn't just create a market, but created a market that did more than just pay lip service to honesty and justice.