05-20-2019 12:00 PM
I got this "friendly" reminder of an item taken down, what? Last year? I went to check if I was selling anything different, and even when I used my own pictures it was taken down because I didn't have any resale authorization, you guys know all the blah, blah, blah. But, how about the other hundreds of the same **bleep**?
I am very firm, and very pro-accepting whatever the stupid, idiotic, etc VeRO programs does, their business, but I hate how Ebay portrays it.
Fist of all, these $(^*% people in the VeRO program should apply their punishment across the board, not leaving you with foam in your mouth when you watch they don't take down 10s of pages of listings of the same **bleep** you were warned to not sell again on Ebay.
Is that too much to ask you the ^(&$# in that program?
Yes, I am very furious! I can't take so much stupidity from Ebay and VeRO.
https://mesg.ebay.com/mesgweb/ViewMessageDetail/0/ebay/110432975314
05-20-2019 04:49 PM
@slippinjimmy wrote:Even today, if you have a VeRO complaint filed against you, they will remove it in some cases.
Correct, if you file a counter-notice against the party making the original complaint and they do not respond within the allowed time limit then eBay may reinstate the listing.
No, not a counter-notice.
I mean literally calling up the CSR's and telling them "Hey, this listing was reported for not having for/fits and it has for/fits!"
They will contact the VeRO department and remove it. Except for Motors, apparently, because now it has to be "after the years and before the make" which makes no sense.
05-20-2019 04:56 PM - edited 05-20-2019 04:59 PM
Going down the 1st page of the Engine Mount category, basically everything (except our listings) does not follow what eBay is claiming the new policy is. Here's the titles coming up:
"Front Engine Motor Mount for 2006-2011 Honda Civic 1.8L | EM-9280 9280 A4530" - Not compliant.
"Engine Motor & Trans Mount Set For 2005-2006 Honda Odyssey LX / EX 3.5L V6 VTEC" - Not compliant.
"FRONT RIGHT UPPER SIDE ENGINE MOUNT-- FITS: 05-08 HONDA PILOT & 06-14 RIDGELINE." - Not compliant.
"Engine Motor & Trans. Mount Set for 2001-2005 Honda Civic 1.7L 2 Doors Manual" - Not compliant.
"Engine Motor & Trans Mount Set 6 PCS For 2003-2007 Honda Accord EX LX 2.4L L4" - Not compliant.
"OEM Quality Engine Motor & Trans. Mount Set for 2005-2007 Ford Focus 2.0L" - Not compliant.
"New Auto Trans Engine Motor Mount Kit Fits 00-06 Nissan Sentra 1.8L L4 DOHC 16v" - Not compliant.
"New Engine Automatic Trans Mount kit Fits 02-06 Nissan Altima 2.5L DOHC" - Not compliant.
In other words, the "new policy" is stating basically every single listing is "not compliant". Even though they were recently compliant just weeks ago. And no notice was sent to say they're not compliant anymore, and no written policy.
And our store is seemingly receiving a penalty due to receiving a VeRO report, as our format was similar to the ones above. Even though we updated it within the "fair warning" time frame.
My point is, in the past, if a manufacturer claimed VeRO on any of the ones listed above, we would have been protected. They would have removed the VeRO complaint. We have had this happen approximately 6 months ago, and I believe I still have the CSR's name who removed them as evidence eBay can verify.
EBay was verifying VeRO claims in the past, or at the very least removing them if they were incorrectly claimed, as a means to prevent sellers from receiving a penalty they did not deserve.
It's beyond unfair that us, as well as every seller listed above, could get VeRO claims against them that harm their visibility, when we've received no notice of any policy changes, and our listings are compliant according to the last notices we received.
Why on earth would the entire category deserve VeRO complaints? How could anyone think that's legit? When 99%+ of the listings are not following their supposed new policy, and they have not made any public announcements regarding this?
05-20-2019 04:58 PM
Most For/Fits issues are NOT Vero claims but rather eBay policy violations (search manipulation), a completely different thing than a Vero take down.
05-20-2019 05:00 PM - edited 05-20-2019 05:02 PM
@slippinjimmy wrote:Most For/Fits issues are NOT Vero claims but rather eBay policy violations (search manipulation), a completely different thing than a Vero take down.
Yep, I don't mean a VeRO take down.
But these policy violations are still appearing on the MSO 1-pager reports, and still being acted on as violations apparently, as we were told by a category manager that this was the reason for our sudden drop (that began the day after the VeRO claim).
If we're going to be penalized for these things, it's not right if there's absolutely no written policy, if the entire category is not compliant, and if there's absolutely no notice.
Sellers shouldn't discover this after receiving a penalty, without any time to update listings. The penalty is so severe that we're the #1 seller in the category, and have had the slowest last 11 days of sales that we have had in over 3 years. Even slower than xmas/new years week. It's inexcusable that we have to worry about keeping the doors open and losing even more employees when we followed the policy as it was given to us.
