Aussie Reserve Bank Eyeing eBay's PayPal Policy

Bulldust writes "Regular readers will recollect the recent story that eBay is forcing Australian users over to PayPal or COD as the only forms of payment in June 2008: eBay Australia Makes PayPal Mandatory. It now appears that the Australian Reserve Bank will consider throwing its weight behind users, should the eBay policy be deemed to breach trade practice and competition laws."

Comments

Ooops

[DaveV1.0]

I am guessing eBat/PayPal forgot there are regulatory bodies they should consult before doing such things.

Re:Ooops

[gstoddart]

I am guessing eBat/PayPal forgot there are regulatory bodies they should consult before doing such things.

No, Ebay and PayPal like to paint themselves as being in a position where they benefit from the regulations they find convenient, and they're exempt from the ones they find inconvenient.

PayPal regularly says they're not a bank and not subject to the rules on banking, and EBay routinely says "we're just a facilitator".

They seem to actually conduct their business as if they are exempt from such forms of regulation. This could be the first time someone has corrected them and pointed out that they aren't the ones that choose which regulations apply.

Cheers

Re:Ooops

[chrome]

in australia we have a legal principle: If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats like a duck, weighs roughly the same as a duck and most australians who've seen it all consider it to be a duck, its most likely duck and probably laws about ducks apply, even if said duck says its a fucking goose.

Re:Ooops

[gstoddart]

in australia we have a legal principle: If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats like a duck, weighs roughly the same as a duck and most australians who've seen it all consider it to be a duck, its most likely duck and probably laws about ducks apply, even if said duck says its a fucking goose.

*laugh* Is that an actual legal principle enshrined in jurisprudence in Australia?

Oh, you wacky bastards!! ;-)

Cheers

Re:Ooops

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Sure, why not? "Oh fer the luvva mike"/"Oh fer cripes sake"/"Oh fer cryin' out loud" is an actual legal defense in the state of Wisconsin.

Re:Ooops

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places, de jure doesn't spend its time doing insane schizophrenic semantic gymnastics in order to pretend that de facto doesn't exist.

Re:Ooops

[gstoddart]

Sure, why not? "Oh fer the luvva mike"/"Oh fer cripes sake"/"Oh fer cryin' out loud" is an actual legal defense in the state of Wisconsin.

Oh, you can't believe how much I want that to be true. That would be just too funny.

I honestly have no idea if you're joking or not though. It's like that mythical Texas "He Needed Killin'" law. :-P

Cheers

Re:Ooops

[urcreepyneighbor]

I'd hate to see how the Aussies handle a platypus. :(

Re:Ooops

[jonatha]

in australia we have a legal principle: If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats like a duck, weighs roughly the same as a duck and most australians who've seen it all consider it to be a duck, its most likely duck and probably laws about ducks apply, even if said duck says its a fucking goose. But does it also have to weigh the same as a witch?

Re:Ooops

[NightRain]

I am guessing eBat/PayPal forgot there are regulatory bodies they should consult before doing such things.

They forgot nothing at all. They actually submitted notice to the ACCC specifically asking for permission to be excluded from regulations that would stop this sort of thing, as it's "more secure" for the end user, and thus ultimately in the end users benefit.

They have not yet got, and likely will not get said permission, making their decision to broadcast their intentions publicly somewhat strange...

Re:Ooops

[Hucko]

Like a monotreme...? The only problem we have with platypuses is they generally die before the trial.

Re:Ooops

[garyevesson]

Like a monotreme...? The only problem we have with platypuses is they generally die before the trial. Ahem. Platypii perhaps...

Re:Ooops

[Hucko]

Not in Ausralia, we try to avoid pseudo-latin terms :)

Re:Ooops

[John Meacham]

Yes. You would have most likely wanted to call it a chazwozzer. :)

Re:Ooops

[Anonymous Coward]

They have not yet got, and likely will not get said permission, making their decision to broadcast their intentions publicly somewhat strange...

The ACCC publishes those notices, and contacts interested parties (in this case, including some consumer and internet advocacy groups) to invite replies. I guess eBay figured the story was going to hit the news one way or another, and wanted to get their positive spin out there first.

