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."
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.
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.
But eBay will remove comments in certain cases. Post someone's phone number, for example; they also act as an appeals court and can be persuaded that a comment is wrong or malicious -- this is rare, sure, but it does happen.
You're right though: the catch though is that eBay goes to extreme lengths to monitor the items for sale on the site but then professes hands off on user comments. It's kind of like me saying that I'll watch your kids while they're in my house but if they head out back to the pool and drown that's tough shit. I think eventually this will be decided in the courts as it's a very thin line the company's straddling.
But yeah, the guy should have sued the poster of the comments. Suing eBay is incidental. But they have a lot more money.
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
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
Actually, it gets weirder.
Ebay's got this partnership/close-connection/they spam you with a group called SquareTrade that you can sign up for (I think you have to have certain number of feedbacks/powerseller status).
SquareTrade lets you do feedback resolution--though of course you have to send them an extra couple of dollars each month.
I guess ebay uses a third party to keep from being considered in any way responsible for comments... but I don't think it's that hard to remove negative feedback (never done it myself.)
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.
Funny you should use that example but a Sydney (Australia) restaurant sued a food critic for the Sydney Morning Herald for a bad review a couple of years ago. I can't remember what the result was though.
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.
"...used by someone to send a libelous email about you."
Sue them? Why not just get them arrested? Arizona law, at least, states:
"Recklessly using a computer... (to) Cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress"
Read the Statute
Class 5 felony; pretty funny prank to pull on your friends next time they piss you off. Of course Sheriff Joe would be glad to help his campaign with a few more numbers on his charts... jackass anyone?
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.
Well regardless I am pretty sick of hearing of lawyers who seem to define libel as "anything negative however true." I should also point out that opinions are not libel. If I think Ebay sucks, and say so, then I am stating an opinion. Libel is when someone knowingly and maliciously tells lies in order to harm someone's reputation.
If I think GWB blows goats, and it's not true, but I say he does, I am just a looney. But if I know for a fact he does not blow goats, and say he does, that is libel. If we stripped lawyers of their licenses and made them go back to school when they came up with bullshit like this, taht even a layman can see is a spurious legal argument, maybe we would see less of it.
Why not? None of the participants on the site are compelled to be there against their will. You are clearly told when you sign up (and many times thereafter) that the vendor and winning bidder will be subject to feedback.
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.
EBay is less like a publisher and more like the operator of a printing press -- they don't write or edit the information, but simply provide the conduit for delivery. And like a printing press operator, they reserve the right to refuse to deliver certain content without taking full responsibility for content that isn't rejected.
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?
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).