Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Negative Feedback Lawsuit Dismissed
ccnull writes "Slashdot readers may recall the Ebay user who was suing Ebay over allegedly libellous feedback. That case has now been dismissed under the CDA, essentially giving Ebay 'common carrier' immunity, much like an ISP. Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? You decide."
And I will TOTALLY sue you if you mod me down !
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? You decide.
Me? I thought that was up to the judge, who already decided.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Now, it would seem that ebay should be liable for anything for sale on it because they do screen items offered for auction, though perhaps the commerce aspect of things protects them in other ways.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Thats like Arizona Jeans sueing JCPenny because someone posted something bad on some forums about their "Arizona Jeans they just bought at JCPenny." Rediculous....
bravo. Mod parent +1 Funny..
db
Cig:
ôô
Ebay created the system of social moderation and assignment of trustworthyness. People who abuse it should be dealt with in that system, but by no means is the system creator responsible. Just my $0.02
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
If ebay were held responsible for unmoderated feedback other users left, that would set a very bad precedent. There's not much difference between that and modding a post down on slashdot. Now if someone accuses you of something that isn't true, that's something to take up with that individual. Suing ebay for that would be like suing someone's ISP because their SMTP servers were used by someone to send a libelous email about you. It just doesn't work that way.
victory for an end to frivalous law suits? Haha, just kidding. There are many more frivalous law suits to come, and for god knows what. Maybe that "spider bite I got at Disneyland" (Bart).
the article sez it best : "The ruling is just too sophomoric and silly not to be appealed" . And that is how I feel, not some sort of law gone haywire or victory for free-speech, just silly.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Gee, tripe like this clogs the legal system, while hundreds of more relevant cases go unheard, god bless america. That would be like me suing a person's parents when he calls me an "asshole", does not make any sense, does it? An alternate route would have been to get a court order to make eBay disclose the identity of the alleged libeler (is that a word?, yes according to dictionary.com) then go after him directly, seems like a no-brainer, if I have learned one thing from this country, it is that it is much easier to sue the shit out of a person than a "big, evil corporation".
I hate sigs.
So, I guess this guy is probably safe then.
Do not read this sig.
Common sense prevails? Since eBay did not make the libelous statements why should they be held responsible.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
With the amount of money they make, you'd think they could dedicate a little more man power to their feedback dispute resolution department. All it takes is a simple 'delete' SQL command, yet it seems to take the Supreme Court to get their attention.
Are they going to get a zillion complaints from people if they relax their dispute policy? Sure. But guess what...it's a big company, they should be able to get the man power.
There are plenty of people who abuse it...
If that case didn't get thrown out something would be seriously wrong.
If EBay can get sued for that, I'd hate to see what would happen to Amazon.com for their buyer comments. As long as EBay makes it clear that the views of its posters are not their views, that's how the system is supposed to work. The reason other users are allowed to make comments is to warn other people about crazy sellers.
And does anyone else find all the supposed "first posts" amusing? At least this time the true FP was apt.
Ok, Victory for free speech.
Wow, that felt good, thanks Slashdot.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
hmmmm, i think that you have issues. I think they're all probably thinking the same thing about you, and in their case, they're probably right.... P.S.- i think we shoudl sue the U.S. gov't because there's illegal aliens in here... *rolls eyes*
good god dude.. lighten up
I've seen at least one case where eBay altered the scoring of comments. It was an account used by Microsoft, and contained commment after comment still smouldering from the fifth circle of Hell, and yet they all had a 'neutral' rating. Tell me eBay wasn't tamperng with those.
this whole libel thing is scary. i cant think of one particular case where it could be used rightly. I find the court defaulting against libel rather comforting. Honestly, If call someone bitch repeatedly can he/she sue me for libel ? Where does one draw the line between good freedom of speech and libel speech ??
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
(Mod me down and I sue)
Well, as you may have noticed, the case was dismissed. If only I had mod points...
Section 8 of the user agreement:
Feedback.
