Guaranteed authentication theft

[rdjb7804]

I sold a Wayne Gretzky rookie card that went through authentication process, passed and was shipped to buyer. For some reason it couldn’t be delivered. EBay first said it was lost and refunded the buyer and let me keep my funds. I discovered through a secondary shipper that the card was returned to the authenticator and signed for. When I confronted eBay on this fact they changed their story and admitted that the card was returned to authenticator. They don’t seem to want to entertain the idea of returning my property to me. The deal was with the buyer not some eBay authenticator service who now has my card 

[jonathanbrightlight]

The seller absolutely entered a contract with eBay.  When they sold the item on eBay (or actually, when they listed it on eBay, they agreed to the terms and conditions).  Why would eBay refund the fees for a successful sale from the seller's perspective?  The seller got exactly what eBay was contractually obligated to provide them.

[luckythewinner]

---

@jerseyboymusic wrote:

 I get what @rdjb7804 is saying...

If I sold something.. let's say a record album that HAD to go through "Authentication", and it passed and went to the buyer and was never delivered, and was RTS, I would want that record to be returned to me, just like any other item that didn't go through this process. THEN I would refund the buyer once I had the item back.

---

Let's say it unfolded as you propose, except that the LP was broken in half when it arrived back after the RTS. Would you still be willing to refund the buyer in full and accept the worthless LP as a fair outcome?

Of course not.

[jerseyboymusic]

I don't see anything on the OP that the card was damaged. It was Return To Sender.

All I'm saying is that I think the OP was wondering why he didn't get the card back from the authenticator and then he could close out the case

[jerseyboymusic]

@conservitvs 

Yes, I would want it back and refund the buyer as I normally would have.

I'm using an example that I could get my head around. I have zero interest in trading cards, so  I can see everyone's point.. but if it was an item I am interested in, this is why I am using the LP example.

[conservitvs]

---

@jerseyboymusic wrote:

@conservitvs 

Yes, I would want it back and refund the buyer as I normally would have.

I'm using an example that I could get my head around. I have zero interest in trading cards, so  I can see everyone's point.. but if it was an item I am interested in, this is why I am using the LP example.

---

@jerseyboymusic 

I’m still not understanding. 

You list an LP.

LP sells. 

LP goes to authenticator. They lose/damage it.

eBay fully refunds buyer.

eBay lets you keep the money from the sale. 

You are saying, instead of keeping the money from the sale of the LP, you would rather have the LP sent back to you?

Why? Why did you list it for sale in the first place?

I’m just trying understand. 

If you list it for sale, then you want money. 

If you want the record back - instead of money - then why list for sale at all? Just keep the record…

That’s what I’m not getting. 🙂

[jerseyboymusic]

@conservitvs 

Maybe we are reading the OP all differently.

I read it as the item went to the authenticator. It passed and then the card was sent to the buyer. At the buyer address it was RTS.

Went back to authenticator. Card was delivered to authenticator. Card was "lost". I guess if it was indeed "lost" then yes, the seller would be refunded, as well as buyer, out of Ebay's pocket.

From what I have read on other threads, these are smallish independent authenticators. OP was at a loss as to how is item was lost when there is a process. I mean, it WENT to authenticator and they sent to the buyer. Why couldn't the card get BACK to the seller? Aren't there safeguards in place?

@rdjb7804 hasn't been back in over a week to update, so it's probably a moot point for him by now

[ltldpr]

---

@jerseyboymusic wrote:

 I get what @rdjb7804 is saying...

If I sold something.. let's say a record album that HAD to go through "Authentication", and it passed and went to the buyer and was never delivered, and was RTS, I would want that record to be returned to me, just like any other item that didn't go through this process. THEN I would refund the buyer once I had the item back.

For an item to go through an arbitrary third party, who could just keep it and claim it as lost, is not acceptable. Even though I would have the funds and Ebay decided to refund the buyer out of their pockets, I would want my item back, just like any other RTS transaction

---

I agree and I feel the same way about eIS.

