Ebay sent cockroaches and Spiders to people..

[gabe101907]

this was a while back, ebay was found guilty of sending cockroaches and spiders to people( who I assume had held there feet to the fire). anyway fyi, this is the kinda people yer dealing with..

[gabe101907]

Exactly, its plain as day that there's at least 3 paid water carriers on here for ebay.. thers also the case of Rabbit Pitts, were ebay came after his family, not cool man..

[bonjourami]

Wow, you need to get yourself a new hobby.

[campanaelia]

It's not old news since the case was finally settled in January of this year. Sure it happened a while ago but we all no justice takes time. Ebay was ordered in January to pay $3 million to the couple the ebay employees stalked and harassed. Besides the bugs they also sent a fetal pig, a bloody pig mask, live insects, a book on surviving the death of a spouse, and a funeral wreath. I never did hear about the final conclusion to the case so thanks for posting or I may have missed it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/11/ebay-settlement-harassment-employees-ina-david...

[kh-jean]

Hi everyone,

This discussion has gotten a bit heated. Please remember that, while it is fine to disagree with others, discussion should always remain friendly and respectful as required by the Community Guidelines.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[itsjustasprain]

---

@gabe101907 wrote:

I have 1st amendment constitutional, to free speech, 2nd don't threaten me.. period, ebay should be smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them.

---

I think at this point you need to scale back your objectives (whatever those are) to simply learning and understanding what the First Amendment actually says - and why it does not apply here. That has been explained to you repeatedly and it seems that you still do not get it.

The First Amendment does not apply to a privately owned forum like this one. You can go on being unhappy about something or other but please stop going on about Freedom of Speech when it simply does not apply here.

[bonjourami]

Among other things, op has Ebay confused with the U.S. government.

[thelongball]

They changed the airing date to Oct. 31st

[mam98031]

---

@gabe101907 wrote:

I have 1st amendment constitutional, to free speech, 2nd don't threaten me.. period, ebay should be smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them.

---

Not here.  Ebay isn't part of the government and they can censor any of us at any time for any reason they want as they own this site.

Many people don't understand the definition of free speech.  But it is that the government is not allowed to censor us.

"Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/freedom_of_speech

I didn't threaten you in any way, simply isn't my thing.  What I said exactly is "Care to elaborate on that or is your goal only to sling mud to see what might stick.  Be specific.  Back up what you are saying.  Just coming here and libeling the company [which is illegal] or it's members is childish and unproductive."

There is no threat there, just facts.  It is fine if you don't agree as it isn't a requirement either.  Besides I said nothing about myself or something that I would or could do.

[broto_64]

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

@bonjourami wrote:

Well its been 'played out' for quite a while now, and so far, no movie. I dont think the 'company' was responsible for those few nitwits though.You will find nitwits in every large 'company'.

---

Of course that is EXACTLY what you would say - ebay is infallible according to you and several other full-time posters here... I would beg to differ emphatically..

---

The issue here is when we think of "ebay" as a person.

"Ebay" is not a human being, we can not associate "ebay" with thought and action as if it were.
"Ebay" is an it, a large corporation that functions independent of individual thought or action.
And yes, every large corporation has bad apples working within it.

Every single one.

It doesn't make Enron the culpable party, it doesn't make Monsanto the most evil company in the world.

A company's lawyers (notice it isn't the "company" but their attorneys, these are paid professionals) ultimately may have to defend the comapny because of the actions of a few (or even more than a few, perhaps an entire department) but once again it isn't the "company" that is at fault but rather those individuals and yes they should and can and have been held responsible.

[broto_64]

---

@bonjourami wrote:

So true. And I always think at least fifty percent of the complaining posts in here are sellers that fail to understand, or implement Ebays criteria for selling here.

---

I see that pattern as well, folks who think things ought to be a certain way because of moral perceptions of right and wrong get so involved in that they never bother to study what policy states and are often in direct contradiction with said policy and that is the only reason they struggle.
And in many cases they continue to struggle, too.
Time and again, tell you something else I've learned 🙂
"At least 50 percent" = 90 percent 😂

[vintagecraze50]

It was a bad move no matter how you look at it and we as seller certainly hope that kind of stuff never happens again. Quite shocking when I first heard about it. An example of how big corps can get so fierce in their attempts to protect their companies to the point of complete idiocy.

[valueaddedresource]

---

@broto_64 wrote: The issue here is when we think of "ebay" as a person.

"Ebay" is not a human being, we can not associate "ebay" with thought and action as if it were.
"Ebay" is an it, a large corporation that functions independent of individual thought or action.
And yes, every large corporation has bad apples working within it.

Every single one.

It doesn't make Enron the culpable party, it doesn't make Monsanto the most evil company in the world.

A company's lawyers (notice it isn't the "company" but their attorneys, these are paid professionals) ultimately may have to defend the comapny because of the actions of a few (or even more than a few, perhaps an entire department) but once again it isn't the "company" that is at fault but rather those individuals and yes they should and can and have been held responsible.

---

@broto_64  "it isn't the company that is at fault, but rather those individuals" - that's not exactly true, see my post #83 in this discussion.

https://community.ebay.com/t5/Selling/Ebay-sent-cockroaches-and-Spiders-to-people/m-p/34424094/highl...

