Is eBay stealing from sellers?

[prettywoman-2012]

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for. 

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment. 

This is just one sale and one seller. Multiply the 40 cents (and many items ship for much more than 4.00 dollars, plus many have far more returns than I do) by 1,000,000 (1 million) sellers and you get 400,000 (four hundred thousand!) dollars if the seller does not notice it / or does not care to /or cannot get hold of anyone at eBay. Again, this is just ONE return to ONE seller (me) and most sellers have at least one return now, even the best ones, within the same calendar year, so the actual number must be tens of millions of dollars. I am assuming that returns are more prevalent for sellers who are selling electronic devices or high-end jewelry and appliances. 

Interesting way of earning enough to pay their CEO Devin Wenig 57 Million in the severance package. Now I am no longer wondering where they got the money for the exorbitant compensation of their Execs. 

PW

[mam98031]

---

@vintage-car-magazines wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for. 

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment. 

---

Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

I didn't see this addressed in the replies and seems to be the crux of the FVF issue. Some of the replies got pretty long and I started to skim them so I may have just missed it.

Was the original shipping refunded to the buyer?

---

@vintage-car-magazines 

With a properly filed Buyer's Remorse return, the seller does NOT have to refund the original shipping IF it is a separately stated item on the purchase [not free shipping].  If the seller chooses not to refund the original shipping Ebay will NOT give the seller a FVF credit because the amount was NOT refunded to the buyer.

If it were on a listing that had Free Shipping on it, then the seller would need to refund the full amount and Ebay would issue a FVF credit on the full sale.

[vintage-car-magazines]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@vintage-car-magazines wrote:

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

I had a return a few days ago, because someone did not carefully read the length description. The buyer selected, "Item does not fit," so that, the way I understand, is not the seller's fault when all measurements were provided in the listing text. The item price was 34.99 but as we all know, eBay charges 10% Final value fee (FVF) currently on jewelry (for those not enrolled in Managed Paymore). INCLUDING the 10% of the shipping cost the buyer paid for. 

Just checked my eBay account fees and charges. Sure enough, eBay returned to me the item price Final value fee - 3.49 - as a credit - but not the 10% of the shipping cost it also took from me at the time point of the order. In this case, the shipping was 4.00 bucks and I am entitled to the 40 cents eBay confiscated by charging a FVF on the shipping part of the buyer's payment. 

---

Does not fit is a remorse return which means you don't have to refund the original shipping cost charged to the buyer.

Assuming you didn't refund the original shipping cost to the buyer, why are you entitled to a FVF refund on the shipping cost?

---

I didn't see this addressed in the replies and seems to be the crux of the FVF issue. Some of the replies got pretty long and I started to skim them so I may have just missed it.

Was the original shipping refunded to the buyer?

---

@vintage-car-magazines 

With a properly filed Buyer's Remorse return, the seller does NOT have to refund the original shipping IF it is a separately stated item on the purchase [not free shipping].  If the seller chooses not to refund the original shipping Ebay will NOT give the seller a FVF credit because the amount was NOT refunded to the buyer.

If it were on a listing that had Free Shipping on it, then the seller would need to refund the full amount and Ebay would issue a FVF credit on the full sale.

---

I'm aware. I asked for two reasons:

1. I don't know if the OP refunded shipping or not so I don't know if this applies or not.

2. This thread seems to have discussed everything EXCEPT the issue a refunding FVF on shipping for a returned item.

[mam98031]

I'm aware. I asked for two reasons:

1. I don't know if the OP refunded shipping or not so I don't know if this applies or not.

2. This thread seems to have discussed everything EXCEPT the issue a refunding FVF on shipping for a returned item.

@vintage-car-magazines 

Fair enough.  Instead of me answering that, lets ask the OP to answer it so that the information is from them and not me.

Did you refund the original shipping to the buyer on the refund?

@prettywoman-2012 

[zamo-zuan]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

Odd since all my posts are on point with how a Buyer's Remorse return request is processed and what is above by Zamo is about INADs.  And according to you, the buyer filed a Buyer's Remorse return.

---

I can't believe I have to do this, but let's go through my comments in the above post to see if this is true:

"No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?"

None of this is about INAD. I've clarified multiple times that the financial responsibility I'm discussing is the 40 cents mentioned in the OP. Absolutely on topic as it's commenting on the OP's charges. 

