eBay

wills_thrill · ‎12-13-2019

I was just hit today with a VeRO claim from a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list. Then E-Bay hit me with a 3 day restriction on my account. The VeRO claim was that my item was counterfeit.

In reality, the item was authentic and not counterfeit. The VeRo filer rescinded their claim. It took an entire day and a dozen emails and hours on the phone to straighten the whole mess out. Then E-Bay has the gall to say that it will take another 24-48 hours for them to remove the VeRO strike on my account!

Well guess what, 1 day to resolve the issue with the company, plus 2 days for E-Bay to remove the strike is 3 DAYS! The full 3-day restriction punishment will still apply, with no recourse or compensation to me for it having occurred falsely! I'm going to lose revenue for 3 days through no fault of my own!

E-Bay has no grace period to allow a seller to address this issuer with the VeRO filer. They just screw over their sellers immediately and irreversibly!

But it gets even better! A rep for the company admitted that they have people in India searching E-Bay for counterfeit items. They provide a list to corporate, and then corporate just takes down whatever listings India provides, without confirming each of them.

In my case, the item was a product that has been discontinued since 2018. The workers in India only know the current product offerings. SINCE MY ITEM WAS NOT A CURRENT OFFERING, THE INDIA WORKERS ASSUME IT IS COUNTERFEIT, SO IT GETS FILED FOR A VeRO!

This is total **bleep** and a total abuse of E-Bay sellers, that E-Bay allows to happen by using a flawed VeRO system.

No account restrictions should occur until after a grace period for a seller to either resolve the dispute, or file a counterclaim. It's one thing to take down the one listing incorrectly over a VeRO claim.

It is entirely another thing to issue an account restriction that affects a seller's revenue stream irreversibly, because of a falso VeRO filing!

E-Bay needs to implement a new process immediately to stop the VeRO abuses that sellers constantly struggle with!

No matter how many VeRO strikes on an account, when VeRO is filed:

the item is temporarily removed.
A grace period of 3-5 days is given for a seller to address this with the VeRO filer, or by counterclaim.
After the grace period passes, if the seller hasn't resolved the issue, then E-Bay can issue whatever restriction is required based on account history.

At least this has some chance to be fair to the seller, unlike E-Bay's current police that is 100% UNFAIR!

fashunu4eeuh · ‎12-13-2019

@wills_thrill wrote:

"I was just hit today with a VeRO claim from a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list. Then E-Bay hit me with a 3 day restriction on my account. The VeRO claim was that my item was counterfeit..."

HI, just trying to understand the sequence of events. What happened after the Vero claim (from the company not on the list), but before the 3 day restriction? So, you had a listing removed for counterfeit, and then did you try to relist it (knowing it was not a fake), and then got hit with the suspension? Ebay doesn't usually punish a seller with a suspension on a first offense. Did you have other takedowns or violations previous to this?

wills_thrill · ‎12-14-2019

I had a VeRO takedown on a different item about two months ago. The company that filed that claim said I had used their copyrighted image in a listing. I guess there I technically had. ONE image out of 10 I had taken from Google image search (I don't really know who owned it actually, it wasn't from their website directly) and the rest were photos I had taken.

So I didn't fight the VeRO takedown on that because maybe it was their image. Relisted the item with that one image removed, and no problems after that. But it was not the same item and it was a few months back (October or maybe September).

Then this company hit me with a false VeRO, which they rescinded. But I had to spend hours with them and E-Bay support to get everything needed to get it rescinded.

Funny thing is the company copied me on their e-mail chain to vero@E-Bay and the pre-communications before they submitted the VeRO. E-Bay took my item down and issued a restriction within just a few hours of them submitting.

But over 9 hours now since they rescinded the request to vero@ebay.com, and all my restrictions are still in place and nothing has been stricken by E-Bay. E-Bay is fast to put their boot on the necks of sellers, but they take their sweet time removing the boot.

If a company, who doesn't even do business with E-Bay directly or earn them fees, can get an item taken down in two hours, why does it take me, the seller who was in the right, over 9 hours to get remedy when I am wronged by their system?!

wills_thrill · ‎12-14-2019

Just to keep things honest, I went back and rechecked time stamps in the e-mail chain I was copied on. Some times were in IST, some in PST, and some in EST. After converting all the times to the same time zone, the VeRO request was submitted to E-Bay directly from India (IST time zone in the request).

