Final value fee of what the item did not sell for

[pere-loui]

Dirty rotten eBay is up to theft, money stealing tactics again. It was necessary to cancel an auction and eBay decided to take a final value fee of what the item did not sell for ! Without authorization!

This is not the first time EBay tries to screw the sellers. There's has to be a way to get a refund as like I said this is an unauthorized debt from my account!

[isaiah53-57]

---

@itsjustasprain wrote:

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:
Call it what you will, but if you dont think ebay is picking up undeserved revenue with respect to charging people for canceling auctions - people rightly concerned about fraudulent bidders

---

Sellers can cancel any bids they are suspicious about BEFORE the auction ends. We are talking here about cancelling the auction - which is different.

---

Don't really care what "WE" are talking about - I KNOW what I am talking about - I have canceled MANY listings when I felt I had blocked bidders bidding - When I had multiple red flag bidders coming back after canceling their bids - when I had bidders who had scammed us or attempted to scam us and they do it so often, they forgot they already hit us. When that happened, we simply would not relist them... so no...its NOT different.

Canceling auctions with regard to the above situations has ALWAYS been a form of protection for us - taking that away or fining you for it makes it one less tool you have to protect yourself here and the tool bag is near empty...

[farmalljr]

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

@farmalljr wrote:

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

---

Problem is, in the real world, no one reads the legal speak of Privacy Notices and TOS's - They are designed the way they are purposely - If people read these things, they would likely not opt in to most TOS contracts - Some TOS's have been outed on National news with warnings, but it doesn't stop many, because seems people are more interested in watching Tik-Tok or YouTube videos rather than being concerned about their personal well being and willing to literally signing away their God given, assumptive rights for a FREE service - Yeah FREE for a FEE - there is always a cost.

Most people are going to assume at least the bare minimum of protection and rights, and rightly so, but we are talking about corporate America here, who's only concern is the next quarterly report -  What was once common and expected protections and rights have vanished in the legal speech of TOS's - and people are unwittingly paying the price for assuming any amount fairness in business...

You may know these things, because you have been here a long time and have a presence on these boards, but I would bet dollars to donuts, 8 out of 10 people selling here won't know about this money grab until it hits them upside the head...

---

While I hear what you are saying....

THE PROBLEM IS, you as a user are AGREEING to a CONTRACT. It's your sole responsibility to understand the contract you are agreeing to.  None of the excuses matter, as to why someone might not read it or fully understand it. If contracts were not binding and did not have real meaning, law would fall to pieces and all contracts would be meaningless. It's the user's job/responsibility to understand the contract and to follow the terms. If it's too much or too hard for them to grasp, then they probably have no business entering the contract. But because they do, they ARE bound to the terms, regardless of how anyone "feels" about it. 

---

I certainly can't contend with what is a given - We ALL know there is a TOS we are bound to, even those who choose not to read it - Its a given - Nothing new in what you wrote there...

My contention is that some offensive corporations(not mentioning any names) take advantage of KNOWING people dont read this carp - They add unfair rules and asinine regulations contrary to common sense, they reduce or remove protections and rights that are generally assumed and expected by level heads, they sell your personal information, they take away services and tools that were once there with no notice other than the TOS that hardly anyone reads... And the saddest thing of all, much of it is by design to trap and snare unaware users into paying for things no reasonable person would think is justified.

We were the victim of a similar situation here at ebay - It did not have to do with a TOS issue - we have always been vigilant with contracts and TOS's. One day the site simply decided to make BOLD LISTINGS the default listing - You actually had to uncheck the obscure box if you didnt want it - If I recollect properly they did this for several days to a week or maybe more until the uproar had them roll it back - At .50 cents a whack back then, how much undeserved revenue do you think the company hauled in on that despicable plan??

---

And who's fault is it if you are charging in, rushing through listings? It's the lister's job to make sure everything is correct and how they want it, before they hit submit. Are glitches here new? Are the games programmers and eBay management play, new? If a seller fails to pay attention every single time, you are only passing the blame if you didn't catch something, right?

I'm not arguing it was right of eBay to do that, but ultimately, it is up to the seller to look things over before submitting a listing. Seller are here to make money too. You don't think if buyers knew what was paid for inventory, they would not "feel" like sellers are here screwing them over too? 

[broto_64]

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

@farmalljr wrote:

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

---

Problem is, in the real world, no one reads the legal speak of Privacy Notices and TOS's - They are designed the way they are purposely - If people read these things, they would likely not opt in to most TOS contracts - Some TOS's have been outed on National news with warnings, but it doesn't stop many, because seems people are more interested in watching Tik-Tok or YouTube videos rather than being concerned about their personal well being and willing to literally signing away their God given, assumptive rights for a FREE service - Yeah FREE for a FEE - there is always a cost.