The final question is important to the topic, as unless you're answer is "No", then you would actually be in agreement with the point we're making.  If the answer is Yes", then we are of a different opinion on the subject. Refusing to answer is not taking any stance on the subject.

The fact that you selectively didn't answer this question is telling, as in your response, you brought up the buyer paying for return shipping, as well as defending the buyers honesty, both of which were not related to my comments whatsoever. 

My above comments are completely focused on financial responsibility. You chose not to take a side on that issue, and instead misrepresented my comments, seemingly in a straw man.

"Now you're getting closer to my point. Why should a seller have to assume financial responsibility in the case of a proper Buyers Remorse return?

Should sellers have to pay for a buyers remorse?

Should eBay be making FVF's off of a buyers remorse?"

Nowhere in there did I mention INAD's at all.

Furthermore, I specifically point out that we're discussing a Buyers Remorse return. Leaving no question as to what I am discussing, pretty solid evidence that I am not talking about INAD.

And I asked questions again, as the answer to those questions are on topic. If you were to take time to answer them, we would know if you're in agreement with what we've discussed, or if you're disagreeing with what we're discussing.

Again, rather than choose a side that's actually on subject (which, the $0.40 cent charge was the subject ever since the OP), you misrepresented what I was saying and discussed who was paying for shipping.

Then you move further to say you're not seeing mine or the OP's point. Which, I'll be honest, does imply that you might be confused as to what the subject is, rather than intentionally misrepresenting what is being said. But it also begs the question as to why you're arguing if you aren't sure what me or the OP are talking about?

And again, it's telling that the questions were ignored. 

"EBay's honesty, integrity, and fairness is what's in question here. They don't even vet a buyers honesty, so the determination of honest or not isn't even part of the equation."

Once again, no mention of INAD's. 

"I disagree. Protection and returns are inherently related. Can we honestly say the OP was protected in terms of financial responsibility for a mistake that the buyer made?"

Absolutely no mention of INAD's. We seem to be in disagreement here, and that's okay.

But again, I asked a question to try to pull the discussion back on topic. It's a very simple yes or no question: Can we say the OP was protected from financial responsibility for buyer mistakes? That is literally the topic of this thread, and literally the subject line of the thread in different words.

And again, you chose to not answer the question. Please note that this isn't just not answering my own question, but it's also ignoring the subject of the thread. 

"Nope. I'm saying that if we were trying to make a policy in the interest of fairness, or integrity, the financial responsibility would not be on a seller who is not at fault. Why shouldn't a seller who makes no mistake get their fees back? They're already at a loss for money. Is eBay or the buyer at a loss at all? How come all the responsibility is held on the seller?

Regarding no returns vs remorse returns, etc. That's all part of the problem. Let's be real; neither route you go offers sufficient protection. Either choice you make will leave you vulnerable. Even if you, as a seller, do everything right, you won't be protected. You will still be at a loss, while buyers and eBay take no losses and only potential gains. 

I know I'm not the only one that remembers a day where eBay would actually take a loss to prevent unfair situations from harming sellers financially. So I'm not sure why their current actions should be justified. Just because it's the "current policy" doesn't make it fair. "

First paragraph, no mention of INAD.

Second paragraph, no mention of INAD, the closest thing being returns vs remorse returns, and me saying neither offer protection.

Third paragraph, only discussing financial harm for sellers and that eBay wouldn't put the financial loss on sellers in the past.

Which, by the way, I'm fairly sure that with your history on eBay, you remember those days as well. That should give a clear picture of what the subject we're discussing is here. The fact that the financial burden is being put on sellers more than in the past, even if it's just a $0.40 charge those add up (as was mentioned in OP).

----------

So I'm not sure why you keep saying everything I'm saying is about INAD. In reality it's the opposite, you've been bringing up INAD's despite me clarifying which financial charges I've been talking about multiple times. And there's numerous examples of you doing what you accuse me of; bringing up things that aren't in this thread or subject.

It would be much easier to have a decent discussion on here if the speaking points were actually replied to, rather than ignored and/or misrepresented. Rather than spending my time actually discussing the topic at hand, I've had to spend all this time defending myself from false accusations when the point is clear from every question that was asked (and ignored).

