Locked
Discussion interactions are currently paused.
I won as a seller in a dispute and get $1050 back (update of my previous post)
This is an update of my previous post. Check out the original post to see the full details of what happened earlier (eBay took the side of the buyer again). Here is the short version of the story. I sold a laboratory vacuum pump for $1000, the buyer claimed that he received some books, which is obviously **bleep**. Despite all the evidence I provided to prove that I sent the pump, Bay ruled in favor of the buyer, took my money of about $1050, and refunded the buyer.
Here is the update as to how I got my money back.
After all the appeals through normal means failed (chat, email with eBay reps, etc.), I started preparing a small claim lawsuit against eBay. I first filed a police report because I believed that the buyer was committing fraud. Police came and did some recording. They were frank that they would not do any actual investigation but provided a case number, which is good enough for me. I then sent a Notice of Dispute letter to eBay's litigation department. This is a procedure that you need to complete before actually suing eBay, based on my understanding of the eBay police documents. After a month of the delivery of the letter, I did not hear from eBay and filed a claim at my local small claim court earlier this week. Today, I received a full refund from eBay. It is not because of my small claim lawsuit, since my local court probably hasn't received the application yet, but as a response to my Notice of Dispute letter. They just moved too slowly.
Here is my takeaway from this experience. I agree with most sellers's belief that eBay almost always rules in favor of the buyer, but sellers shouldn't give up. In my case, the threat of a lawsuit is enough pressure for eBay to take it seriously. I honestly don't think eBay could win in court, and they probably know it too, so settling outside of the court was probably a business decision. They have to hire a lawyer, and may still lose, then pay the refund if this goes to court. From my experience dealing with various businesses in disputes where they clearly did something wrong, the business often adopts the tactic of ignoring you and hoping that you give up. Honestly, it is not a bad strategy because more often than not, we give up and the business saves money. So it is all business/financial decisions, ruling in favor of the buyer initially or refunding me later. If we want to get our money back, make it so that it makes no business sense for eBay to keep ignoring us. Sure, pursuing takes a lot of time, which is money for any business; I spent a lot of time in this case already. So it is your decision whether your loss is worth the time. I hope that at least my case gives you some confidence that you could win in the end.
Hope this helps, and hopefully, as more sellers fight for their rights, we can finally get eBay to reevaluate their "buyers always win" practice.
kh-shakhib
·1 year agoHi everyone,
Due to the age of this thread, it has been closed to further replies. Please feel free to start a new thread if you wish to continue to discuss this topic.
Thank you for understanding.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoJust as a side note... When I'd had merchant accounts whereby Wells Fargo and later Card Service International both HUGE entities were our processor(s) we could put in anything, we tested it.
Mickey Mouse
1234 Mickey Mouse Lane
Planet Jupiter, FL, 11111
As long as the card number, expire date and CVC code pass and funds on my card, charge would capture.
Name didn't matter at all, the Address Validation System (AVS) either pass or fail. Might get Address confirmed, Zip Fail, might get address fail, zip confirm (Zip + 4) etc. Something such as 1234 Valley Road be different from 1234 Valley Rd.
Depending on what fail in AVS the amount of commission (Discount Rate) be adjusted upwards. In the software we could set what level of AVS we wanted. So if we wanted everything pass AVS we set it that way except for the fact if we set everything needing pass AVS at least 50% of the cards would fail, no capture, no money. Internationally it was just forget it completely, as if the system didn't even exist.
justagirl12
·2 years agoRegarding arbitration and eBay not responding after a month to your demand letter… doesn’t that violate the rules of arbitration? I don’t think eBay can just ignore a notice of demand.
stephenmorgan
·2 years agoThe person bringing the case is who must give notice. There is no requirement that the other party must respond. If they do not respond or you do not settle, then you are free to proceed with legal action. If they respond or not, they will still be allowed to represent themselves during the Arbitration or Court Case.
The 30-day notice is merely to allow them the opportunity to resolve the issue without it going any further. If they are confident, you have no case, they may not answer the notice.
dogofwar777
·2 years agoI remember watching an ebay seller suing a buyer on a TV show and won. The buyer didn't seem very nice and the judge wasn't very nice to the buyer, especially after the seller provided all the proof on how the buyer scammed them.
gurlcat
·2 years agoI bet there are a good number of eBay buyer/seller cases on tv court shows. And I would watch each and every one of them. 😀ðŸ¿
But .... yikes ... you ever see the Forensic Files episode 'Over And Out'? -It's on Youtube.
lazer*lightning
·2 years agoBe sure to block that buyer too if you haven't already.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoeBay's user agreement does not trump law. Its that simple, no websites user agreement trumps law nor can they discriminate against folks using the legal assets that exist. Otherwise you might see, "Any communication to authorities is a breach of terms of services."
