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."
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.'"
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
how is the second post redundant if the first post had no content?
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.
Actually, your analogy is off the mark. It would be more like JCPenny, as an integral part of their business, promoting and touting a "rate the vendor" board where a customer made libelous statements about AZ Jeans. I think AZ Jeans would be justified in a suit (naming both the libelous speaker and the facilitator, JCP). The Seller Comments section of eBay is much more than a mere uncontrolled bulletin board--it's the stock in trade of the people who do business there. It's not billed as a chat board, but as a rating system. People shopping on eBay are led, by eBay, to expect that this comment system enhances their safety and is therefore accurate. I'm inclined to think the court was wrong in going the "common carrier" route and, as previous posters have pointed out, they do exercise some content control already.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
Yeah, and ink pen companies don't adequately protect against people using their product to forge signatures either...
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."
He was making a supplemental income with Ebay, because clearly he sucks at his day job.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I would compare your argument to teachers being sued for giving bad recommendations, but this is more like the school being sued for a teacher giving a bad req. You're right on one point...a reputation does have a weight when doing transactions. Negative feedback affects you negatively, and positive feedback affects you positively. However, the only reason this system works is because people accept the fact that there will be negative feedback and positive feedback. Take away the chance of getting negative feedback, and the rating system loses all credentials.
--trb