If we simply agreed or disagreed, that would be fine and allow healthy discussion. But nobody even knows what side of the fence you're on regarding the subject, as you won't respond to those questions related to the subject. It seems as if the replies are intended to simply misrepresent what was said, rather than comment on it or participate in the discussion. 

This is one of the leading reasons I don't post on here much anymore. This pattern. Misleading accusations, straw man after straw man. All it serves is to confuse readers and attempt to make posters look like their opinion is illegitimate or not credible, and if you don't want posters to be misled, you have to spend hours defending yourself from the misrepresentation.

[mam98031]

@zamo-zuan 

I can't believe I have to do this, but let's go through my comments in the above post to see if this is true:

"No. My opinion is that the problems start way before the refunds happen. The problems are in terms of protection and responsibility. Shouldn't the financial responsibility be determined by who's at fault?

Are you of the opinion that sellers should have financial responsibility when they did their job properly?"

None of this is about INAD. I've clarified multiple times that the financial responsibility I'm discussing is the 40 cents mentioned in the OP. Absolutely on topic as it's commenting on the OP's charges. 

The final question is important to the topic, as unless you're answer is "No", then you would actually be in agreement with the point we're making.  If the answer is Yes", then we are of a different opinion on the subject. Refusing to answer is not taking any stance on the subject.

**********************

We ALL get charged FVFs on shipping, the OP is no exception.  Since the shipping wasn't part of the refunded amount to the buyer, that is why they didn't get refunded the FVFs on shipping.  I've been pretty clear on this throughout the thread.  I'm not sure why this is a difficult thing to understand.  Ebay does not give us back our FVFs when we don't refund the buyer.  Why should they?  And why do you or the OP think they should? 

I've answered this several times on the thread.  Because you may not recognize that doesn't mean I haven't, it just means you didn't notice or agree with my post.

[kh-gary]

Hello everyone,

This thread is getting a bit heated. Please remember that it’s fine to disagree with others, but discussion should always remain courteous and respectful as required by the Rules of Engagement.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[mam98031]

@zamo-zuan 

Your question "Can we say the OP was protected from financial responsibility for buyer mistakes? "

I've answered this several times on the thread.  The answer to this specifically for a buyer's remorse return is yes.  I say that because the buyer is responsible to pay for return shipping [not the seller] and the buyer is responsible for the original shipping [seller can keep the original shipping charge].  So in regards to financial responsibility the buyer is held responsible for both the outgoing shipping and the return shipping.  The seller will not be made to eat those expenses when they have a no return policy, 30 or 60 day return policy with buyer pays shipping.

The seller also received a FVF credit for the product price they refund to the buyer.  They are not given a FVF refund on the original shipping because it wasn't refunded to the buyer.  [this is how it works when shipping is stated separately on the purchase, not for free shipping items]

So the answer is YES.  

However with that said, the seller has to process it and of course that takes time and time is money too.  But as far as Ebay is concerned, the seller has been made whole on their fees to Ebay and they have not had to be out of pocket for any of the shipping charges as described above.

[pinksakura2000]

Super appreciate your sharing!!

Btw check out this article, the title should be "Your losses: Our gains":
https://community.ebay.com/t5/Announcements/Your-business-Our-results-Jordan-Sweetnam-SVP-GM-America...

[kostalota]

Sold an $850 item Buyer  emails he does like it. Opens a item not a described. A Lie I tell him to send it back just to avoid the **bleep**. Ebay showes it was shipped then shows I signed for it and receive it. I didn't do either so As per ebay I was to refund after getting the item back and would have when and if I did 5 days went buy and opened another case and eBay RIPPED me off for my money and took it out of  from my PayPal and also took the tax refund amount from me not paypal as well. I called them and only got this lame person and the only thing she could say shows you got it. Over and over I explained I didn't receive it so I didn't issue the refund and Not only that they ripped me off for the fee on the $850 and gave me a ding  for item not as decrribed now Im out over $1000.00 plus the item. Thieves for sure.

[mam98031]

---

@kostalota wrote:

Sold an $850 item Buyer  emails he does like it. Opens a item not a described. A Lie I tell him to send it back just to avoid the **bleep**. Ebay showes it was shipped then shows I signed for it and receive it. I didn't do either so As per ebay I was to refund after getting the item back and would have when and if I did 5 days went buy and opened another case and eBay RIPPED me off for my money and took it out of  from my PayPal and also took the tax refund amount from me not paypal as well. I called them and only got this lame person and the only thing she could say shows you got it. Over and over I explained I didn't receive it so I didn't issue the refund and Not only that they ripped me off for the fee on the $850 and gave me a ding  for item not as decrribed now Im out over $1000.00 plus the item. Thieves for sure.