You agree in the terms of services to afford eBay arbitration which they did finding in favor of the buyer in this instance. That by no means is finality especially if law(s) which again trumps any EULA in the land may have been broken.
Buyers can chargeback, completely avoiding arbitration prior to action.
That all said, as others have also stated eBay reserves right to terminate any account they so choose as does Facebook or any other website. That too can be challenged, anything can be challenged as law trumps all else.
Now, that said, this happen to be one of things at stake in our coming general election. The weaponization of our legal system something common in third world countries where upheavals and strife exist. In said nations said weaponization flows downwards and we've not really seen this here since the days of the Coal Mines, Robber Barons (Railroads), early last textiles and such. That is to say weaponization of law from high governmental authority at either State or Federal levels. Historically in America (and others!) said weaponization starts within government infighting and it tends ALWAYS look just as we are seeing.
That is to say, the entities who care wish to weaponize law in favor of their interests are in fact those who make accusation that law is being weaponized against them. Its the fuel of the fire not at all different from the family spats whereby the accused is in all reality also an accuser doing so to deflect and further their motivative goals.
I wrote a poem about it years ago:
We think of ourselves free in our hearts practiced and learned programmed we start.
Dream of a world with peace of mind whilst Kings and Queens weave greedy design.
Quickly they'll cloak a deceptive deed quote lie and reason expecting belief.
In tactful riddles the tales are unfurled villain's created to pacify a world.
The trick of the tale is the cheat in the game answer question not asked it is easily played.
Mislead the curious reinforce the deceived plunder dreams of a future now to pretend to grieve.
I've the answer to quell such evil plans people must rise spread word across all lands.
With a new era of kindness Gods glory shall ascend for I can call you brother and you can call me friend.
stephenmorgan
·2 years agoCongratulations I knew you had a good chance of winning.
😊
b4b4b4b
·2 years agoGood for you ! Congratulations on getting your $1050 back and not giving up !
Tammy
New Hampshire
gurlcat
·2 years agoJust a guess here, but I'm thinking the decision was made by one employee, in a position they got by understanding eBay policies very well, and given the wiggle room to use common sense. Even if it's true that eBay could have gotten the case dismissed because of whatever user policy, that doesn't mean you wouldn't have then proceeded to make a big public stink about it, and THAT is definitely something they don't need more of.
Also there's just the sheer logic of who's more likely to be honest in this case -the buyer (whose history I don't know) or a seller who not only earned eBay $10k in FVF's in the past year, but also went to the trouble of filing a police report and taken the precise (researched) next step toward litigation, by sending them that letter. Who would do that if they really sent a buyer a box of books? Actual crooks shrivel against a fight when the only remaining options involve police.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoI think they absolutely do protect the seller on here in a case like this when the seller does the leg work to dispute the case properly.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoThanks for sharing your thoughts. Why do you think that eBay could dismiss a legal case?
gurlcat
·2 years agoOh I certainly didn't mean to imply that I think that; I said "even if" they could get it dismissed because of their terms of service. In other words, I don't think the threat of an actual case was the actual reason you got a refund. As you said yourself, the refund was likely a delayed-response to your Notice letter, not the result of you filing the actual case application, which wouldn't have had time to process yet.
But I found this part of your message #22 really interesting: "Secondly, the nature of the dispute in my case is not any ordinary buyer-seller disagreement; what we accused of each other is fraud. If you read the seller’s and buyer’s right in the eBay policy, there is no mentioning of fraud, rightfully so because eBay has no right to make a verdict in a civil case, which they did in this case by ruling in favor of the buyer. "
-I never thought of it quite that way before, now my mind is kinda blown. And theoretically we might instead say "criminal case" not just civil, because fraud is in fact a crime, which if big enough, a person can go to jail for, not just pay damages. But it's interesting that lots of small claims cases surely are accusations of fraud, but when the judge (or jury, if requested by the claimant) finds in favor of the claimant, the defendant doesn't go to jail, even if the damages are right up to the state's limitations of "small" claims. But a person CAN go to jail for shoplifting, which may even be a felony if the dollar amount of theft is above some set amount according to the state ..... even if that set amount is well UNDER the limits for "small" claims.
I mean, look at the states with the highest-dollar maximums for small claims: DE and TN, $25,000!! There are brand new cars still available for less than that, and if you stole one you'd be charged with GTA!!!
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoThe purpose of the Notice of dispute is to give them last notice before I pursue a lawsuit, and I was clear that I was going to if they did not respond.
I don't know whether the fraud would have been civil or criminal. Still, hypothetically, if the police somehow found evidence that the buyer was lying, for example, going to his lab and finding the pump, the buyer could go to jail. That is why I filed a police report and why I don't think eBay should settle the dispute.
ckimodog
·2 years ago@alternative_lab_source
Glad things went in your favor.
Happy Holidays.
stainlessenginecovers
·2 years agoMy 2 cents;
ebay gave you a 'courtesy reversal' ONLY because you got a Police Report.