8.1 Integrity. You may not take any actions that may undermine the integrity of the feedback system. We may limit the number of bids and listings you may place on the Site based upon the level of your feedback. If you earn a net feedback rating of -4 (minus four), your membership may be suspended, and you may be unable to list or bid.
8.2 Export. You acknowledge that your feedback consists of comments left by other users and a composite feedback number compiled by eBay, and that the composite number without the comments does not convey your full user profile. Because feedback ratings are not designed for any purpose other than for facilitating trading between eBay users, you agree that you shall not market or export your eBay feedback rating in any venue other than an eBay operated website.
8.3 Import. We do not provide you the technical ability to import feedback from other (non-eBay operated) websites to eBay because a composite number, without the corresponding feedback does not reflect your true online reputation within our community
Also the stock is down 1.3% to 94 bucks, good god that is amazing in these tech stock days of woe.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
If a journalist writes an artical for a food Zine that is not in too high regard, can they recive the same treatment? Oprah and cows all over again.
Computer science is a grab bag of tenuously related areas thrown together by an accident of history, like Yugoslavia.
Somebody's been watching too much South Park. (And that would be me, for instantly recognizing the Underpants Gnome Business Plan).
Grace said he would be liable if one of his papers carried defamatory information from a third party, and said Web site operators should be held to the same standard.
Will Grace's papers allow me to have something printed for free, and without checking it out first? I think not.
The ruling was the correct one, and the only thing "sophomoric and silly" about it is Grace filing it in the first place. If he can prove the remarks made by the other party were libel then sure he should be allowed to collect from that third party. But I think the only reason he went after eBay too was to a) make a name for himself (and I can think of several choice names that would fit), and b) because eBay has deep pockets whereas the dude he feels libeled him probably does not.
And to anyone who thinks that eBay should have been held responsible, I would ask this...should Slashdot now be held responsible for what I am saying in this post?
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
People need to understand the spin/slant/censorship of medium they're reading, and it should be clearly disclosed. If ebay's feedback were filtered to protect the guilty, then who'd trust ebay? By the same token, anyone reading the feeback should realize that USER feedback is given by the USERS, not ebay. It's so fucking simple... I'm glad the court dismissed this quickly.
I'm apalled that google, for example, downplays the fact that their search results are filtered, tuned, and censored depending on regional law and demographics. The flip-side of this is that anyone hoping for "common carrier" status must truly be transparent to whatever information they convey.
Looks like eBay had better lawyers than Slashdot did in this case:
h tm l
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226.s
wow, way to get trolled you idiot
what's next, replying to goatse links?
However, while there are places like SquareTrade that remove feedback, I still find eBay's policy of NOT removing libellous comments irresponsible at best.
As a seller on eBay for more than 5 years, now with more than 1500 feedback comments (99.2% positive), I have felt every negative for WEEKS! after I have gotten them; getting emails about what went wrong, etc etc. I also KNOW LOTS of eBayers will peruse through feedback, even with my high rating and look for my one or two negatives. Where this really comes into play is if the buyer is a problematic or habitual complainer, they will use your previous negatives as ammo against you to say, "See, you have a past of poor service" (Not that I experience that many problems) Just, it seems the last two negatives I have gotten as an excuse to justify the poster's poor communication skills.
I wish eBay had a trade sytem, like exchange 1000 positives for 1 negative once a year. OR I wish they would institute a system that makes it as diificult to leave a negative as it is to apply for an auction fees listing credit. Like; post, wait 10 days before it ACTUALLY posts to the other account, in the meantime, seller/buyer are warned of the potential of the negative comment, on the 10th day negative poster can choose to return to eBay and finalize the comment. This gives oppotunity to work something out.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The thing is, it's always the person with the more expensive lawyer that wins. At least it seems that way. When the Scientologists sued Slashdot, the church seemed like they may have had more money to throw at the case. This guy suing eBay, didn't have a chance. eBay makes so much more money and could afford so much better lawyers. Its just like big companies sueing to take away domain names from people, and certain companies sueing for intellectual properties rights. Why do you think they are starting out with small companies?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that eBay won this case, but doesn't anyone else see this trend? Small guy sues for dumb reason: loses. Big company sues for dumb reason: wins.
