mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
Just because someone reports a listing for ANY reason does not mean that listing is going to be removed. Members just don't have that kind of power over other members listings. Nor should they.
This is a complex issue and many things have to be considered. There are many threads on this subject and you may want to venture out and read them. I certainly don't want to retype all the many reasons there are for Ebay reacting as they do to the PPEs needed for the Pandemic.
I get it that people want to make money. But there is a right way and a wrong way. But too many were hoarding and buying up all the stock on various products out of their local economy that put many people in their own communities at risk.
The lack of PPEs and essential items is a serious issue.
In part Ebay was trying to accommodate the Price Gouging LAWS as they didn't want to be part in breaking those. Yet they are still getting sued.
Ebay's site, Ebay's rules.
@luckythewinner wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:In part Ebay was trying to accommodate the Price Gouging LAWS as they didn't want to be part in breaking those. Yet they are still getting sued.
eBay cannot prevent someone from suing them, no matter how frivilous the lawsuit is.
What they can do is greatly increase their chances of winning those lawsuits, or getting them dismissed. And the fact that eBay has removed millions and millions of listings for masks and PPE is exactly why this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed.
Of course. Yes.
@picknparley wrote:This lawsuit will be interesting to watch.
ebay did remove many, many listings - but came up with the mystery 'approved sellers' and ironically, many of those sellers are still way over-pricing the items. But they're approved.
The sponsored listings could be a bigger problem as, yes, ebay does profit more from these and we still see so many sponsored listings way over-priced and continued to allow to sell.
It almost seems ebay has lost control of it's own site.
For months buyers and sellers alike have expressed their thoughts on what they were seeing on the site. Buyers and sellers know long before ebay because ebay says they can't police all 1.3 billion listings. But it seems to me that they should be doing exactly that. ebay makes more than enough money to hire sufficient staff to monitor their own business, but they've concentrated solely on shareholders percentages instead.
It think it is really interesting because the reason for the lawsuit is because the BUYER felt they paid too much for the product. An argument often used on these threads to justify allowing these listing to be posted is a buyer can decide if they want to pay the price or not. Clearly from the law suit that isn't true.
Sometimes we have unrealistic expectations. Ebay would have never released a list of sellers that they approved for selling certain things. Just not something Ebay has ever shown they would be likely to do. So mystery or not, it is an unrealistic expectation of Ebay to disclose.
You may have a different opinion if you actually had to chase down these offending listings. Since we don't know all that is involved with it, it is easy to armchair this. But we may not be very accurate either.
@picknparley wrote:"...You may have a different opinion if you actually had to chase down these offending listings. Since we don't know all that is involved with it, it is easy to armchair this. ..."
I'm not saying that the job isn't monumental, but in fact, ebay does have the responsibility to provide a safe and fair marketplace. They face a set of rules and regulations as does all business. If a B&M store had an armed thug at the door stealing buyer's packages as they left the store the store would be obligated to protect their customers by having the thug removed and jailed.
If that same B&M store had multiple buyers coming in and returning used items or incorrect items the store would be obligated to stop the returns abuse. It only makes sense.
In this day and age of advanced technology the ability to detect does exist. ebay would have to spend some of the shareholder's money to invest in the proper programming.
Even if ebay would take more seriously the educated reports from experienced IT users the number of con accounts would be reduced. But we have all seen unscrupulous sellers remain active even after being reported.
And I don't think anyone here will argue that we pay good money to play here. Money just needs to be applied to the security issues and policies also need to reflect the numerous scams being played out here. Buyers and sellers alike are having a tough time here.
They have removed 10's of 1,000's of listings. They are actively working this issue and have been for two months. Lots of the offending listings currently are new ones, not long standing listings.
Ebay can't be held to the same standards as a B&M as they can just walk over to a shelf and remove whatever product they want to removed. Or just not restock a shelf when something sells out. Or reprice an item to be within acceptable legal standards. So much easier than what Ebay has to do.
Due to the way we are allowed to list on Ebay it give us great freedom in what is in the listing [within the rules]. Because of all the different ways we may choose to list and the categories in which we may list them, it adds to the complexity of the issue of Ebay locating and removing listings that qualify to be removed under the March 5th ban of certain products.
Can they do more, maybe. But from what I've seen Ebay has done a very good job getting these listings off the site. If you see some and you think they should be removed, if you want to, report them. That does help Ebay to find them. Some sellers have gotten very clever in trying to hide these listings in the hopes they get a sale before Ebay discovers them.
@luckythewinner wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:\
It think it is really interesting because the reason for the lawsuit is because the BUYER felt they paid too much for the product.In order to even get a lawsuit like this into court, the plaintiff must have "standing" to bring the suit - in other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was harmed.
The buying of a mask on eBay give the plaintiff standing to bring the suit. His or her lawyer wouldn't even have taken the case without that happening.
OK. But I didn't say they didn't have standing. I simply made a comment that it was a buyer that filed the claim. You may not find it interesting but I do.
@picknparley wrote:and if I remember right, it said it was a class action suit. This opens it up to other claimants as well.
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/351034/ebay-hit-with-price-gouging-lawsuit.html
https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/covid-ebay-price-gouging-lawsuit