Don't count on it again.
Also note; a 'threat' of an $1100 lawsuit SELDOM scares a $7,000,000,000 company.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoSure, $1100 lawsuit is not going to scare a $7B company, but it is bad business, and no business gets to that size by consistently making bad business decisions.
stainlessenginecovers
·2 years ago@alternative_lab_source
and NOT paying someone on a 'return' as the system is set up is NOT bad business. It's JUST the way it works here. Buyers are king (as they should be and are in just about every retail business)
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoI agree with what you said, and it actually echoes what I said in my original post, " From my experience dealing with various businesses in disputes where they clearly did something wrong, the business often adopts the tactic of ignoring you and hoping that you give up. Honestly, it is not a bad strategy because, more often than not, we give up, and the business saves money."
BUT, It is not bad business until they face a serious threat of a loss in a lawsuit.
Buyers are kings, as they should be. All platforms suck up to their buyers. I have absolutely no problem with eBay doing it, just don't do it at my expense.
stainlessenginecovers
·2 years agoYou're giving this 'lawsuit' thing WAY too much credit. Again, a $7B company is NOT afraid of an $1100 lawsuit, and suit, by the way, that they would NOT have lost since they are
a.) just the middleman
b.) have policies that users agree to that covers such 'returns'
c.) difficult to prove in court as 'small claims' won't let you get as far as you think (weight of package)
Again, you would be ATTEMPTING to sue the Middleman- the thief was the buyer, most judges would've told you to 'sue the thief/buyer'
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoThey should be just a middleman, not a judge deciding fraud cases. They want to cover fraudulent returns, cover at their expense. I don't have to prove that I am right and the buyer is wrong. I just need to argue that eBay should not do what our court systems do.
isaiah53-57
·2 years agoIn my opinion, you are giving credit where credit is so very undeserved - This venue was created as a HOBBY for extra cash by Pierre Omidyar - It grew, more so, out of filling the tremendous vacuum for a venue of this nature and much less because of any imaginative development, creative marketing or business decision-making (other than a series of acquisitions to better fill that vacuum) - In other words, it was a no-brainer...No bad decisions could have stopped this venue(or one like it) from becoming what it quickly became...The problem would be maintaining it...
This company COULD and SHOULD be untouchable, kinda like Amazon, who ran their entire business model on creative business decisions that focused on long term vision, even though they were taking huge losses at times - They stuck with it - While the people at ebay that had the golden egg handed to them? They squandered it, putting short-sighted, short-term gain strategies far above creative visions of growth and future venue usability. Do you know what their market share is compared to back in 2005 or 2011? Its not pretty...They got mired in this type of business decision-making early on and no Johnny-Come-Lately has been bold or creative enough to pull them out of it - Could be the boardroom keeps their hands tied and always will... but I dont want to give any one of them the benefit of the doubt when they already had/have a golden parachute...
What should have been cultivated into a paradise of easy and fair transfer of goods has become a crumbling place of contention between seller and buyer, seller and seller, seller and company, buyer and company, company and market...
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRight, the lawsuit part really means nothing. You would never win something like that with a company such as this. What happened is that after they looked at the due diligence of the seller in reporting the issue, they most likely did a courtesy refund for this case. The seller did their part to dispute the case.
collec_724
·2 years agoActually YES YOU CAN .THE PRICE OF EBAY LAWYER COST MAKE THEM BACK UP ALONE
gurlcat
·2 years agoI'm curious why you think a police report alone would be enough to get the courtesy reversal, since the vast majority of police reports end there, even cases like a home burglary where the police 'theoretically' have the reasonable expectation to find the local person who did it, apprehend them and put them in jail, never mind apprehending people(?) from an internet selling platform with headquarters in another state.
In other words, why would a police report in the seller's locale spook eBay into giving the reversal? And have you seen this happen when other sellers filed police reports?
stainlessenginecovers
·2 years ago@gurlcat Because I've seen others post about the same thing. When 'appealing'; many are told to 'get a police report' and 'get a letter from USPS stating blah blah'.
gurlcat
·2 years agoYeah I've seen lots of people advised to file a police report too, but usually in response to postal shenanegans. You're saying that EBAY folded because of it, and I can't imagine why you think they'd be scared of whatever the OP's local police force is.
stainlessenginecovers
·2 years agoI NEVER said they were 'scared'...in fact, I said they were NOT scared of an $1100 lawsuit (which would have went nowhere)
I SAID they did it 'as a courtesy'........
kalyoth
·2 years agoCongrats on a refund. However, in the under agreement you agree to abide to when using the site, you agree to binding arbitration in California. Just a heads up that they would have had your suit dismissed & moved to that forum.
Be aware as well - just the receipt of that suit does violate the user terms & they could in response just terminate your user account. Using ebay is not a right, but a privledge under current law.