Re:Ooops

[Hucko]

or pugdukoolooolrahmabool

Re:Ooops

[electrictroy]

>>>"EBay routinely says 'we're just a facilitator'"

Ebay can no longer claim that "just a venue" distinction, because now Ebay is seeking to punish sellers with low feedback (i.e. 4.3 out of 5, or lower). They are now taking an active part in the transactions.

As for Paypal, they already got slapped once. I got a $40 check out of that class-action lawsuit; perhaps I will soon be getting another one in a future lawsuit.

Re:Ooops

[DarkEmpath]

Burn her!!

why all the greed

[mnslinky]

Why do so many people/companies insist on squeezing every last dime possible out of people. What's wrong with being content with a reasonable profit? I own my own business, have all sorts of toys, and pay my bills. I do so just fine by charging reasonable rates for what I provide. No nickel-and-diming required.

I really despise greedy people. You can't take it with you.

Re:why all the greed

[blahplusplus]

"What's wrong with being content with a reasonable profit?"

The culture and economic system demand the greed, remember Ebay is public company owned by shareholders, whose sole purpose is growth of profits.

As for people. People want power, when people say they want to be "rich", it's not that they want to just be rich (10 million or so) they want as much wealth as possible. Being 'rich' is relative to the richest, what they mean is "I want to be among the richest".

Re:why all the greed

[chrome]

something like 1% of males are psychopathic, and about 90% of those end up in positions of power in large corporations, where most of the traits in psychopathy are looked for in top executives ... and yet people wonder why our corporations are all greedy inhuman unfeeling monsters.

Re:why all the greed

[porcupine8]

Publicly-traded companies have to do what's in the shareholders' best interest - and most people own stock to make a profit and no other reason.

Lesson: If you want to keep your company focused on helping people, doing things right, and making a reasonable amount of money in the process, don't go public.

Re:why all the greed

[cromar]

Or, you know, we could revise the law so that a public company's legal responsibility is to make profit, and not to make the most profit.

Re:why all the greed

[piojo]

Do you have evidence for those statistics? They seem rather unbelievable. I'd believe that 1% of people are nuts--I've met a few. But to say that 90% end up in positions of power? You have to be good at what you do to end up having power.

And you say that psychopathy would be looked up to in these high places--I'm sure this is true in some cases, but I haven't worked for enough large companies to have a feel for whether this is really true. I think a little skepticism is the appropriate response to this type of claim.

Re:why all the greed

[immcintosh]

As I understand it, there is more than a little support for this claim. For example, Robert Hare, apparently a well known criminal psychologist and professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia where he studied psychopathy, seems to be of this opinion.

Re:why all the greed

[piojo]

Thank you for that link--his books look interesting. I still think that the numbers don't work out--the original claim was that 0.9% of men are psychopaths and end up in positions of power in large corporations. That number just seems too high--if 50% of men and 50% of women work in business, and there is one manager for every five lower employees, then 45% of managers are psychopaths. That's why I don't buy the numbers as posted.

Re:why all the greed

[aeschenkarnos]

Yes. It's bullshit. Shareholders should be protected from being lied to or otherwise defrauded, but in terms of the day-to-day activities of the business in which they invest, they should have no more expectations or control than a punter at a horse race. In other words, a shareholder has the right to know what the business is doing, and the right to buy and sell their shares at whatever price they see fit in response, but absolutely zero right whatsoever by mere virtue of being shareholders, to interfere in the actions of the business.

Obviously shareholders should retain the same rights to interfere in the actions of the business as all other members of the public have, of course (injunctions, class actions, etc); but the basis for such legal action should never be a mere financial loss (although there will be financial remedies for non-financial harm), and absolutely never due to a potential financial loss. Actually, getting rid of those last two legal causes of action entirely would be a good thing for everybody, as their unintended consequences are choking us all.

Re:why all the greed

[electrictroy]

I think he was mainly talking about the REAL power inside corporations, i.e. CEOs and their direct servants, not the middle managers who are basically just employees following what they've been told to do.

Also:

The same principle applies to government. Government tends to attract those filled with avarice and ambition (love of money and love of power). i.e. Politicians are the worst of humanity, not the best.

Re:why all the greed

[piojo]

I think he was mainly talking about the REAL power inside corporations, i.e. CEOs and their direct servants All the more reason I don't believe those numbers. 0.9% of males is a lot of people. If we say that we're only talking about CEOs, CFOs, Senators, Governors, etc... well, I suspect we've just claimed that there are more psychopaths in positions of power than there are actual positions of power.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.