Looks like E-Bay responded to them in just a couple of hours:

Then 13 hours later, E-Bay issued my notice by e-mail of the takedown.

Yet I had contacted E-Bay and e-mailed the VeRO team the e-mails I had confirming it wasn't counterfeit as claimed at 5 PM EST (till 6PM, was hung up on multiple times after being put on hold). The rescind e-mail was sent to E-Bay at 6:15 pm EST by the company.

I sure haven't gotten any confirmation in 2 hours from E-Bay. My account is still restricted and my listings still not showing in search.

Quick to apply the boot, slow to remove it!

wills_thrill · ‎12-14-2019

And why should VeRO's stack towards some disciplinary act? VeRO's can be so random, that unless you are doing the same one repeatedly, why should it matter if you had past VeRO claims?

So what if you called something "velcro" in a past listing, even if it wasn't 3M velcro and generic velcro, but 3M submitted a VeRO because it isn't real velcro. And then two months later, Nike is filing a VeRO because they want you to prove the shoes you have are real. Why should your account be suspended while you are proving to Nike that they are indeed real.

It isn't even logical to take the approach E-Bay is taking!

Now maybe if Nike took down a pair of shoes, and you put them up without proving they were authentic. Then took down, again, aback up again, etc. Over the same item. Or you had multiple items in a span of time where the manufacturer claimed they were counterfeit, and you could never prove authenticity, then maybe that calls for some punishment.

If you don't fight every single one of these, then each offense stacks, and you can quickly find your account suspended for a month (or indefinitely) because of all the nitpicky stuff that can occur in the realm of copyright and trademark.

Never mind the cases where companies are flat out filing false claims on illegal grounds, and E-Bay goes right along (ie, one record company files VeRO on any albums from their company, even if it is a used item you bought and own). These companies throw 1st sale doctrine out the window!

There has to be a better process E-Bay!

mr_lincoln · ‎12-14-2019

@wills_thrill @Anonymous

I would like add my 2 cents to this conversation and add Trademark Violations as well. I don't think there is any fault with eBay's Policies for VERO or Trademarks but rather the enforcement of them. The venue, eBay in this case, is the one who loses when incorrect enforcement occurs not Sellers because Sellers will find other venues to move their items.

Perhaps its a good time for eBay to review how they handle alleged offenses in these areas. I have had listings taken down and deleted on occasion. One example I would share is this and I will keep it brief:

I won a lot of 6 Invicta Divers watches at an auction, these are very nice watches ... 5 sold very quickly but the 6th one, a 1959 Russian Divers watch did not. It sat for a while and I finally thought maybe people think it's a bogus listing, why would Invicta (US company) make Russian Divers watches? So I added the word "replica" to the title which in fact was a true statement and within an hour the listing was gone. I came here and asked about it and was advised to NEVER list it again ... no problem and I took that advice, I sold it on another venue and thus eBay, the venue, lost their FVFs ... I didn't lose anything because it sold. In my opinion, what SHOULD have happened was for eBay to take down the listing but NOT delete it and then message me to call to discuss it, make the necessary correction to the listing and get it back up for sale. I have no doubt eBay has lost millions of FVF dollars because of the current enforcement process for VERO and Trademark violations that at the end of the day are NOT violations at all.

Regards,
Mr. Lincoln - Community Mentor

gracieallen01 · ‎12-14-2019

The 'bots go fast-forward at the drop of a hat, but reverse is dead slow - and they are hard of hearing.

Not saying 'NO' doesn't mean 'YES'.

The foolishness of one's actions or words is determined by the number of witnesses.

Perhaps if Brains were described as an APP, many people would use them more often.

Respect, like money, is only of 'worth' when it is earned - with all due respect, it can not be ordained, legislated or coerced. Anonymous

dhbookds · ‎12-14-2019

What was the restriction? you have items up now?

dhbookds · ‎12-14-2019

Maybe they are reinstating now...........I'm getting fluctuating results from "view seller's items" and the store........some show sometimes, and then disappear on refreshing.

luckythewinner · ‎12-14-2019

From a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list

eBays list of VERO members is not comprehensive. VERO members can choose to appear on the list or not. I am a VERO representative for music artists, and they choose not be listed there.

