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.
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
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
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
I emailed ebay at the time and got this response:
I just checked, and it appears that all of the feedback for msoft has completely disappeared at some point in the last three years.
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.
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.
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.
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.