Re:why all the greed

[immcintosh]

I believe the person who used the 1% figure was essentially pulling it from his nether regions. I certainly don't know what kind of figures (if any) that researchers like Hare use, but I suspect that if 1% figures in anywhere, it is that 1% of males are psychopaths, and it is from this pool that people in power are overwhelmingly drawn. Not saying that ALL of the people in that pool end up in power, or that all people in power are drawn from that pool. Like I said though, I don't have any idea on the exact figures.

Aussies are crazy.

[snowraver1]

All these stories coming from Austrailia makes me wonder: Who is more communist? Austrailia, or Russia?

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[gstoddart]

All these stories coming from Austrailia makes me wonder: Who is more communist? Austrailia, or Russia?

Ummmm ... seriously? Why are the Aussies communist for regulating a practice which limits consumer choice and which allows a company to force payment options on them?

Or, is any regulation or the Right And True Free Actions of Companies communist nowadays? Reining in companies does not communism make.

Basically, EBay has said "We, through a subsidiary, get a cut of all sales ... if that payment option takes your money and won't give it back, too bad." Just because you own something, doesn't mean you should be able to force all of the users of your service to use that financial mechanism.

Cheers

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[chrome]

Hey. We've had 12 years of Howard, almost. Imagine if you have another 4 years of Bush ahead of you. The US would be screwed too.

That said, AUSTRALIA is not in the least bit communist. We are, however, voting strongly for more worker and consumer rights these days, where previously its all been about business. We've seen how well thats worked out for us for the past 12 years so, screw that.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[david.given]

Hey. We've had 12 years of Howard, almost. Imagine if you have another 4 years of Bush ahead of you. The US would be screwed too.

How's Rudd working out, now you've had him a bit? While he seemed to be a really big improvement over Howard at first (of course, a decaying rat corpse would have been an improvement over Howard), he's kind of dropped off the internation news since then, and I'd be interested to hear what he's like now.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[Anthony]

Rudd is still having his "honeymoon period" in government. This has been extended by the ineptness of the Opposition and some toadying on behalf of the media. He has said a lot about what his government will do and has not made a complete fool of himself overseas. The budget comes out next month and it will be the first real test of policies and practice.

The major worrying factor is that he will have to make deals with a number of people in after June when the new Senate sits. Most have dubious track records. Steve Fielding (Family First) is the biggest worry. We have already seen ISP filtering being declared an essential service for all Australians. The morons have also caved into pressure from Fielding to arrange for an Internet filter to be installed in Parliament House so members can no longer visit reproductive health sites and a whole bunch of other sites that are essential for staffer research.

He may also have to try to do deals with the Greens. They have shown little aptitude for deal-making or legislative creativity so we may even see a double-dissolution of Parliament within a year. They generally vote with the ALP on social and economic issues however so the threat may be small. Headline-grabbing environmental issues will be the sticking point.

Finally there is the Independent Nick Xenophon who ran on a popular anti-poker machine campaign. Already Rudd has made noises about limiting their spread which is a bit late. I for one see benefits in limiting these discretionary taxation devices.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[WeirdJohn]

If you look at our constitution and society structure, it is pretty much a democratic socialist state. We have Federally mandated Free Health cover and hospitalisation (which is close to collapse - thanks Mr Howard), Free Education (although not quite so free in Queensland), real Social Security (although that was weakened by the previous Government - why oh why do I, a disabled person, have to stand in lines at Centerlink until I collapse to the floor, when I've been in the system for 10 years, with over 20 documents from doctors and specialists?), reasonable protection from the worst abuses of Capitalism (although Prof Fels departure from the ACCC seemed to pull its teeth somewhat - thanks again Johnny).

So we aren't Communist, but even our right (the Liberals) neo-cons are generally way left of yours, and some of our right is left of your Democrats.

