Slashdot Mirror
eBay Accused of Price Gouging Scheme
Symbiot writes "eBay is being sued in a Calilfornia court for a practice that the plaintiff, Glenn Block of Pennsylvania, claims artificially raises the amount of a bid. The practice combines the warning emails that eBay sends out when you are the highest bidder and your bid is at your maximum, with the bid increment mechanism. It seems that if your original maximum bid settnig prevents your current bid from falling on an increment then your current bid will be raised to the next increment as soon as you raise your maximum. If the plaintiff wins this class action suit could cost eBay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars."
Bullshit. This happened to me once.
I had a max of say 100.01 and another bidder had bid 100.00 while the current high was substantially lower, so it showed 'You have been outbid the current high bid is 100.01' Now, they could bid at least 102.51 and take the lead or had figured that was just too much, either way, I see that they have homed in and I raise my cap to 125.00, suddenly my high bid is 102.50 rather than 100.01.
To shed a different light on this, there was another time a similar thing happened, but when I reloaded the page later it would revert back to my prior high bid, which can be handy for disguising what your actual new cap is. I'm sure they know all about it and had fiddled with the way it works.
It happened once to my knowledge, so I'm probably only entitled to a couple bucks, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If the plaintiff wins this class action suit could cost eBay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars."
I think that's a gross exaggeration of the problem, however it could cost eBay a lot in man-hours auditting the results of every auction since the beginning to determine who is entitled to a refund.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
From the article: "EBay automatically increases bids only when the maximum has been hit and when the prior top bid was between bidding increments. For example, bidding increments on items priced between $100 and $249.99 is $2.50. Block, however, raised his bid increment by $1.50." therefore his bid increment would not be enough to secure the item.
...with a little more substance than the Reuters.com blurb can be found here.
"Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
No, that's a legit charge for services. You pay a fee to use their service to list your item. They have to make money at it somehow. PayPal is then an optional service, again that you can pay for. You don't have to use PayPal to take money, you could get yourself an account wiht someone like Verifone and take credit cards yourself, but that also costs money.
They provide a service that is valuable to you, I see no problem with them wanting to make money on it.
Just read the article, the last line of it summarises the entire lawsuit:
EBay had net revenue of $3.27 billion in 2004.
Ahh it is whoopty fucking doo though.
And a dollar is actually a lot for such schemes. For example it is illegal for a boss to shave a minute off of your clock time even though it may only be worth a few cents extra. Doing that could save a large company hundreds if not thousands of dollars per pay period. The people recieving the checks probably wouldnt notice either, but it is still cheating people of money and illegal.
The same reason the "money shaving" scheme in office space was wrong comes to mind.
WoW: Scheod 70 orc warlock on Shadowmoon
In the bad form of replying to my own post I found the help section on eBay that explains this policy. To quote:
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So, eBay is price gouging an -auction- whose parameters [set increments] are defined well before the customer participates?
Perhaps I'm missing some nuance of law, but this seems like something that eBay's lawyers [and the judge] will toss into the street with a nice lengthy brief which summarizes to "RTFM!".
Something bothers me about the nature of civil suits and monetary awards in this country.
Why is it that we make it a habit of running off with as much money as we possibly can from a lawsuit?
The purpose of suing for this sort of stuff should be twofold: 1) to regulate company action by means of threat and penalty AND 2) reparations. Nowhere in those two clauses do I find any justification for "screwing the other guy over because he did it to me first."
It seems to me that few suits are about that anymore. While its true that you are entitled to sue if a company takes advantage of you, often times the rabidity with which "wronged" plaintiffs style their demands leads me to wonder if they are simply taking advantage of the momentary shift in power.
In that scenario, it's no longer about punishing the one who took advantage of you because he could. It's about turning around and taking full advantage of him, because now you can.
I liken this to a physical auction where the auctioneer is saying, "I have $100, do I hear $150, $150?" He's looking for $150, not for some dimwit to yell $110. If he gets no bites at $100, he may sell at $100 or ask for $125. What he doesn't do is throw it open for said dimewit to say, "I'll give you $100.01."
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Or something. I've never tried other auction places"
Don't bother. I collect old watches and one day I saw a watch I wanted. At $50, no reserve. I emailed the guy to see if he'd take $250 (about a quarter of what it's worth, hey, it's worked in the past) and he said he'd just sold it for $200 and can't understand why it didn't sell in a month on Yahoo auctions with a buy it now price of $100.
ebay has no competition. That's bad in a way, but it's also good in that you only have to look in one place.
I don't sell on ebay, only buy and its saved me tons of money. Actually it's cost me tons of money, but I got way more for the money than I'd get paying retail.