Be sure to keep that in mind.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoWhere in the agreement does it say I agree to binding arbitration in California?
FVF from my store during the past 12 months was over $10,000, so it is eBay's loss if they lose one of their top sellers.
eBay is a business, and they do things that make business sense. That is my whole point.
vintagecraze50
·2 years agoRight. Do not go throwing lawsuits at ebay.
dbfolks166mt
·2 years agoCongrats on a refund. However, in the under agreement you agree to abide to when using the site, you agree to binding arbitration in California. Just a heads up that they would have had your suit dismissed & moved to that forum.
Not necessarily the user agreement has to be legal to be valid and under US law you can pretty much sue anybody for anything. EBay has been sued countless times including a number of class action lawsuits. They have won a few and lost a few but the bottom line is that user agreement will seldom stand up against the legal system.
Be aware as well - just the receipt of that suit does violate the user terms & they could in response just terminate your user account. Using ebay is not a right, but a privledge under current law.
Be sure to keep that in mind.
Nothing to violate if the user agreement is invalid. While they can terminate your account if they wish there are always other options and that would be eBay cutting off their nose to spite their face so to speak, but they seem to do that a lot. While businesses do have the right to refuse service under current law it is limited depending on the reason for the refusal. Reprisal may push the limit but that would be for the courts to determine.
miarms-72
·2 years agoI'm tired of all these haters hating on someone who actually got her money back which she deserved I'm in the same situation as her I didn't do anything wrong I did nothing wrong they suspended my account right after I put the tracking number in for my item that I mailed out now isn't that funny and said that because my account is suspended I'm no longer going to receive any funds for this transaction but I did nothing wrong and they couldn't tell me what I did wrong the buyer won't even contact me or write me or let me know what's going on so I don't know anything he could have told them anything they won't tell me nothing so therefore I'm going to do just with this young lady did and see if it won't work for me because I didn't do anything wrong so stop hating on someone who got what she deserved and telling her things that really don't matter anymore why don't you congratulate her and stop hating
soh.maryl
·2 years agoSo this happened despite the fact that part of the agreement that every eBay seller signs says something like "I agree not to engage in litigation against eBay"? Interesting.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoI don't think there is anything in the agreement saying " I agree not to engage in litigation against eBay". My understanding is that we only agree not to file a class action lawsuit against eBay.
albertabrightalberta
·2 years agoHere's the UA:
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement?id=4259
See
18. Legal Disputes
PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS AND WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON HOW CLAIMS YOU AND EBAY HAVE AGAINST EACH OTHER ARE RESOLVED.
In this Legal Disputes section, the term "related third parties" includes your and eBay's respective affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, predecessors, successors, assigns, as well as your, eBay's, and these entities' respective employees and agents.
You and eBay each agree that any and all claims or disputes at law or equity that has arisen, or may arise, between you and eBay (or any related third parties) that relate in any way to or arise out of this or previous versions of this User Agreement, your use of or access to the Services, the actions of eBay or its agents, or any products or services sold, offered, or purchased through the Services, will be resolved in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Legal Disputes section.
Hmmm. This next section is interesting and I'm not sure I'd previously read it in full.
Notwithstanding the parties' agreement to resolve all disputes through arbitration, either party may seek relief in a small claims court for disputes or claims within the scope of that court's jurisdiction and on an individual (non-class) basis only. If a party initiates an arbitration asserting a claim that falls within the jurisdiction of a small claims court, the other party may, in its discretion, require that the arbitration demand be withdrawn and that the claim be filed in small claims court.
Any dispute about whether a claim falls within any given small claims court's jurisdiction will be resolved by that court, not by an arbitrator. In the event of any such jurisdictional dispute, the arbitration proceeding will remain closed unless and until the small claims court issues a decision that the claim should proceed in arbitration.
gurlcat
·2 years agoFascinating, thanks for finding that.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoI read this part, as well as the entire agreement before making the decision to sue eBay. Obviously I am not a lawyer and I lack the acumen to fully understand the paragraph. My understanding is that we can sue in small claim court, but we cannot file a class action lawsuit. I suspect that any agreement with a private company that bans the signer from suing is in itself illegal.
Secondly, the nature of the dispute in my case is not any ordinary buyer-seller disagreement; what we accused of each other is fraud. If you read the seller’s and buyer’s right in the eBay policy, there is no mentioning of fraud, rightfully so because eBay has no right to make a verdict in a civil case, which they did in this case by ruling in favor of the buyer. This is why I was confident that I could go to court and I could win.
Feel free to share your thoughts and I think this discussion is very helpful. A lot of sellers here are under the impression that they cannot sue eBay no matter what.
farmalljr
·2 years agoYou ARE correct. You CAN sue eBay on an individual basis, NOT on a class action basis. People have before, and will likely continue to.
eBay also has an arbitration process, which it allows sellers to use as an option, but there is reports that they ignore those requests for arbitration because eBay has to be the one to pony up the fee to the arbitrators.
