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.'"
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Have you checked eBay? They're probably for sale there! Dave
My peace of mind does not depend on