Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ebay Negative Feedback Lawsuit Dismissed

Posted by timothy on from the silence-is-golden dept.

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."

6 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Of course ebay is not liable. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is because they don't screen the comments. I think we all remember how AOL and Prodigy were found to be liable for what was in their forums because they moderated them. But ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there. His beef is with the poster, not with ebay.

    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.'"
  2. Makes total sense by icemax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Makes total sense by t0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Plus, the lawsuit is totally silly. One bad feedback isnt going to mess up his rating. The beauty of ebay is that it works on averages: so all he would have to do is make sure his future auctions completed to everyones satisfaction.

      Sure, it kind of sounded like the guy who won the auction was being a dick, but thats hardly ebay's fault.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  3. Neither? by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. But should they be? by cribcage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is because they don't screen the comments. ...ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there.
    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
  5. ILLEGAL!!! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Free speech. Definitely free speech.

    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.