If it gets to the hub, and then all of a sudden it's declared a "prohibited" item, then it should be sent back to the seller, not assimilated into the borg to be later sold by eBay.

If it was prohibited in the buyer's country, eBay should never have allowed the sale to go through in the first place, but since there's a way for eBay to take ownership of the item, there's a financial incentive for eBay NOT to send it back. Buyer & seller are even Steven, and eBay gets to sell the item they now own by declaring "prohibited" after the fact. 

Also, "losing" items at either location (authenticator or eIS hub) screams theft by employees/contractors to me.  At least USPS/UPS/FedEx can blame porch pirates, but eBay and the authenticators not so much.

[carlmarxx]

I read through OP's Post and thread  .  And yes a lot of  posters are missing point here  . That OP  was  planning on refunding the Payment they received for the card  in order to relist  for  larger  auction sold price profit .    

[carlmarxx]

I agree with you .    I read  a lot  threads   On both  selling   and old  power sellers board  about  GSP   folks   sudden it is declared a "Prohibited" item  , When those  OP sellers said  they didn't have this issue  doing their own shipping to the international  buyers country .   I belong to some private  seller /Buyer  face book groups and  these issues come up  a lot.  

[kensgiftshop]

---

@zals34 wrote:

If eBay truly gets the card in this scenario, they effectively are getting the card for less than the intended sale value. The seller did not enter in a contract with eBay , they did with the buyer. eBay should in this scenario offer the seller the card back if they have it back in their possession. Just because it was on their site it does not give them the right to keep the card. If eBay wants to keep the card they should refund the fees as well.

---

How are they getting it for less then the intended sale value.

They got it for what the buyer paid and that's the value of the card.

Seller kept their payment, so they are not out anything.

Buyer was refunded, so they are not out anything.

Why should the fee's be refunded?

The card sold and the seller has to pay the fee's.

[zals34]

Let first start by saying you win, but what is the end goal of eBay keeping the card? In this scenario the seller states that eBay admitted they are back in possession of the card (meaning the authenticator who is employed/contracted by eBay). Does eBay put it in the vault and sell it down the road? Somebody has the card that it was not intended for. Is that considered theft? To me it is. The only reason I bring the fees into the scenario is that wouldn’t it be cool if you had this business were you can have people send you items that you deem need authentication, go to the post office and use their kiosk to say it was dropped off and instantly make 15% by saying the package was lost. The implication that something like this would be going on would be very damaging to the credibility of this program. I don’t see why eBay would even want to keep this card, it has no upside whatsoever for them and I would instantly be offering the seller back the card. Now is eBay entitled to their fees yes but are they entitled to keep the card, I would say no and it seems like they are not wanting to give the card back. Now if there is a completely different scenario then what I am interpreting here, punt…thanks for the good times.

[kensgiftshop]

What will they do with the card?

Probably resell it to make up for the refund to the buyer.

If it was lost for a little bit, Ebay probably refunded the buyer before it was found, so now they own the card and can do what ever they want with it.

If it hadn't been found, they would be out the money they refunded the buyer.

[zals34]

The only thing eBay is losing is the fees if the seller agreed to pay back the money they received and I believe that is what this seller is saying. Or eBay can offer the seller back the card for what it sold for and recoup the fees. At least at this point the seller has the option of keeping the cash or getting back the card they owned (For this scenario, since eBay got the card back). The buyer has nothing to do with this transaction, completely separate and that is a wash. If something is lost, generally eBay holds the seller accountable and they need to file a claim with the post office to get what ever insurance was placed for it so eBay does not lose their money that way. Hopefully this scenario unique and is not something occurs often. The only reason I found this thread was to see if other people have bought high end cards only to have them get lost in usps black hole, which I am experiencing right now. Same scenario, card was authenticated and has been stuck in the system at the same usps for over a week. The wrinkle that eBay got back the card and would not offer to return it was surprising to me. Again, why would eBay want to go thru the trouble of keeping the card and have to sell it when they can recoup their fees or chalk it up to the cost of business to save face that the authentication process is legit and that this is not something that happens regularly. Just my two cents, appreciate the discussion.