---

This type of claim is different that what the OP describes.  This one of yours is really problematic and the Ebay system is terrible towards sellers on something like this.  I'm very sorry you had to deal with this.

If you shipped via USPS, you can file a claim with USPS for mail fraud.  That is a start.  

You should have the tracking number as they would have needed to put it into the claim.  Contact USPS and get as much detail as they will give you on that tracking number.

Lets see if one of the guys can offer you more guidance because this is a serious matter and serious money to lose.

tyler@ebay 

brian@ebay 

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@brites7214 wrote:

They rob us blind and pay 57 million dollars to an employee. This is the problem with all the companies and the banks. This is why people like us can't make a living. It's sad when one person makes that kind of money but there website has been down over and over again and caused there sellers so much extra work and never once did they give us a credit. 

---

It is all part of a larger scheme - striving to achieve world power, while enslaving the rest. Ever asked yourself, why the CDC never mentioned official and valid research results which indicate the SAFE distance to keep is NOT 6 but 13 feet apart? Or, why they never published a recommendation for you to wear eye-protection, when it is proven fact that this and other Corona-type viruses attack people via the mucous membrane in the eyes? Sure, just let everybody wear a completely inefficient, home-made clothes mask for nose and mouth then walk into a store and pick up the air droplets from the air which linger for up to 8 mins after someone coughed. 

Then  look at who is working at the CDC, who are the bankers, the CEOs, etc. They are no ordinary folks, neither is their agenda.

PW🐿

[prettywoman-2012]

---

@vintage-car-magazines wrote:

---

---

I didn't see this addressed in the replies and seems to be the crux of the FVF issue. Some of the replies got pretty long and I started to skim them so I may have just missed it.

Was the original shipping refunded to the buyer?

---

Thank you for your question. Several other posters asked similar questions, so instead of replying to them all, I chose you (yes, you are a chosen one, hahaha!) to explain. It is beside the point whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer upon refund - because of what I posted in post number 55, citing again below: 

"As a matter of fact, this is even acknowledged by eBay IF YOU CONTACT THEM AND REQUEST THE FVF ON SHIPPING. On at least two occasions within the past 12 months I did so, and CS refunded the FVF on shipping, on orders that were later returned [for buyer's remorse]. But a seller should not be required to take extra steps to get the money that is rightfully his or hers - it should be done per default. IT IS BECAUSE MANY SELLERS do not know this, that eBay has been keeping a substantial amount of money that is not rightfully its to keep." 

I only added here the words [for buyer's remorse] - to be absolutely clear. I did not need to return the original shipping cost to the buyer, as neither of those cases were INADs. Some people are desperately trying to press there is a difference on FVF refund on shipping depending on whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer with the refund, or not.

Additionally, why should the seller return the shipping cost to buyer that was already spent on getting the merchandise to the buyer? 

In reality, this makes no difference. In all cases of non-INAD, the final value fees (the 40 cents I am talking about in my OP) should be (and have been) returned to the seller IF THE SELLER CALLED EBAY CUSTOMER SERVICE OR EMAILED THEM. If not, then eBay kept it. This is the core issue here, and I hope this clarifies things.

Aabout 1/3 of all responses on this thread include erroneous information, endless citing and re-citing of LONG and INCORRECT information in quotes, and then about 1/4 of the other responses try to silence other posters who are expressing relevant and important opinions. It takes a paratrooper to comb through all of this, and this is, indeed, the intended outcome planned and executed by a few people who want to make sure this thread is quickly becoming way too long and complicated to follow. Please also note how those posters selectively address issues while ignoring other points, because they have none, or little to say to the actual matters at hand. Assuming we are all adults here, there should be a more efficient way to conduct a discussion, I think.

Happy Sunday

PW 🐿

[dhbookds]

@Anonymous 

is it correct that on remorse returns, where a seller does NOT refund shipping, that a seller must request a refund of the shipping fees?  why wouldn't it be automatic? 

[vintage-car-magazines]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@vintage-car-magazines wrote:

---

---

I didn't see this addressed in the replies and seems to be the crux of the FVF issue. Some of the replies got pretty long and I started to skim them so I may have just missed it.