The previous government (under John 'Bonsai' Howard) was possibly the most right wing we've ever had. The Rudd Labor Government is way left of Johnny, but is dominated by the Labor Right and Centre factions. This is possibly a good thing, as I don't think that an immediate massive swing to the left would be good for the country's stability. That being said, there are quite a few far-reaching social justice reforms being put up, and Rudd seems to be looking at some far reaching long-term economic reforms, although not to the extent of a completely centrally planned economic model.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[Hucko]

Mostly he's making a lot of noise, with actions that seem to be going to follow through, but are still at the token stage. The only critics I've seen are anachists and die-hard Howard fans; the rest are mumbling and grumbling that he can't be popular forever. He seems a little like Obama (as I see it) but with a race issue hounding after him.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[aarggh]

Wow, what an amazingly ignorant, and foolish remark!

Australians funny enough generally don't like to be pissed on their backs, and then be told it's raining!

Standing up for our rights to have choice, and not be forced to endure extra fee's at the whim of some organisation, is considered a natural right. How you confuse this with communism makes me wonder what brand cool-aid you've been drinking?

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[unfunk]

somebody needs to brush up on their political terms... Communism and Socialism, although vaguely similar, are not the same thing.
In Australia, citizens are guaranteed the right to free or cheap healthcare (including subsidised medications), to Social Security when we fall on hard times, and to not get shafted by large companies intent on leveraging their monopoly or near-monopoly position for even greater profits at the expense of their customers and competitors.

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[electrictroy]

>>>"democratic socialist state"

The two worst evils. Democracy == tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot & treat those persons like dirt.

Socialism == theft of money from your neighbors' wallets so you can enrich yourself with free goods (somewhat akin to U.S. Slavery wherein the blacks' labor was stolen to enrich the white master).

Re:Aussies are crazy.

[WeirdJohn]

Socialism is only theft if you have nowhere else to live. As I was told when I lived in the USA, "If you don't like it here go live somewhere else". So I did. People here in Oz have the same choice. People in the former Soviet Union didn't.

Some people believe that issues of social justice prevail over issues of personal prosperity, and that the prosperity of the nation outweighs that of the individual. These people are quite happy to see their taxes being paid and spent. Other people see things a bit differently. They are called Americans.

freedom of choice

[conan1989]

eBay should be able to run their business as they see fit, but then that leaves it open to collusion and other kinds of ugly. grey area, any in site?

so the wheel turns again...

[apodyopsis]

nothing to see really. its just your classic instance of internet suicide. goes something like this:

1. new website offers cool technology
2. people browse over, see it, like it, use it
3. it becomes a "defacto" standard and charges more money
4. because there is perceived to be a market, and people are frustrated with the charges from the original an alternative website is launched
5. as alternative website gains more custom it becomes a more viable alternative, more people hear about it, more people leave original site
6. the tipping point when the hassle of changing to the alternative is less then the annoyance of the charges charged by current website begins to slid in favor of the alternative
7. the original collapses like a flan in a cupboard and people move en masse to the alternative
8. realizing what an ass hat it has been the original makes desperate offers and price cuts to regain favor, hoping it has not pissed off its clientèle too much.
9. the alternative service decides that now it is the "defacto" standard, it can raise prices.. ...

hell we've all seen it again, and again.

any bets on what the alternative will be?

Re:so the wheel turns again...

[sBox]

craigslist.com? No wait they already own it...

Re:so the wheel turns again...

[mnslinky]

www.craigslist.org

Re:so the wheel turns again...

[jonatha]

What is it about cupboards that causes flan to collapse?

Re:so the wheel turns again...

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, my guess would be: www.oztion.com.au

Full disclosure: I'm not an employee of oztion, just a satisfied customer.

Re:so the wheel turns again...

[mjwx]

any bets on what the alternative will be?

Fbay?

Very small rocks?

[ClayJar]

I hear that in Britain, if it weighs roughly the same as a duck, it's most likely a witch.

Re:Very small rocks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that in Britain, if it weighs roughly the same as a duck, it's most likely a witch. Thats about 3 pints of bitter in old money.

Re:Very small rocks?

[DimmO]

yeah holy grail. good times. what else floats? apples! Pebbles! lead!... [king arthur] A DUCK!

google

[oliverthered]

Isn't is about time that google put out a auction site and linked it into the search. EBay needs a real competitor.

Re:google

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that!

eBay/Paypal is doing the exact same thing in Canada - forcing sellers to accept Paypal and holding Paypal payments without interest for 21 days. I don't do a lot of selling on eBay but as a buyer, I don't want to be forced to use Paypal.