It deeply offends me whenever I see lawsuits like this, especially when I'm not the plaintiff. He wasn't hurt in any way that matters, and eBay did nothing wrong in relation to this case. I'm glad to see that the case was dismissed, and I hope he goes though many costly and unsuccessful appeals, finally being counter-sued for eBay's legal fees.
While we're on the subject, check out the hilarious feedback left by andy46477.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion.
Personally, I think Grace sounds like a slimebag. But his argument does have merit: eBay is not simply a conduit for information, like an ISP. eBay actively publishes content onto the web, and Grace is arguing that eBay should be held responsible when that content violates the law.
Without reading the judge's decision, it's difficult to speculate as to his reasoning. [I'm not very familiar with the CDA.] I wonder whether his decision applies only to libel. If someone posted an auction including child pornography images, for example, and that auction made its way onto the search pages...could the government prosecute eBay, as a publisher of that illegal content?
It's also worth noting that the entire case has not been dismissed. Grace sued both eBay and the "memorabilia dealer" who allegedly posted the "libelous feedback." The judge dismissed Grace's claim against eBay (Grace vows to appeal), but presumably the claim against the dealer still stands.
crib
Please don't read my journal
That was a cool episode. Oh, the memories...
That thing is still on the books? The bill that caused a LARGE portion of the 'net to go black for 48 hours in 1995? The bill that started the EFF's blue ribbon campaign? I thought the bill was ruled unconstitutional, or were just the "evil" parts?
The ruling seems to make good legal sense.
I've bid on things on ebay, and sold things there too. Most people (99%?) seem to be reasonable about feedback and realistic about it. If I see someone with a feedback rating of 50, and some guy with a feedback of 1 posts a questionable gripe.. WHO CARES?
Ok. I can understand the seller's point. It's like being a good store, and having some kook stand outside telling people not to shop there. He's entitled to do that. People are entitled to - and likely will - ignore him.
I'm still quite sure that eBay fully cooperates with those seeking to take action against other users who post libelous feedback.
The court obviously made the correct decision in throwing out the lawsuit. I do hope the judge told the plaintiff(s) to take it up with the people responsible for the poor feedback. That's where justice lies in these cases.
If you really watched too much South Park, you would know it actually looked more like:
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
--------- --------- ---------
Steal ??? Profit!
Underpants
Ok, Givens: I read the article.
I don't know what he was suing for money? or just to have the comment removed.
I don't know what the comment was.
That said, IMO eBay shouldn't be responsible. Someone made negative feedback, deal with it. If you can't live with having that particular piece of feedback on there, make a new account. If you have tons of feedback, most of it is good, and there is this one guy who calls you a shitbrick, he's just going to look like an ass-clown.
I think this guy was -bored-, drunk and PMSing when he decided he need to sue eBay. IMO, far far far to many things are coming down to legal action. It seems that the immediate reaction for people is to sue sue sue.
IMO, there's a difference between libel/slander, and someone making negative feedback/talking shit. Even if whatever the guy posted was false, I don't feel that eBay should have a policy of reversing negative feedback... I think the key to this is that if you are a good buyer/seller, and you have a majority of positive feedback, one or two lame comments aren't going to matter.
The man mentions that if he published an slanderous comment in one of his publications or something, that would be punishable. But that's just the thing. These ebay comments aren't going to the front page. Chances are your neighbor/people you know are not going to read them. The general public isn't going to hear that 'Bob' thinks you're a 'thieving bastard who no one should ever sell to'.
Anyway, more information would be needed to disagree/agree with the judges decision I think. But going on what I have, thats my opinion.
-AC Slater
Seriously: Are those childish, waste-of-time websites really amusing, to you?
I have a difficult time understanding why you kids spend time setting up these stupid websites, and then littering the web with links to them. They're fucking counters. Seriously. That's it. They fucking count. You might as well link to Andale.