In fact, I just noticed I don't really buy much on stores at all any more.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Nobody seems to understand the problem here. It isn't about winning auctions. It's about eBay automatically increasing your bid for no real reason.
Here's the scenario:
You bid on an item for, say, $80.
Somebody comes along, bids $75.
Your bid is auto-incremented to $76 to beat out this other bidder.
You, getting nervous that somebody might usurp your spot with a max bid of $80, increase your maximum.
When you increase your maximum bid, eBay automatically increments the CURRENT bid value by the increment amount, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE THE CURRENT HIGH BIDDER TO BEGIN WITH.
This is where the price gouging comes in. You are already the high bidder, you're just increasing your maximum bid. It shouldn't increase the current bid when the current high bidder increases his maximum, though. That is totally nonintuitive. The system interprets your maximum bid increase as a "competing bid" however and checks its max value against the current max bid value, and if greater, it "bids" on the item with the new max value, increasing the cost by the minimum increment, just as if ANOTHER bidder had come along and bid on the item at a higher value.
It's like you're bidding against yourself whenever you increase your maximum bid, and THIS is the price gouge that is to be disliked.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Yeah I've noticed that. Another thing I have noticed when "shopping" around there. There will be an item with say a 7 day auction and it's on day 4 and there were 6 bidders. I see a number of instances where some are all of them bidders have been signed up as a buyer for 2+ years and bought nothing in all that time. But all of a sudden they decide they want the item I want. Hmmmmm.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Once again the little-guy gets the short end of the stick
Maybe the 'little guy' needs to be a little more careful with the pointy end of the stick, if he doesn't want the big guys to come and take the stick away.
This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit. Some functional illiterate from the Land of Fruits and Nuts logged onto eBay and placed a couple of bids without having his mommy read him the eBay terms of service first. It's amazing (and frightening) how few eBay users actually understand how eBay auctions work.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
One thing I can say is good, though, is that eBay doesn't nail bidders for a fee as well. I've had to shell some $$ in the past on other auctions and thought that was pretty scurvy, but it actually is practice at many large auction houses. Sothebys and the like didn't become famous for their charity to buyers and sellers.
Yeah, but acccording to themselves (IIRC) EBay are not auctioneers:-
From Ebay.com and also at Ebay.co.uk, they say that:-
3. eBay is Only a Venue.
3.1 eBay is not an auctioneer. Although we are commonly referred to as an online auction web site it is important to realise that we are not a traditional auctioneer. Instead, the Site acts as a venue which allows registered users to offer, sell, and buy just about anything which is legal, at any time, from anywhere, in a variety of price formats. We do not review listings provided by users, we never possess the items offered through the Site and we are not involved in transactions between buyers and sellers.
In short, they do a lot less than Sothebys and friends, so I don't consider this largesse in any way.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"therefore his bid increment would not be enough to secure the item"
That is not correct if I understand you right, so your comment should not be moderated Insightful.
The proxy bidding system is what eBay is using to manipulate some buyers, and thus milk higher FVFees from eBay sellers.
A person CAN win an auction if their high bid is not a full official increment above the lower bidder. This happens in the following situation:
I bid $5.02 on an auction first. Then you bid $5 in the final seconds, in an attempt to snipe my bid which is showing as the starting price of $0.99. I win the auction with a winning bid of $5.02, even though the next increment should be $5.25.
My appology if you meant this and I wasn't understanding what you were saying in your post.
Why slashdot? Why not?
I've been with Paypal since near its beginning and I've always been surprised that its made it since its margins are actually very low. So yeah, Paypal isn't doing that much gouging, at least on this issue... (it has other problems...)
You win!!!
First Death Post!!!
As the first Slashdotter to predict the eminent demise of the subject of the thread, you win one free bullet for use when you decide to blow your brains out because you can't deal with everyone else being so stupid.
As an added bonus, you receive and extra 'just in case I fuck it up' bullet because you, sir, also posted the ever enlightening 'I'm too good for you' post in which you describe how you are better than everyone else and will no longer associate yourself with the subject of the thread. Consider yourself in the good company of those who no longer watch TV, but feel the need to tell everyone.
Kudos to you sir and thank you for helping to keep Slashdot discussions packed full of meaningless, cynical, cliche posts. You hard work does not go unnoticed.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
If you enter a proxy bid of $125, then you are entering into a contract with eBay and the seller to pay up to $125 if yours is the winning bid. If you end up winning at $102.50, then you should be happy for getting the item for $22.50 cheaper than you were willing to spend. It doesn't matter if you were initially willing to spend $100.01 before, your new bid of $125 supercedes this, and by your own free will. If you weren't willing to pay $102.50, then why did you place a bid of $125?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
OK, everyone is complaining that this system doesn't make sense but lets break down what is going on.