Sooner or later, my bet is eBay gets themselves in some legal hot water over not following their own policy/rules, and some judge may consider the user agreement null and void, opening them up to class action suits. You must make good on your end of the contract for it to be valid. If you break your own contract, it can easily be ruled as invalid, since you are not holding up your own end of the contract.
dbfolks166mt
·2 years agoYou ARE correct. You CAN sue eBay on an individual basis, NOT on a class action basis. People have before, and will likely continue to.
You can also sue eBay through a class action law suit. Following is one eBay lost and in fact settled rather than go to litigation.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/ebay-buy-it-now-class-action-settlement/
eBay also has an arbitration process, which it allows sellers to use as an option, but there is reports that they ignore those requests for arbitration because eBay has to be the one to pony up the fee to the arbitrators.
Sooner or later, my bet is eBay gets themselves in some legal hot water over not following their own policy/rules, and some judge may consider the user agreement null and void, opening them up to class action suits. You must make good on your end of the contract for it to be valid. If you break your own contract, it can easily be ruled as invalid, since you are not holding up your own end of the contract.
It will be interesting to see how the DOJ lawsuit turns out.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sues-ebay-over-sale-aftermarket-motor-vehicle-products-2023-09-27/
farmalljr
·2 years agoI hope eBay gets a nice fat fine. They can pull any listing at any time. Even if the items are not on a "list" of products not allowed here. They seem to make stuff up all the time without giving notice to sellers. However, eBay was warned more than once to stop allowing the sale of EPA rules busting diesel motor products. Now, why would eBay ignore that? Well, we know it's because the fees on that stuff was significant.
I've heard debate the fine will not end up being a billion dollars. I hope it's enough the investors clean house for once.
I HOPE with all that has transpired over the last few years, that SOMEONE finally takes the company to task and MAKES them run the business properly. Maybe this will open a deeper investigation of the goings on in the company and how it runs.
dbfolks166mt
·2 years agoSo this happened despite the fact that part of the agreement that every eBay seller signs says something like "I agree not to engage in litigation against eBay"? Interesting.
That supposed agreement is in essence a form of a contract and one of the elements of a binding contract is it has to be legal. You cannot have a binding contract if it attempts to override existing laws which is why the term put a contract out on somebody is a misnomer. EBay has and is sued all the time some cases they win some they loose.
monster-deals
·2 years agoMore likely the OP is confusing causality with correlation
12345jamesstamps
·2 years agoI am glad you won. So nice to hear this. Bravo!
I am currently fighting an 8 month dispute with a chargeback from a bank and eBay. US law allows 120 days but this is twice as many days.
Although you were able to file a police report in your state...in San Francisco we cannot file a police report online or go to a station. States have different laws as well as cities. It took me 2 days to have the police to come out to file a police report on a stolen bicycle so I could use my insurance.
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoSorry to hear that you are dealing with this. Hope it gets resolved soon.
lazer*lightning
·2 years agoI don't think that's accurate. When I was in San Francisco in I think, 2015 I had some small items stolen from me and I was told I could only file the report online as I was out of the area by then.
pjcdn2005
·2 years agoI'm not very familiar with the law but wouldn't it by the buyer that you should sue?
alternative_lab_source
OP2 years agoI don't have physical evidence to prove that the buyer is lying, so it's going to be 'your words against my words' in court.
downunder-61
·2 years agoThe only thing that annoys me with this outcome, the buyer did not have to return the money, eBay comped it.
So this useless excuse of a buyer will carry on unharmed, having no idea the seller was reimbursed and thinking how clever he was to get away with it.
My high school self would want to message them - Na nana na na - luckily my old lady brain is better trained now.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoExactly right. Its no victory when the defrauding consumer got away with it. It's no victory when the point of sale by which a seller makes money has to pay for a perpetrators fraud be that a buyer or seller. Two wrongs never make a right more or less three.
farmalljr
·2 years agoI have no problem with eBay if they want to allow sellers to fraud THEM. I think eBay as the "middleman" has a RESPONSIBILITY to sellers to cover fraud buyers commit. eBay controls the payments and the terms of EVERY single sale. The only thing the seller controls is what they list, the asking price and shipping the product. They have no say so over payments, disputes, or anything else. eBay ALSO controls who they let buy and seller here. So if they want to let fraudsters use the platform and not control it, it's their problem.
If eBay wants to be the one controlling everything, then they should take all the responsibility too, in every case. If eBay in turn, wants to refund buyers out of their own pocket, it's no big deal to me as a seller. As long as I GET PAID. I don't care about what eBay loses, because they have long determined they don't care what a seller loses. "It's a cost of doing business". I think eBay should live by their own mantra.