Whatever the amusement is about those things, I really don't get it. I guess it's a "stupid people" thing.
....get even! If someone writes nasty "graffiti" on your feedback page, return the favor!
No...seriously....if someone has bad feedback for me, I will listen, and try to improve my relations with the next customer.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
I'm sorry to say this, but it's already been done. Several border states have already sued the Feds and won. If I remember correctly, the awarded sums were in the billions of dollars. The basis for the suits was the fact that the states had to pay for immigration benefits and jail time for illegal immigrants.
This is not only limited to "forums" such as eBay feedback, I have had issues with this site getting me a lot of negative and attacking responses.
If you think otherwise, then nobody would or could set up a website where people can post stuff, because the owners of such a website could be sued for the contents posted by other people. It would literally be impossible to run such a site without terrible legal risks. I can only imagine what kind of messed up legal system we would have if the laws were fscked up like that.
Actually, in some circumstances, there are really fscked up laws. For example, a guy broke into a school in the middle of the night. While in there ILLEGALLY, he fell down and broke his arm. He sued the school and won, and the school had to pay him damages for an activity that took place while he was illegally on the premises. In my opinion, if somebody is in the process of an illegal activity, the victim of the crime (in this case, the school that was broken into) receives automatic immunity from any liability to the criminal, including shooting them. That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved. Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME would not have to pay damages to the CRIMINAL who performed the ILLEGAL act.
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226.shtm l
What's with the space? I mean, I'd jump at a chance to slahdot slashdot.
Wait...
:\
damn...
These days, most people on here aren't stupid enough to reply to a troll. The counter is for those people (to see how many people at least clicked through.) Yes, it's a "stupid people" thing, just as the troll itself was. The people that actually spend time composing a response are much more entertaining though. btw, thx
Somebody's been watching too much South Park. (And that would be me, for instantly recognizing the Underpants Gnome Business Plan).
You make it sound as though a business plan in the form
"1)do something
2)do something else
3)????
4)profit!"
isn't posted under every single article.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
when I'm feeling the love certain parts of me seem to defy gravity.
By this chain of logic, I will never get prostate cancer.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
So, he bought a bunch of old Playboys?
I still want to know where the "In Soviet Russia, the you!" model comes from. I'm going to assume it's a reference just like the South Park ones, rather than a /. innovation like imagining Beowulf clusters and Natalie Portman hot grits. Speaking of which, a while back someone at work said to me, about a colleague of ours, "I was going to build a Beowulf cluster of Jonas but I couldn't imagine it."
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I go skinnydipping and think of you when the fish are nibbling my reef.
Its a veritable gold mine! Harvest the trolls of ebay to increase the variety on slashdot (because trollkore and sci-fi offtopic is getting boring).
Remember kids, all comments are attributable to the poster. Judge Willhite says so!
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
its cumaulative tangible value infact exceed the value of the profit margin on MOST if not all transactions. You can infact SELL your user ID for cash proving this point. think about it.
Many stores delberately sell items cheaply to establish an intial good reputation which allows them to seek higher profits later. E-bay knows this and promotes this will all sorts of "power seller badges" and the ability to restrict sales to people with good feedaback, and even offers the opportunity for enhanced selling venues to people with lots of good feedback. They are selling you the chance to improve your reputation.
if this reputation had no directly related commercial value, such as on slashdot then one could safely argue that ebay was not selling it. but they are and they are making money off of it. therefore their obligation to help you protect that reputation exists.
the fact that they cannot economically do so given the number of users is not any excuse at all. General motors could sell cars more cheaply too if they did not have to obey laws on car safety.
in deed, digressing a bit, e-bay does not adequately police the safety of their web site against fraud. just because it would cut into their profits to do so again does not make this an excuse. Night club owners are obligated to hire security to protect their patrons from evil doers. so is e-bay. Why? again because e-bay is making a profit off the activity.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1) Do you think David Hasselholf searched for his album on Amazon and saw the reviews?
2) Do you think David attempted to contact the people who "wrote" the reviews?
