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."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
The person suing was suing because Ebay wouldn't remove the comment, not because the comment got put there in the first place. Still, Ebay shouldn't be liable, and their EULA probably sees to that.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
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
Looks like eBay had better lawyers than Slashdot did in this case:
h tm l
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226.s
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.
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...
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.
Just for clarification, it should be known that most "public persons" (such as GWB) have to show malicious intent to prove libel. In addition to proving your allegation is untrue, they also have to prove you meant to damage their reputation.
So you can say he blows goats, but if you do not mean it, (as in a joke), it is not actionable. But keep in mind the president and other politicians are protected against threats.