I remember the FIRST thread about this particular case the OP started. I knew then the "distinguished" teacher/professor was a thieving crook. And I knew after he contacted people at the school, they were all a bunch of thieves. I can tell you, this isn't the FIRST time these crooks screwed a seller on eBay from their actions and the price of the item they stole. eBay knows who is stealing what. They don't care because they are getting paid and they are RARELY taking any financial responsibility in these fraud cases. Only when forced to, will they take responsibility. I hope at some point, legally they are finally forced to take ALL this responsibility for fraud. They are not just a platform for sellers and buyers to do commerce, eBay controls about every single aspect of the commerce, just like Amazon, just without the warehouse. If you want to control the commerce/payment/make the rules, then you should be the one accepting ALL the responsibility.
Just think, IF eBay were forced to take responsibility, how many scammers do you think would remain here? How many fraud cases do you think they would ignore then? You would find out quickly that fraud today on this platform is exponentially higher then they would lead you to believe. And if it were THIER own money on the line, they would actually be taking action to curb it.
albany_sellers
·2 years agoAMEN to that. I don't understand how anyone can even stomach, let alone believe that claim about how "eBay is a building" and are just an uninterested 3rd party who brings sellers and buyers together. If that were the case, they wouldn't be so deeply entrenched in almost every single aspect of what a seller does, and they would not be the judge, juror and executioner whenever anything happens.
If they want to be the landlords, they need to make sure the locks work and the building is up to code. They need to deal with problems that arise and they need to evict bad tenants when they violate the rental agreement.
gurlcat
·2 years agoI agree with almost* everything you're saying. And what gets me is how apathetic the response is here in the "Community" when people face a chargeback total loss + fee for the first time, and don't understand what happened, what they did wrong, how they "could" have avoided it. The whole "Don't list anything you can't afford to lose!" and "It's the cost of doing business!" thing, that's the absolute #1 most absurd, asinine, CRUEL thing I see here on a regular basis. Does it track? Well I guess, as it stands, but how about some empathy and recognition of how absurd it is, to go along with the bad news, rather than those canned replies that read like the opposite of empathy, with a smacking hint of judgement, like the person should have known better. I realize that the people who make those replies are just calloused from years of forum participation, seeing the same things happen over and over, maybe had the same thing happen to them in the past (the loss, followed by Community apathy), but maybe those people should refrain from commenting to those posts, if they're so sick of seeing them.
Actually, some of those replies aren't the "you should have known" cheerleader type, but rather the opposite, the "Ha! You're screwed because of eBay! Do you see that? Does everyone reading this see that?" -People so embittered they devote precious time on Earth gathering re-affirmation that eBay screwed them, hoping to get revenge by .... I don't know ... convincing a few other sellers to leave. As if eBay will feel the loss of a few sellers. Meanwhile the OP is still freshly reeling and hurting, and the "You should be angry!" message doesn't do a dang thing to help whatever trouble they're in now.
You're absolutely right that "the cost of doing business" should be the way the giant corporation looks at chargebacks, not the single mom, retiree, struggling whoever, doing this in addition to their 1-or-more full time jobs to get by, possibly selling off collections they or their ancestors painstakingly gathered and cherished, things they'd rather pass on to their own kids. "The cost of doing business" is a phrase normally reserved FOR big corporations when that cost (in the form of government fines or lawsuit payouts) is far less than the accumulated amount of reward they got for the very same unethical or illegal practices that they got busted for. In other words, "that's what you get!" but really it's just a slap on the wrist for rampant wrongdoing. Or at best, the phrase pertains to genuinely unfortunate business losses despite doing everything right, like retail shrink due to shoplifting, vendor fraud, etc.
Now if an eBay seller regularly sells $500+ items, then losing one of those items here and there to chargeback scammers .... well I still don't think that should be regarded as an unavoidable cost of doing business, considering all the things you said, the fact that it ostensibly IS avoidable since eBay should cover chargebacks because they're the ones who control everything ... but I could see how such a successful seller might regard those occasional losses as the cost of doing business, since they don't really hurt them. What I can't abide is someone being TOLD that's how they should regard it, especially if they mostly sold lower-dollar items, and that one $500+ sale was going to be a huge break for them, a chance to finally catch up with whatever, but they lost it. "You shouldn't have sold it on eBay" .... What a piggish thing to say to them!!
And here's the thing. -Does EBAY want the message to be, "This is not a place you can count on to safely sell valuables" ? H NO! Luxury items and highly-prized collectibles are exactly what they want MORE of, for the obvious reason of higher FVF's and promotion earnings. But then once they've attracted a seller who HAS such inventory, if a buyer turns out to be a scammer, they think it makes sense to make that seller take the loss? I've seen numerous posts by sellers who were furious about it even though they WERE the regularly-selling-high-dollar successful type, who could afford the loss, furious just based on principle, so they decided to take their prized inventory and leave.