Most people are going to assume at least the bare minimum of protection and rights, and rightly so, but we are talking about corporate America here, who's only concern is the next quarterly report -  What was once common and expected protections and rights have vanished in the legal speech of TOS's - and people are unwittingly paying the price for assuming any amount fairness in business...

You may know these things, because you have been here a long time and have a presence on these boards, but I would bet dollars to donuts, 8 out of 10 people selling here won't know about this money grab until it hits them upside the head...

---

While I hear what you are saying....

THE PROBLEM IS, you as a user are AGREEING to a CONTRACT. It's your sole responsibility to understand the contract you are agreeing to.  None of the excuses matter, as to why someone might not read it or fully understand it. If contracts were not binding and did not have real meaning, law would fall to pieces and all contracts would be meaningless. It's the user's job/responsibility to understand the contract and to follow the terms. If it's too much or too hard for them to grasp, then they probably have no business entering the contract. But because they do, they ARE bound to the terms, regardless of how anyone "feels" about it. 

---

I certainly can't contend with what is a given - We ALL know there is a TOS we are bound to, even those who choose not to read it - Its a given - Nothing new in what you wrote there...

My contention is that some offensive corporations(not mentioning any names) take advantage of KNOWING people dont read this carp - They add unfair rules and asinine regulations contrary to common sense, they reduce or remove protections and rights that are generally assumed and expected by level heads, they sell your personal information, they take away services and tools that were once there with no notice other than the TOS that hardly anyone reads... And the saddest thing of all, much of it is by design to trap and snare unaware users into paying for things no reasonable person would think is justified.

---

No.

Most corporations are not single entities so there's no real thought process involved here.

Lawyers draw these things up, they get paid for their services... It's a whole process, board members vote on it, the list goes on, it takes a lot of work and time to process all the rules and regulations but ultimately I doubt very much the mindset of "we know they won't read it so we're going to slip them a few mickey's" truly goes on here.

I will not sink to the level of conspiracy theories because there's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve voodoo:

You see, it is our responsibility as members to read it, and if we fail to do so we suffer the consequences.

It is that simple.

[mam98031]

@isaiah53-57 

"They add unfair rules and asinine regulations contrary to common sense..."  I get it that this is your opinion, but that is not likely the reasoning behind Ebay's creation of the rule.  Ebay created the rule regarding charging sellers for cancelling auctions that have bids on them because they had too many sellers doing this and creating unhappy buyers.  It was also an indicator that the seller took the transaction off Ebay.  Now while you may disagree with that, it won't change the fact that Ebay sees it differently.

I remember that issue with the Bold titles.  As I remember it, it was a glitch / bug and Ebay fixed it and refunded the affected sellers.

[mam98031]

@isaiah53-57 

Canceling auctions with regard to the above situations has ALWAYS been a form of protection for us - taking that away or fining you for it makes it one less tool you have to protect yourself here and the tool bag is near empty...

This is not a new change, so if you have done it in the last few years when bids were on the auctions, you likely were charged the FVF.

[isaiah53-57]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

@isaiah53-57 

"They add unfair rules and asinine regulations contrary to common sense..."  I get it that this is your opinion, but that is not likely the reasoning behind Ebay's creation of the rule.  Ebay created the rule regarding charging sellers for cancelling auctions that have bids on them because they had too many sellers doing this and creating unhappy buyers.  It was also an indicator that the seller took the transaction off Ebay.  Now while you may disagree with that, it won't change the fact that Ebay sees it differently.

I remember that issue with the Bold titles.  As I remember it, it was a glitch / bug and Ebay fixed it and refunded the affected sellers.

---

That is NOT AT ALL TRUE - I had to call twice to get reimbursed after I got the surprise in my bill - They finally agreed to refund the fees after we threatened to take down several thousand listings and shutter our high volume/high dollar business - and they called it a "ONE-TIME COURTESY" - I can only imagine how much money they pilfered from the people that never pursued it - The only way ebay lets go of a nickel is to get a better grip on it in my opinion...

[brightlightbookseller]

Yes, that would be the seller's fault.  They didn't know and probably didn't even read the terms and conditions.  You can cancel a bid at any time without penalty, but you cannot cancel an auction with bids on it without incurring FVFs.

[isaiah53-57]

---

@broto_64 wrote:

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

@farmalljr wrote:

---

@isaiah53-57 wrote:

---

---

Problem is, in the real world, no one reads the legal speak of Privacy Notices and TOS's - They are designed the way they are purposely - If people read these things, they would likely not opt in to most TOS contracts - Some TOS's have been outed on National news with warnings, but it doesn't stop many, because seems people are more interested in watching Tik-Tok or YouTube videos rather than being concerned about their personal well being and willing to literally signing away their God given, assumptive rights for a FREE service - Yeah FREE for a FEE - there is always a cost.