Was the original shipping refunded to the buyer?

---

Thank you for your question. Several other posters asked similar questions, so instead of replying to them all, I chose you (yes, you are a chosen one, hahaha!) to explain. It is beside the point whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer upon refund - because of what I posted in post number 55, citing again below: 

"As a matter of fact, this is even acknowledged by eBay IF YOU CONTACT THEM AND REQUEST THE FVF ON SHIPPING. On at least two occasions within the past 12 months I did so, and CS refunded the FVF on shipping, on orders that were later returned [for buyer's remorse]. But a seller should not be required to take extra steps to get the money that is rightfully his or hers - it should be done per default. IT IS BECAUSE MANY SELLERS do not know this, that eBay has been keeping a substantial amount of money that is not rightfully its to keep." 

I only added here the words [for buyer's remorse] - to be absolutely clear. I did not need to return the original shipping cost to the buyer, as neither of those cases were INADs. Some people are desperately trying to press there is a difference on FVF refund on shipping depending on whether the seller returned the shipping cost to the buyer with the refund, or not.

Additionally, why should the seller return the shipping cost to buyer that was already spent on getting the merchandise to the buyer? 

In reality, this makes no difference. In all cases of non-INAD, the final value fees (the 40 cents I am talking about in my OP) should be (and have been) returned to the seller IF THE SELLER CALLED EBAY CUSTOMER SERVICE OR EMAILED THEM. If not, then eBay kept it. This is the core issue here, and I hope this clarifies things.

Aabout 1/3 of all responses on this thread include erroneous information, endless citing and re-citing of LONG and INCORRECT information in quotes, and then about 1/4 of the other responses try to silence other posters who are expressing relevant and important opinions. It takes a paratrooper to comb through all of this, and this is, indeed, the intended outcome planned and executed by a few people who want to make sure this thread is quickly becoming way too long and complicated to follow. Please also note how those posters selectively address issues while ignoring other points, because they have none, or little to say to the actual matters at hand. Assuming we are all adults here, there should be a more efficient way to conduct a discussion, I think.

Happy Sunday

PW 🐿

---

We can agree to disagree on this...that's ok.

• The FVF is charged on all money received.
• The postage charge was received and kept, therefore a FVF is owed.
• When you called, you got refunds out of courtesy, not because it's owed.
• The FVF on original shipping is one strategy to encourage free shipping. If it sold with free shipping, you'd get the whole FVF back.
• If you choose to charge shipping separate, then one of the costs of doing business is the FVF on original shipping.

To me, arguing that eBay isn't "entitled" to the FVF on original shipping is no different than questioning why a seller's prices aren't lower. Those who set the price and those who agree to it, both get to choose.

Again, we can agree to disagree.

[mam98031]

---

@prettywoman-2012 wrote:

---

@brites7214 wrote:

They rob us blind and pay 57 million dollars to an employee. This is the problem with all the companies and the banks. This is why people like us can't make a living. It's sad when one person makes that kind of money but there website has been down over and over again and caused there sellers so much extra work and never once did they give us a credit. 

---

It is all part of a larger scheme - striving to achieve world power, while enslaving the rest. Ever asked yourself, why the CDC never mentioned official and valid research results which indicate the SAFE distance to keep is NOT 6 but 13 feet apart? Or, why they never published a recommendation for you to wear eye-protection, when it is proven fact that this and other Corona-type viruses attack people via the mucous membrane in the eyes? Sure, just let everybody wear a completely inefficient, home-made clothes mask for nose and mouth then walk into a store and pick up the air droplets from the air which linger for up to 8 mins after someone coughed. 

Then  look at who is working at the CDC, who are the bankers, the CEOs, etc. They are no ordinary folks, neither is their agenda.

PW🐿

---

You may just need to spend a little more time with the recommendations of the CDC to better understand the reasons for wearing fabric face masks.  

Fabric face mask are NOT going to protect us so much from contracting the virus.  Meaning the masks themselves will only keep out so much from the droplets we all create when we talk, breath, cough, etc.  

The fabric masks are VERY effective when a person is asymptomatic [they aren't having symptoms] and they are  infected with the virus.  The fabric face masks will help to prevent their droplets from getting released into the air to potentially infect those close by.  This is the main benefit of the fabric face masks.