Selling here shouldn't be like literal gambling, period! Another thing I am so sick of Community members doing is telling devastated people they should have read terms of service they signed up for, when the terms are thousands of pages you would have to know to look for, and many of them contradict one another, because the site is like a Walking Dead landscape including outdated old zombie truths that are no longer true, and no programmer was assigned to terminate them in writing. Heck, any kind of risky investment product like stock market companies or literal gambling entities are required by law to have a statement of risk visible somewhere that can't be missed. And the funny thing about that is, who doesn't already know those things are risks, sort of like who doesn't know that smoking can cause cancer? But who comes to eBay thinking that instead of giving up Granddad's gold pocket watch for much-needed money they'll simply give it to a scammer who'll simply lie about what they received, and eBay will simply take their word for it?
Honestly I think eBay needs to bite the bullet and do away with allowing "No returns" or even "Buyer pays for returns" despite the inevitable exodus of some number of sellers that would cause. The fact is, they lose sellers anyway, by giving them the illusion that they can control returns and assume returns and refunds are the same thing, so then when they "refuse" to accept a return they are shocked to find eBay "stepping in" to snatch the money and NOT make the buyer return the item (an outcome far worse than what they were picturing). And yeah I realize this thread is about chargebacks, but to me the false allowance of sellers to control returns is very much in the same vein as chargebacks, as they're both things that shock and confuse sellers the first time, which could be the last time if the loss is grave enough and they're upset enough. But at least a refund without return is a loss that the seller COULD have avoided if they understood the policy. Literally the only way to avoid a chargeback loss is to simply not sell here. And that is true purely because eBay makes it true, when they could instead cover for sellers and accept it as the cost of doing business.
*The only thing I see as incorrect in what you said was in the final paragraph, whereby if eBay did take responsibility for fraudulent chargebacks, "how many scammers do you think would remain here?" Unfortunately the answer is "no less" -they would just have more usernames. The only way a scammer could actually fail at chargeback fraud would be if their bank/creditor held them responsible by finding in the seller's favor. Since eBay has no control over that, and (apparently) can't stop a banned member from signing up under a different identity, I don't see how they could diminish the number of scammers that scam here.
albany_sellers
·2 years agoI think if eBay made the attempt to ban them, and blocked any accounts from the same shipping address, with the same phone numbers, account information, names and the like, it would put a serious dent in how many there were. Of course they can't stop everyone, and nobody expects them to. We do expect them to at least make an attempt.
I think the message needs to be that the free lunch is over, and if we catch you trying to evade bans to defraud other users, we will pursue legal remedies. It will not stop the true professional scammers, but it will nip a lot of the opportunistic ones in the bud, and put an end to those who do it because they saw a Reddit post about how easy it is to steal on eBay.
The least they can do is make an effort instead of just pretending they do not even know it is happening.
farmalljr
·2 years agoeBay can clearly ban ANY account they choose to. They also know ANY connections that account has to others, and has the ability to BAN those associated accounts as well.
Were eBay financially responsible, scamming and theft would be nearly eliminated. But since they are NOT responsible, they make no effort to ban thieves and scammers.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoAccept for the fact even the US and State Governments and Banks can't do what you're asking. People move, people use surnames, people change names, people spoof addressing as well as phone numbers... Its easy peasy. Now if you want talk about Social Security numbers, now we're talking but those too can be changed or as continually occurs via identity theft. eBay as well as Amazon and online retailers have a plethora of tools they use but in the digital age one can get around them and one doesnt have to be a professional.
I've posted it before, Big retail is saying in 2023 they've had 48 Billion Dollars in fraud perpetuated against them. That's what was "not caught" and they are anticipating double that in 2024. But its by no means just buyers, it's sellers too. You can bet "something is going to give" but what gives may well not favor marketplaces such as this.
My ex and I 20 years ago came up with a secondary authentication system to stop usage of stolen cards and "unauthorized purchases" and Visa/MC wanted ZERO to do with it. Until the banking systems, government and more get on the same page its just going to get worse. Governments answer at least in the USA is "do away" with third party marketplaces. That was crystal clear in the last incarnation of the The Shop Safe Act whereby points of sale be fined for usage of any trademark or trademark term in any listing, any point of exchange as matter of law. That means using the term, "All Wheel Drive" which is trademark term by Subaru would result in every listing, here, elsewhere what unauthorized "sellers" us that term the Federal Government fine them. Subaru need not even complain, even if Subaru care less, fine still happen.
Thats a very clear attempted action by the Government to close these places. Government feels is third party transacting is done away with online, a whole lot of problems will disappear. That is crystal clear as to the message government is sending. If that were to happen, cleaning up retail online becomes considerably easier as then changes to how cards, authentication of purchases, returns, chargebacks are much easier to alter into standard terms as matter of law whereby banks can still make money coming and going.
albany_sellers
·2 years agoUntil there is an inspection into the buyer's history and it is shown that they have done the same thing to a dozen other sellers, and all the red flags that should have resulted in a suspended account were completely ignored and never even considered when dealing with the situation.