3) Is E.W. going to do a special on the return of David Hasselhoff after finding a link on a certain forum that shows evidence of a resurgance, hinting at a new undercurrent in the Bay?
4) Will MacRumors.com chastise E.Weekly for reporting without fact checking, and posting fabricated benchmarks?? (David H. vs. William S., CIFS, GLMark, TCPA-B in Oracle 9i, all pointing favorably at the D.H. superiority)
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I don't think it should be eBay's responsibility to take down negative feedback if it hasn't been established to be libel, but once it is established to be libel by a court of law it should be eBay's responsibility to remove it.
Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements. So the proper thing to do would be to first sue the poster and then require eBay to remove the libelous feedback.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Not quite six years later, the number of "horse f@cking" spams in my e-mail has increased exponentially, and this - person - uses the law against an auction hosting website, instead of the person who posted the comment, over an instance of sour grapes and infantile behavior.
[sarcasm]Well, I'm just glad to see that somebody's getting some use out of the CDA.[/sarcasm]
Meanwhile, I'm going to go check my eBay feedback, and see if andy46477 has left one of his surreal little comments for me. Wierd as they are, they're pretty darn funny!
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
He was making a supplemental income with Ebay, because clearly he sucks at his day job.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
its a fact: unconditional user agreements cant limit your right to sue. unless you actually negotiated your right, say in return for a lower price, you cannot give up your right to sue, even though the contract says so. this is classic legal construct recognized in all 50 states for centuries.
you are engaging in a contract with e-bay when you pay them. they have to excersize due dilligence. Simply stating they are not responsible is not a legal excuse since the contract is not negotiable.
skiing is not a right, but they are liable for gross negligence no matter what they print on the back of the ticket.
It may say not responsible for violent acts in the parking lot on the night club sign, but they are responsible for providing reasonable security to their patrons.
the store may say they are not liable for slip and falls but if they dont mark the spot they mopped up they sure as heck are.
its not a matter of take it or leave it. if you think so you are in for a big surprise next time you find your self in a contract dispute. Onerous provisions of any contract are not enforcable if they were not negotiated. and the courts have long agreed that "take it or leave it" is not considered negoitation.
So, in my case, I ALWAYS post feedback as a seller, upon receipt of payment. Of course, this opens me up to unfair negatives, but it is the way and consequence of integrity.
http://cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeed back&userid=johnnyland
.. I D I O T S !!!
*Johnnyland*
Response by johnnyland - B.S ACTION/BOWING FULLY STATED IN TEXT! U STILL GRIPED. I REFUNDED IN FULL!!!!!!
Response by johnnyland - SYMPATHETIC? YOU'RE A DEADBEAT THAT STIFFED ME FOR $150. GET A JOB, BOZO.
Response by johnnyland - HEY, STUPID NEWBIE! U PAID $28 FOR NICE TAMA SNARE! AS PICTURED SENT TIMELY
Response by johnnyland - BANK MISTAKE? HAHAHA! YOU WROTE ME A BAD CHECK!! CAN YOU SPELL JAIL? CROOK!
Response by johnnyland - THE TROUBLE IS IN YOUR HEAD! I DO NOT RECOGNIZE FEEDBACK FROM
Response by johnnyland - DEADBEAT. THIS TYPE OF CRAP MAKES ME HATE EBAY SOMETIMES. THIS GUY'S TRASH!
Yes sir, alot of upright professionals on e-bay today!
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
The case that appears to have decided current legal status for ISPs in the UK was the Demon case, which effectively decided that UK ISPs are responsible for removing libelous material from their servers. No 'Common Carrier' immunity in Airstrip one.
Nothing seems to have happened to improve the situation since, either, despite official reports suggesting following the US model.
You go on to say that you have a several feedback items that are negative, yet simply being "negative" does not mean it is "libellous". If somebody was not happy with your service, for whatever reason, they are fully entitled to let others know why. If I go to a restaurant and I think the food sucks, I'm gonna tell my friends the food sucks, no matter how many other people may like it. That's not libel; that's opinion.