The fact is that the Department of Justice charged eBay, the company, with 6 federal felonies - independent of and in addition to the charges that were brought against each of the 7 individual employees or contractors on the criminal side.

eBay, the company, negotiated a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ wherein it admitted to a detailed recitation of the relevant facts about its conduct - again, important to note that "its conduct" means the conduct of the company itself in addition to the fact that it is also liable for the actions of its employees.

As part of that deal, eBay agreed to undergo 3 years of independent compliance monitoring and to make changes to their ethics and compliance programs as required by the monitor and/or the DOJ - some of which have already been put in place or are in the process of being put in place.

That means in addition to being liable for the actions of its employees, eBay the company also failed to have adequate internal policies, procedures, reporting, and supervision in place to prevent the criminal activity that occurred and eBay the company is at fault for that, as admitted to in that agreement.

That is why the victims are also suing eBay the company, as well as the other defendants, and that the claims against eBay in particular include "negligent supervision" - eBay had a duty to have internal policies, procedures, reporting, training, supervision etc to ensure "a few bad apple" employees were not committing crimes in the course of their employment and/or using company resources and eBay failed to do so.

Responsibility and culpability in this situation absolutely falls on both the individuals who were directly engaged in the criminal activity and the company that failed to have adequate policies, procedures, and supervision in place to make sure that kind of thing couldn't happen on their watch.

eBay doesn't even really deny it is liable for the actions of the 7 people who were charged criminally (again as we can see in the deferred prosecution agreement) - the real hang up on the civil side is about the execs who were not charged criminally but who the victims allege egged on the harassment (with emails and text messages showing what eBay calls "inappropriate communication") and whether there is additional liability for the company because of what those execs said/did and how the company handled them once the plot unraveled and those communications became known.

[broto_64]

But "ebay" didn't "do" anything because it can't.
If ALL employees, if every single person that works with at or has anything to do with ebay left the building...
No sellers got online, no buyers did, as in absolutely nobody would interact or have anything at all to do with ebay... At this point, what would "ebay" do?
Nothing.

Because ebay is an "it."
Ebay is not a person.

It is a corporation, there exists a building, a street may have been named after it, there's a sign outside and there is paperwork and computers and servers but in and of itself ebay is not capable of action (or at least not the kind that requires conscious or at the least independent thought).

I am not sure how you and many others don't understand the difference between a corporation and a person. It is too bad the DOJ is so shortsighted as to accuse an actual corporation of wrong doing when in fact it is the people that interacted with it that are guilty of misconduct, but if it makes you feel any better guess who is paying for all that?
We are.

The buyers, the sellers, the employees.
That is who pays for these lawsuits.

As to eBay the company having also failed to have adequate internal policies, procedures, reporting, and supervision in place to prevent the criminal activity that occurred and eBay the company is at fault for that, as admitted to in that agreement.

Yeah, I guess it was easier that way, rather than attempting to find the original employees who failed to implement all those policies and procedures (also it is possible ebay as a corporation grew so fast that the employees at the time never could implement all those changes and thus it is practical to hinge the blame on "ebay" however ebay didn't do time in prison for it now did it?)

The agreement ultimately has ebay subject to monitoring and so "it" had to implement...
But no, "it" can't do that...
Human beings do the monitoring, human beings do the implementing.

[bonjourami]

Obviously some people are still interested and obsessive about this case,I just dont happen to be one of them.

[valueaddedresource]

---

@broto_64 wrote:

But "ebay" didn't "do" anything because it can't.
If ALL employees, if every single person that works with at or has anything to do with ebay left the building...
No sellers got online, no buyers did, as in absolutely nobody would interact or have anything at all to do with ebay... At this point, what would "ebay" do?
Nothing.

Because ebay is an "it."
Ebay is not a person.

It is a corporation, there exists a building, a street may have been named after it, there's a sign outside and there is paperwork and computers and servers but in and of itself ebay is not capable of action.

It is too bad the DOJ is so shortsighted as to accuse an actual corporation of wrong doing when in fact it is the people that interacted with it that are guilty of misconduct, but if it makes you feel any better guess who is paying for all that?
We are.

The buyers, the sellers, the employees.
That is who pays for these lawsuits.

There is absolutely nothing learned from punishing the "Inc."

---

@broto_64  "But 'ebay' didn't 'do' anything because it can't." - I don't know what to tell you except that's not how current US laws and regulations regarding corporations work, as shown in everything I said in the previous post.

As far as understanding the difference between a corporation and a person - you do get that I'm not talking about my personal feelings or opinions about corporate personhood, but the current reality of US laws and regulations right?

eBay as a company had certain duties in regard to internal policies, procedures, training and hiring practices, supervision of employees etc. eBay the company failed in those duties and is liable for the conduct of its employees (by its own admission in the deferred prosecution agreement) which is why it has been charged criminally and been named in the civil lawsuit regarding these events in addition to charges and claims brought against the individuals involved at various levels.

And again I must note that eBay the company itself doesn't even argue that it is not liable for the things it explicitly admitted to as part of the deferred prosecution deal - so I'm really not sure why you would continue to assert that the company "didn't do anything" when it has already admitted under oath and accepted liability/financial and compliance consequences for at least some of "its conduct", ie. stuff the company did or should have done but failed to do.

Multiple shareholder rights law firms also have ongoing investigations and interest in these cases for the same reason - eBay the company has fiduciary duties to shareholders that may have also been breached in this matter (and other legal issues the company is currently dealing with).

And no, none of what you said makes me feel any better, nor does it negate any of the points I've already made about the actual legal and regulatory issues involved here.