In fact, I bet it would show that not a single actual person even looked at the situation other that to tell the seller they can't do anything for them.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·2 years agoBut conjecture is conjecture. When retail associations have stated 48 Billion in consumer fraud against them this past year and quite possibly projecting double that into 2024 all online the nature of the problem arises. However, its not just buyers its sellers too. Entities representing manufacturers and distributorships are stating counterfeit sales alone this year, 200 Billion dollars globally rivaling the illegal drug trade. Both issues are escalating, double 2022 and then some.
Now if we look back on the introduction of The Safe Shopping Act which was shot down here in the USA it stated any use of use trademark or trademark terms on any listing on the net in the USA by unauthorized entities fine the venue. "All Wheel Drive" as just one example among literally millions is a Trademark term of Subaru. As a matter of law, Subaru would not even need complain, law broken, eBay, Craiglist, FB Marketplace on and on pay fine. Law firms said, "Its the end of third party points of sale."
That legislation was shot down but far from gone. Since it was shot down there has been a ramp up of manufacturers using legal means to go after sellers directly. That's not just cease and desist, its $20,000 at a minimum in legal fee's or face summary judgement.
What is clear is the last incarnation of the Shop Safe Act had clear intent to regulate third party commerce in huge fashion ultimately basically killing it online. The USA is not the only nation either, the entire of the EU is looking to the USA and what frameworks emerge. Two big issues, consumers defrauding online retailers and counterfeiting are the current buzz targets.
Its clear that the in the USA Government sees the latter as mainly occurring on third party venues. In fact Amazon was named #1 in counterfeit goods sold to consumers again, 200 Billion a year is the number floating about globally rivaling the illegal drug trade or so its claimed. Its clear Government thinks, "Do away with third party sales online, solve counterfeiting and a plethora of other problems that surround it."
Consumer fraud perpetrated on retailers there have already been efforts. Macy's, Walmart on and on are not worried about counterfeits, they in fact are in support of doing away with third party commerce as are manufacturers and distributors, consumer protection entities, authorities and perhaps even banks. Those entities are worried about consumer fraud and retail theft. Target just closed nine stores this past week all due to theft or so they claim.
It should be no surprise whatsoever that all this spills into eBay nor is any of it eBays fault. Bad buyers, bad sellers and there exists plethora's of both. In one year eBay removed 88 million questionable listings, thats 240,000+ every day of the year on average, 1/4 MILLION every day on average.
Manufacturers are moving UPC codes to QR codes as they can embed more data. There is no doubt whatsoever that QR codes will embed lot data, on and on so they know where it come from, where it sold, by who, the works. QR codes are likely play a role in chargeback and returns sometime in the future, this likely be at least portion of how retailers can protect themselves. For folks like here, it ends up indefensible, anyone buying to resell never win a chargeback unless they are an authorized entity by the manufacturer or distributorship.
There is no way to know which way it all goes but again some things are quite clear as the US Federal Government sought to pass law that any use of Trademark or Trademarks terms a finable offense whether or not the rights holder complained.
Blaming eBay for actions of bad buyers and bad sellers simply feeds into the narrative of Government as to reasons to shut down all of this type of commerce. Never in 25+ years have I had concerns of Government really acting to quell third party commerce online, at the moment I do as right now is the hardest push I've ever seen to do just that.
albany_sellers
·2 years agoalbany_sellers
·2 years agoThe buyer is to blame, but so is eBay, maybe even more for allowing it and even seeming to encourage it by never taking these situations seriously. The buyer committed fraud, however they committed fraud once. eBay on the other hand has a very long history of sitting on their hands and enabling fraud through inaction.
When a single buyer can target dozens of sellers and still be allowed on the platform without any sanctions or consequences, to me, that tells me where the more major problem lies. When a seller with 20 years of perfect transactions is thrown to the dogs in favor of a buyer who has ripped off 20 sellers in a 6 month period, and that buyer is given the win without even so much as a courtesy inspection into their history, that tells me where a large portion of the fault should be placed.
That is accessory territory. A huge amount of these fraudsters could be stopped in their tracks, and their impact on sellers could be dramatically curtailed. There is no other way around it other than to conclude that eBay does not consider it important, and that it's just easier and more financially prudent to place the responsibility on the seller. These policies directly lead to scammers knowing that if they want easy prey, eBay is the best place to defraud others since they will probably never face any actual repercussions, legally or by being kicked off the platform.
In short, eBay has directly caused and enabled these kinds of issues through their own refusal to act or hold buyers to a higher standard. They share an equal blame because of that.
Unavailable member
·2 years agoGood for you! I’m glad that it all worked out for you.
Happy Holidays