Also, you have to remember that most people are working off only one experience, or at best a few experiences, with a particular seller on eBay. If that one experience is bad, then that taints their relationship with that particular seller. If that's the case, and if they then post negative feedback, there's no reason to call that feedback "libel". It's just an opinion.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Is it me or are the really good, nice lawyers dwarfed by the number of total idiots who think that because they managed to memorize enough lawbooks to pass the bar, that they're now somehow better and more important than the rest of us??
It's too bad... There is a need for lawyers in this world, but largely just so that the average person can survive the lawsuits that morons like this guy throw around.
It's nice to see that common sense still wins out on occassion though! Hey... Does anyone know this guys ebay handle? I personally wouldn't take a bid from him if I knew it.
I sent a few to my gf from Italy (pompeii) that had their famous 'phallic' statues.... nothing like some well endowed stone men to get the blood pumping, ehhh? Well, they were all 'lost' by the postal service. Oddly enough, they were going to a rather conservative town....
Instead of suing eBay, why not try suing the plonker that left rhe negative feedback. Oh, wait.. that's because eBay has deeper pockets. It's no wonder the suit was dismissed.
...while people do abuse it, most of the disputing feedback receivers are probably doing it for frivolous reasons. I've had to leave negative feedback for a few people, and it's not a pleasant experience. It doesn't matter if you're just telling the truth--they send you nasty emails, leave *you* negative feedback even if you did nothing wrong, etc.
So Ebay would probably end up spending all their time pointing out to people, "Yes, if you lie about what shipping method you're using, they're justified in leaving negative feedback. Yes, if you send them the wrong item, they're justified in leaving negative feedback." And so on, and so forth.
I find a wide river divide between writing something down for all to see for eternity and speaking something. Everyone KNOWS the spoken word is opinion of one identifiable person. You can't come into my retail biz and and see bad comments written on the wall. (I suppose at restaurants you can, but 99% of restaurants get 97% or better DHEC ratings)
People are too scared to leave negative feedback. The person will inevitably neg them back. It's just not working. Join the forums there and even long time ebay users will say "I don't post negs anymore, under any circumstance."
Some sellers are getting away with murder on Ebay, and few, if anyone, is negging them for precisely this reason.
It's very very hard to get a neg removed. If the seller has the wrong user information is one way, but even then they usually just get a warning.
The system used to work, but just isn't standing up anymore.
I believe libel suits also involve a measure of plausability - it's only libel if a 'reasonable person' might believe it was true. For instance, no one would believe Bush really blows goats (unless you're a looney ;) ), but if I were to say that I saw Bush's two (at the time) under-age daughters drinking at a frat party (true) and then getting into a massive gangbang orgy (false), that could qualify as libel. If I said the orgy included the entire defensive line of the Dallas Cowboys, that might pass the line into unbelieveablity and no longer be libelous. If I also mentioned that it included a goat and Newt Gingrinch filmed it, then we're definitely out of libel-land: no 'reasonable person' would believe it was true.
-T
Maybe they haven't done a trade in 6 months?
Just a hunch.
I think my principles are reachin' an all time low
Are ``Victory for free speech'' and ``perversion of justice'' mutually exclusive?
Homework: Explain how ``free speech'' must be defined to make the XOR appropriate.
Extra credit Define ``justice'' and ``perversion''.
See what I've been reading.
It is really quite surprising what is on the eBay "Banned Items List", from which if you sell an item, they will stop your auction and threaten to terminate your account.
But as a Common Carrier, they could not do this, just as your local phone company cannot regulate the contents of your conversation.
Any attorney out there want to tackle this one?
If you really watched too much South Park, you would know it actually looked more like:
[snip]
I consider any business plan with "???" as an interior step to be derivatives of the Underpants Gnome Master Business Plan (which means that most of the dot coms must have been run by Underpants Gnomes when they were founded).
If the guy was an honest Joe and got bad feedback then that really sucks but it's not eBay's problem.
But, let's all remember there's no REAL easy way to making a fortune.