E-Bay has no grace period to allow a seller to address this issuer with the VeRO filer

VERO was created so that eBay would be covered by the liability shield provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA requires immediate removal of the content and does not allow a grace period, so your complain needs to be directed at Congress and not eBay.

wills_thrill · ‎12-14-2019

Last night I was searching for items in my store by UPC code (from a different account), and none of my items were showing up in search. It was particularly noticeable on items where I have the lowest available price + shipping on E-Bay. I should be number 1 in search, but wasn't anywhere on the list, including items that only had 13 results total. So no way I was being filtered because there were hundreds of results, where E-Bay sometimes filters you out randomly.

Items are still in the store, and if someone was watching an item, it still shows up in their watch list. I thought if they came directly to the store somehow (maybe a follower or outside E-Bay link or here through my user ID) that they could still see store contents.

I think the restriction really just involves search, which kills sales. It stated the store wouldn't be taken down and all my items would remain listed (at all fees still applied). They just wouldn't be available in search.

"A temporary 3-day selling restriction has been placed on your account (starting on the date of this notice), and your other listings will be hidden from search during this period. Listings will automatically be restored and show up in search results after the end of the temporary restriction."

I'm not certain if I can even list new items, but autorelists are working.

As of 12:19 PM EST the 2nd day, still not a peep from E-Bay about any of this. So as far as I know, I am still restricted despite the claim being rescinded 18 hours ago.

wills_thrill · ‎12-14-2019

@luckythewinner wrote:
From a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list
eBays list of VERO members is not comprehensive. VERO members can choose to appear on the list or not. I am a VERO representative for music artists, and they choose not be listed there.

E-Bay has no grace period to allow a seller to address this issuer with the VeRO filer
VERO was created so that eBay would be covered by the liability shield provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA requires immediate removal of the content and does not allow a grace period, so your complain needs to be directed at Congress and not eBay.

No. If you read what I said, I had no issue with the item immediately being removed to comply.

There is nothing in law that says E-Bay must penalize the seller immediately. The grace period is for the seller to resolve the issue with the VeRO filer, before E-Bay restricts the seller account. Congress is not needed. E-Bay sets the policy.

richards*rock*collection · ‎12-14-2019

I think every one has the wrong idea about the whole business model of eBay today. I am not saying this is true, but eBay could be a retail outlet in itself that stock piles quality merchandise themselves, selling it themselves with individual fake selling site within the company all the while using legitimate small private sellers as advertising showing the over priced listings to the buyer thus moving their own goods. I know this sounds improbable but I said it could be like that, and that is exactly what I would do.

dash-2773 · ‎12-14-2019

@wills_thrill wrote:
And why should VeRO's stack towards some disciplinary act? VeRO's can be so random, that unless you are doing the same one repeatedly, why should it matter if you had past VeRO claims?

So what if you called something "velcro" in a past listing, even if it wasn't 3M velcro and generic velcro, but 3M submitted a VeRO because it isn't real velcro. And then two months later, Nike is filing a VeRO because they want you to prove the shoes you have are real. Why should your account be suspended while you are proving to Nike that they are indeed real.

It isn't even logical to take the approach E-Bay is taking!

Now maybe if Nike took down a pair of shoes, and you put them up without proving they were authentic. Then took down, again, aback up again, etc. Over the same item. Or you had multiple items in a span of time where the manufacturer claimed they were counterfeit, and you could never prove authenticity, then maybe that calls for some punishment.

If you don't fight every single one of these, then each offense stacks, and you can quickly find your account suspended for a month (or indefinitely) because of all the nitpicky stuff that can occur in the realm of copyright and trademark.

Never mind the cases where companies are flat out filing false claims on illegal grounds, and E-Bay goes right along (ie, one record company files VeRO on any albums from their company, even if it is a used item you bought and own). These companies throw 1st sale doctrine out the window!

There has to be a better process E-Bay!

Because some sellers constantly and intentionally post items that they know violate the rules.

albany_sellers · ‎12-14-2019

My only real problem with my listing being removed has come from the "recalled items" take downs. I had some older hair dryers and the claim is that they were recalled. I think it was a generic response, probably due to a competitor reporting them. There was no specific reason given why they were recalled, and the only thing I can think of is maybe because they didn't have the GFI plugs, as though every item without a GFI plug was recalled.

I spoke to eBay about it, they told me don't worry and that I could relist the hair dryer. I relisted and the next day they took it down again and suspended my account. I called again, relayed what I was told and they removed the suspension immediately.

At this point, I just don't list those kinds of things now, I don't want the headache, even though it's leaving money on the table. What we need is for a person to actually check these claims and verify them before any action is taken. In cases of phony VERO issues, there should be action taken against the person abusing the program.