05-20-2019 05:48 PM
@zamo-zuan wrote:That's not what we've been told in the past, when eBay CSR's removed VeRO complaints on our behalf because they were compliant.
I tend not to believe things that customer support is reported to have said, especially when there is a relevant written policy that does not back it up.
Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that eBay does not blindly accept every NOCI, because out of the hundreds I have filed over the years I've had a couple of them sent back to me by the VERO team for clarification.
But at the same time, I sincerely doubt that validating the legitimacy of every single complaint is something they are "supposed to" do.
05-20-2019 05:50 PM - edited 05-20-2019 05:54 PM
@zamo-zuan wrote:Yep, I don't mean a VeRO take down.
You many not have meant VERO, but you consistently and repeately used the word VERO when describing them.
05-20-2019 06:23 PM
@luckythewinner wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:Yep, I don't mean a VeRO take down.
You many not have meant VERO, but you consistently and repeately used the word VERO when describing them.
In a thread that is about VERO and has VERO in the Title.
It's ok, no biggie in my book except now there will be people out there who will say "I read that eBay verifies DMCA claims and will reverse them if you ask".
05-20-2019 10:19 PM
let me put it this way, you as an Ebay seller:
You are told by a friend that in such and such flea market thee is this old, very old person who every week brings antiques, the ones you are selling on Ebay, and they are a $1 each. you sell antique clocks. You get there, and there's only 1 darn clock, a decent one. But, on the next, then the next and the next after the next stall there are hundreds upon hundreds of clocks at $1 each.
You, as an idiot, go back to your shop with one clock, you just came to see this seller your friend referred to you, and hell with the other ones, right?
You are a police officer. You are called for a domestic violence situation. You get into the apartment the call came from. You see somebody hurt, probably the wife, you detain the husband, but you know, there's a ton of cocaine sitting on a table there. Since you weren't called for that, you just take the husband to jail.
That is, the stupidity of that dumb VeRO program. They come for a poor guy who is selling something like anybody else while thousands upon thousands of the same items are at the reach of their lazy fingers. Get it?
I had listed 2 Beverly Hills MD creme, except that they were 20%25% cheaper than the competitors, or should I say snitching competitors/sellers? The total for both if bought separately was about $100-$110, my price? $89 plus free shipping.
So, if they were calling for one miserable listing, there were 10s and 10s of pages of the same products from the same brand. Some in the $1,000s! Are they authorized resellers? Sure!
Maybe somebody doesn't want those hundreds of listings gone?
05-21-2019 08:03 AM - edited 05-21-2019 08:07 AM
@luckythewinner wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:Yep, I don't mean a VeRO take down.
You many not have meant VERO, but you consistently and repeately used the word VERO when describing them.
@slippinjimmy wrote:
@luckythewinner wrote:
@zamo-zuan wrote:Yep, I don't mean a VeRO take down.
You many not have meant VERO, but you consistently and repeately used the word VERO when describing them.
In a thread that is about VERO and has VERO in the Title.
It's ok, no biggie in my book except now there will be people out there who will say "I read that eBay verifies DMCA claims and will reverse them if you ask".
Well I can give you a screenshot of the most recent format of the 1-pager business read out from MSO, which lists it as VeRO:
What am I supposed to call it then? lol. It's not listed as "DMCA". They're specifically listing it as VeRO.
Furthermore, what you are describing might be part of the issue at hand here. They may not be VeRO takedowns, they may only be "fair warning" (as the VeRO team calls it). But they are counting as VeRO in eBay's system, alongside a penalty that has made it so 11 consecutive days have not reached our daily average of sales, and has given us the slowest week we've had in over 3 years.
09-20-2019 07:22 AM - edited 09-20-2019 07:24 AM
The issue is that the VERO program is like the TSA no-fly list in that it is completely one-sided so the seller is kept in the dark about what is transpiring between ebay and the "right's owner". The majority of violations have no merit as the item in question is one previously sold at retail level and is now being sold for the 2nd, 3rd or more time. The supreme court ruled most recently in 2017 by a margin of 7-1 that “once a patentee decides to sell-whether on its own or through a licensee, that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license.” The ruling affirmed the doctrine of exhaustion. That is, after a product covered by a patent has been sold by the patent owner or by others with the consent of the owner, the right of the patent owner to control what the buyer may do with the product ceases. This limitation is also referred to as the “exhaustion doctrine” or “first sale doctrine”. I complete agree when it comes to things like CD/DVD/Digital copying and reselling that it is a violation or where there is a clear case of counterfeiting someone's product but other than that ebay needs to stand up for the people who are the reason why they are still in business. Unfortunately, they find it easier to appease the one making the infringement claim instead of challenging the validity of it. They do have the ability to keyword search every listing on their site but that would kill revenue so they only take down the single listings that get the complaint.