Say I am bidding on an item and my maximum bid is £101.
The auction is currently at $90.
The auction has increments of £5.
Someone makes a bid of £100, my maximum bid is greater, but less than the increment so it is used.
The auction now stands at £101.
I'm getting worried that I might loose the auction as its right on the max, so I increase my bid to £120.
Ebay then increases the current bidding to £105.
This seems to be what the lawsuit is about, ebay raising the current bidding, when you increase your maximum bid just because your original maximum bid fell between increment levels. In this case it fell between £100 and £105.
If I originally had bid £120, instead of £101 then when the other bidder placed a bid of £100, my bid would not have incremented to £101, but instead to £105 as that is the next incremental level.
If ebay is found to be at fault then they may have to set it so that you can only bid on the increment levels.
If ebay just change the system so that the current bidding price increases when you increase your bid then bots will probably be written to take advantage. They will just place a bid 1p above the next incremental level, if it fails then 1p above the next level. Keep going until you reach your maximum bid. In the case of the example auction that I highlited above the bid could save £4.99, so it would seem like a way of saving money.
When PayPal first started they claimed to make their profit from the interest while your money sits in their accounts. When you send someone money, they take it right away. When you want to cash out, they write a check and it takes a few days or a week. Better yet for them, you maintain a positive balance. All the while they are earning interest on that money. It may not seem like much, but when you have millions and millions of users, many with hundreds of dollars on their balance.
Somehow PayPal manageges not to be classified as a bank either, which has been a hot topic in the past. They get to skirt much of the federal regulations.
I don't know if this is still their business model, but if so, i think it's great. Customers get a cool service and they make money as a byproduct of the service. It's a win-win situation when it works.
TODO: come up with a clever sig
People think that they are "sticking it to the evil corporations" with all their frivolous lawsuits.
They sue big "evil" company for millions of dollars.
Big "evil" company considers this a cost of doing buisness, and passes the cost down in the price of the goods they sell.
We, the people, then pay for it in higher cost of goods and services.
Perhaps you don't buy from Ebay, but no part of the economy is exempt from the lawyer tax.
Not only is this summary 1/4 as long as the article summary published by Slashdot, it displays a superior level of understanding by its author. More importantly, it encourages readers to read the entire article, rather than pissing them off with typos or stupid statements like this
and this
This is a case where, if I were a schoolteacher and "symbiot" was my student, I would encourage plagiarism.
I mentioned this in another post, but it bears repeating. eBay is--first and foremost--an auction house.
They behave like other auction houses do, and increase bids in an incremental fashion. This prevents ninja-bidders at the last second from bidding pennies more then someone else and winning the auction. (Imagine that you're bidding on a 4.1M dollar house, and someone comes in with 0.01 seconds to go and bids $4,100,000.01).
This practice is NOTHING NEW. Where eBay had to modernize the concept was the fact that everyone is a proxy bidder on their site, no one is bidding in person. This means that they follow the other rules that auction houses follow, which is that when two proxy bids are registered for the same amount, the first person whose proxy bid arrives gets the bid, and the other person has already been outbid.
This is effectively the same thing that would happen were one to visit an actual, honest-to-God auction house. Two people would raise their paddles at the same time. The auctioneer would pick one of them (probably the one whom he sees first), and would accept a bid from them. The other person would either then keep their paddle up for the next bid increment, or they would put it down because that really was the highest dollar amount they were willing to pay.
Ignorance of how auctions work shouldn't entitle one to any amount of payout in a lawsuit. It should entitle one to a swift "ha ha" and a kick in the pants for wasting the rest of our time.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Before eBay, there was a contingent of lonely, fat housewives and weirdos that collected tons of goofy, worthless crap that nobody cared or knew about. After eBay, this contingent of social malcontents has found a place on the net where they can let their obsessive pathology run wild. If you don't believe me, look at eBay's forums and see all the ADD/bipolar people complaining their their treasure hunt game is rigged. If you think Slashdotters are antisocial nerds, you have no idea... eBay locals make AOL people look like the M.I.T. graduation class.
Remember folks, this is the site that gave us the virgin mary grilled cheese sandwich. Of course it's populated by a bunch of loonies who are desperately looking to get their 15 minutes of fame and move out of their trailers. Why is Slashdot giving these people any publicity? Every other day someone is threatening a class action against eBay because they got negative feedback over the 18-century electric can opener they sold being claimed as bogus.