Most people are going to assume at least the bare minimum of protection and rights, and rightly so, but we are talking about corporate America here, who's only concern is the next quarterly report -  What was once common and expected protections and rights have vanished in the legal speech of TOS's - and people are unwittingly paying the price for assuming any amount fairness in business...

You may know these things, because you have been here a long time and have a presence on these boards, but I would bet dollars to donuts, 8 out of 10 people selling here won't know about this money grab until it hits them upside the head...

---

While I hear what you are saying....

THE PROBLEM IS, you as a user are AGREEING to a CONTRACT. It's your sole responsibility to understand the contract you are agreeing to.  None of the excuses matter, as to why someone might not read it or fully understand it. If contracts were not binding and did not have real meaning, law would fall to pieces and all contracts would be meaningless. It's the user's job/responsibility to understand the contract and to follow the terms. If it's too much or too hard for them to grasp, then they probably have no business entering the contract. But because they do, they ARE bound to the terms, regardless of how anyone "feels" about it. 

---

I certainly can't contend with what is a given - We ALL know there is a TOS we are bound to, even those who choose not to read it - Its a given - Nothing new in what you wrote there...

My contention is that some offensive corporations(not mentioning any names) take advantage of KNOWING people dont read this carp - They add unfair rules and asinine regulations contrary to common sense, they reduce or remove protections and rights that are generally assumed and expected by level heads, they sell your personal information, they take away services and tools that were once there with no notice other than the TOS that hardly anyone reads... And the saddest thing of all, much of it is by design to trap and snare unaware users into paying for things no reasonable person would think is justified.

---

No.

Most corporations are not single entities so there's no real thought process involved here.

Lawyers draw these things up, they get paid for their services... It's a whole process, board members vote on it, the list goes on, it takes a lot of work and time to process all the rules and regulations but ultimately I doubt very much the mindset of "we know they won't read it so we're going to slip them a few mickey's" truly goes on here.

I will not sink to the level of conspiracy theories because there's a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve voodoo:

You see, it is our responsibility as members to read it, and if we fail to do so we suffer the consequences.

It is that simple.

---

In light of highly publicized instances that has happened with ebay over the years, seems you dont have to "sink to conspiracy theory" - It's not like Corporate America hasn't been RIFE with conspiracy, unfair tactics, pursuing of trapped revenue, criminal activity, etc, etc, etc throughout its existence - Thats a fact, not how you "feel" or "believe" - its THAT simple...

[kyle@ebay]

---

@wastingtime101 wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

" If the auction has finished, you can contact the winner and, if they agree, you can cancel the transaction."  For it to be a correctly filed cancellation with the reason the buyer requested it, the buyer has to reach out to the seller and ask for the cancellation, not the other way around.  Unless something has changed, that is how it has been explained to me before.  But as we all know, things change often around here, so it is hard to keep up on everything.

---

That quoted line was copy/pasted from the linked policy page. I copy/pasted the entire section without dissecting every sentence. You're correct that buyer has to initiate the request to cite buyer requested. If seller asks the buyer and buyer agree to the cancellation, then it's supposed to be put through as an out of stock cancellation. eBay may forgive an occasional misuse of buyer requested, but if it's a habit the seller will be caught as @steve_stuff demonstrated with their post.

We've all seen eBay policy pages that are in need of update. It appears this is one of them.

Hi kyle@ebay . Can you have this policy page reviewed for correction?

https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/listings/creating-managing-listings/ending-listing?id=4146

Specifically, this misleading text:

If the auction has finished, you can contact the winner and, if they agree, you can cancel the transaction.

---

Hey @wastingtime101 thanks for bringing this up!  I will go ahead and pass this over to the appropriate team for review.  

[mam98031]

kyle@ebay 

Thank you.  We see some sellers abusing this thinking it is OK to do when it should not be OK to do this.  The buyer doesn't have a reason to ask for the cancellation, it is the seller that has a reason for needing it, so they contact the buyer and ask them with whatever reason they have come up with.  Many times it is a seller trying to get around honoring the sale but without getting a defect for themselves.

And why is this currently in the policy as being specifically for auctions?  

[kyle@ebay]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

kyle@ebay 

Thank you.  We see some sellers abusing this thinking it is OK to do when it should not be OK to do this.  The buyer doesn't have a reason to ask for the cancellation, it is the seller that has a reason for needing it, so they contact the buyer and ask them with whatever reason they have come up with.  Many times it is a seller trying to get around honoring the sale but without getting a defect for themselves.

And why is this currently in the policy as being specifically for auctions?  

---

Hey @mam98031 I think you hit the nail on the head with what I highlighted in red!

With respect to your question, I would say that these situations are generally (though not exclusively) with auction-style listings, so I think that's probably why the help page is phrased that way.  

[kabilab]

Pere,

There is nothing wrong about disagreeing with anyone, but to address them with "dirty rotten eBay is up to theft............." would probably be counter to a positive resolution of your situation.