I closed my eBay account and my Paypal account and I suggest everyone do the same. That's the only thing these greedy bastards understand.

This has implications for ebay in the US

[prgrmr]

In March ebay very quietly started requiring paypal as a payment option for certain categories for items listed on ebay.com. Computers, for one. I discovered this when I tried listed some Unix system admin books I no longer need, as I do not have and do now want a paypal account. I complained to ebay about it, and they sent me their boilerplate propaganda about "makeing ebay a safer place for buyers". In June, paypal will be required for all new ebay sellers, and for all currrent sellers with under 100 feedback, in the US.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that paypal offers no protection to sellers. Stolen credit cards and reversed-charges are still a potential for any transaction done via paypal. Until ebay gives me as a seller the option to wait 35 business days to ship an items paid for via paypal, there is no seller protection.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending an item with tracking to the correct address PayPal tells you isn't hard and covers you from unauthorized charges, so unless you're lazy you shouldn't be worried about that. They can't necessarily protect you from intentional fraud but no one really can.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[pwsegal]

ebay Australia has required all new sellers to offer paypal as a payment option for several months now. Looks like another case of testing a measure out in a smaller yet similar market before rolling it out to larger markets.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[prgrmr]

From papal's chargeback FAQ:

"Although a chargeback may appear similar to a PayPal claim, itâ(TM)s actually a process that is granted to a cardholder by their credit card company and initiated outside of PayPal. In a dispute over a chargeback, the decision is ultimately made by the credit card company and PayPal cannot control the outcome."

Tracking the item offers ZERO protection against chargebacks. If ebay is going to force all sellers to assume this risk, then the seller ought to be able to introduce protections, like a 30 day wait to ship for the payment to clear beyond the chargeback period. I can't find the policy on ebay, but they don't allow having different delivery times for different payment methods.

And I was wrong about ebay's timing for the new paypal policy:

"To keep eBay a safe place for both buyers and sellers, sellers who register after January 17, 2007 are required to offer either PayPal or a merchant account credit card as an accepted payment method for their items."

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Stolen credit cards and reversed-charges are still a potential for any transaction done via paypal.

That's true for any credit card transaction, period.

I haven't messed with eBay for years now, but when I did, I dealt entirely with USPS money orders, back then everyone took them since as a buyer, I could track that they had been cashed, and as a seller, I could cash them without worrying about chargebacks and whatever else paypal was up to. I always thought it was a shame that USPS never took that and ran with it... imagine buying a money order but instead of having to mail it yourself, it was printed out in the destination zip code ready for next day delivery, all cheaper than western union.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

As I stated in my comment, tracking covers you for unauthorized charges. The key word is unauthorized, and yes, that does count for chargebacks of the same type. Chargebacks can be filed for up to 180 days, sometimes even longer, so holding the payment is not a protection either.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[ejecta]

In Australia, if you have a record you shipped the item to where the person asked you to ship it (ie tracking) a chargeback cannot be made by the credit institution as you have met your end of the contract. Chargebacks are for when you have failed to meet your end of the contract by not providing goods, or providing goods not fit for trade.

Re:This has implications for ebay in the US

[speculatrix]

the secret is to have two paypal accounts, one for receiving payment, and as soon as payment is received to sweep the money into the other. so if the buyer demands a refund, there's no money for paypal to claw back - not only is there no money, but you make sure the account is not linked to any cards or bank, so that paypal can't go after them either.

Correction - COD NOT allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a minor correction to the article - COD is not going to be allowed as a payment option, only Paypal and payment on pickup (i.e. pick it up in person, you can accept cash. Send it through the mail and pay for it at the post office, no deal.)

Protest that hurts - close Paypal account

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to continue to use Ebay but not be compelled to use Paypal as my payment method. So although I've signed the petitions floating around I'm also going to 'vote' by using the only method that Ebay has made available to long term customers like myself to really weigh in on this issue - I've just closed my Paypal account.

If Ebay reconsider this anti-competitive, disingenuous policy change I'm still available as a long term buyer and occasional seller - as I haven't yet closed my Ebay account.

I suggest everyone else concerned about this issue do likewise, if you're wanting to make a protest that really counts, but hoping that Ebay will reconsider before we buy and sell elsewhere.