A requirement for successful removal of negative feedback through SquareTrade is that BOTH PARTIES MUST AGREE TO ARBITRATION. If the poster of the feedback refuses, you're stuck. I've been there. I got hit with 'neutral' feedback in retaliation for my 'neutral' comment (which by all rights should have been 'negative') about a shady seller.
SquareTrade couldn't do anything because the other guy refused to discuss it.
One positive thing I have to say about SquareTrade: Since the other guy refused to arbitrate, SquareTrade did not charge me anything for their (lack of) service.
- Buyer wins the auction and doesn't pay. (By far the most common.)
- Buyer wins auction despite stated conditions that invalide him/her as a buyer. (Ex: I don't allow international buyers, or payments with personal checks, etc.)
- Seller acceps payment but item is never delivered.
- Seller misrepresents the conditions or features of the item in the auction description.
- Communication problems (invalid email address, other party sends abusive emails, etc.)
Why not replace the current free-form feedback system with these list of choices? (I've surely left some out.) Some options could be non-selectable until a certain time period has passed. I would also like to see a feature that automatically rejects bids from people below a certain threshold of negative feedback."The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
I'm in Ohio. A lawyer in Florida who bid the
$3.00 Buy It Now price on one of my items in
December, 2002, is trying to extort $500.00 from
be by threatening to sue for $100,000.00 in
Florida unless I pay him the $500.00. He violated
my listed TOS several times, and then threatened
me, so when he sent a PayPal I refunded it right
away and we exchanged Negative feedback. Mine was
"he violated my TOS" type comments, and his was
"this guy is whacko" and he also implied that I
kept his money (a flat out LIE).
He claims I damaged his on-line reputation. His
overall rating is up 97 since, with no Negs. Mine
is up 103, with 10 Negs (I leave feedback for all
high bidders, especially deadbeat bidders). He
also has 5 bid retractions in the last 6 months.
If his rep is damaged, maybe he should consider
honoring his bids...
Of course, I am not paying him a penny. My
attorney is working on the matter right now.
If he follows through, I will sue him here.
I am also considering ethics and criminal
charges against him. This could (could, I'm
not a lawyer) become a federal matter, as he
used the USPS to deliver his extortion threat
(ala The Firm).
see section 230(c) for their defense raised. It basically immunizes a "content provider" (slashdot included) against defamation that might occur on their board. as for the kiddie porn, see section (e)(1).
The trick to getting negative feedback removed is to get the other user suspended for having invalid contact information. Check out the Feedback Board on ebay.com
Why slashdot? Why not?
eBay is not legally responsible for the remarks that users post on its site, even if those remarks are defamatory
maybe
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
As a seller on eBay for more than 5 years, now with more than 1500 feedback comments (99.2% positive), I have felt every negative for WEEKS! after I have gotten them; getting emails about what went wrong, etc etc. I also KNOW LOTS of eBayers will peruse through feedback, even with my high rating and look for my one or two negatives. Where this really comes into play is if the buyer is a problematic or habitual complainer, they will use your previous negatives as ammo against you to say, "See, you have a past of poor service" (Not that I experience that many problems) Just, it seems the last two negatives I have gotten as an excuse to justify the poster's poor communication skills.
One of the problems here is that many sellers inflate their scores by buying from themselves and leaving positive feedback. On lots of them it is obvious because the positive feedback looks all the same and the negative contradicts it. I have to admit in the past I have specifically looked up negative feedback, partly for this reason, and partly because I am interested in knowing how a given person handles problems. Does s/he ignore all complaints and cry "caveat emptor?" Or does s/he try to fix the problem if s/he possibly can?
This philosophy applies to everyone I do business with in any context. I also tend not to buy without guarantees. So far I have had better luck with ebay than with major stores due to my caution.
I'm trying to help someone else right now with this scam. Add me as a friend, and I'll let you know if I find out anything. The difference in this other case is that the "lawyer" is in California, and the victim is in Canada.
Definitely inform eBay of these harrassing emails.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.