Serious questions need to be asked about Authentication. Pivotal case. Read.

[fi.ra]

It could be a pivotal case that really has the folks at eBay coming up with these terrible ideas to reverse course. 

About me: 

I'm an infrequent seller (I generally sell higher value items from our personal items). Maybe 10-20 sales a year. At face-value, I am the target demographic in advertisements to use this platform to sell items? Sell your used items, isn't that the pitch? High-end items nonetheless. Well, I take sparkling photos, write informative descriptions and I'm very reasonable overall about how I engage and work with buyers. I am by all accounts the perfect seller. Also, an eBay member for maybe 15 years. 

The result of what you’re about to read: 

A self-inflicted wound for eBay. They sabotaged a deal between two established and credible ebayer’s, lost revenue, and in the process, lost additional money to partially correct their mistakes. Seems like this authentication concept is a guaranteed losing proposition for eBay among all the external liabilities passed on to the seller as well. I’m sure the jargon in their terms and conditions, cover all bases for them, on purely legal pretext, but the optics and principal value is awful. It makes their terms and conditions some what moot. If it looks and sounds bad, it probably is. 

The goal: 

eBay owes me a profound apology. Both the persons who implemented this idea and the "authenticator" who is either wholly under qualified and or wildly overqualified (more on this below). As well as settlement for the loss of sale funds and/or loss of item. 

The story:

I am helping my GF sell a few higher end shoes. I have the eBay account and she doesn't have the stomach for stuff like this (she's a doctor ironically). I'm the salesperson in the house and it's worth stating despite my vast experience with sales, this whole charade sent me into a full blown panic attack. Mostly due to the profound lack of reasoning, zero transparency/communication and frankly, enacting a process that moves wildly too fast with zero checks and balances to mitigate liability for “their” clients (that’s us) the “sellers” of eBay. The fact I was sick over this, shows how profoundly this situation with eBay bothered me. We don't need the money, and I regret doing this over $300. How this is constructed will wind up sending someone, at some point, who is a novice or uniformed of what eBay is doing, to the hospital and it’s not worth it for a measly $100, etc. We do this because we think eBay is the place to sell items when we clean out our closets. It's an awful process to sell clothing to be honest. eBay made it that much worse. I did what any A+++ seller would do. I shipped the item first thing this past Tuesday (after a long holiday weekend), upgrading shipping complimentary for the buyer and got these on their way quickly. I’ve regulated all apartment item sales to Offerup, which might single handily be the greatest invention of all digital apps I have on my phone. Period. Unfortunately, it’s not great for clothes sales. It’s a real joy to meet some people in person. I met a guy yesterday buying container store shoe containers and he had his two little twin daughters in the back of his car with their twisted little braids (so sweet) and we chatted for a few minutes. Two people from vastly different backgrounds and races, and that experience was so much more fulfilling than this clown show I am dealing with here on eBay. 

The item: 

I posted a “new without box” pair of high end Golden Goose sneakers (women's), out of production model and very desirable. These sell for $400-$700. I posted for $350 new, with make an offer. Already extremely reasonable. I quickly procured a few buyers and consummated a deal with one. A buyer with stellar feedback (more on this point below). I noticed when payment was completed there was a C/O address or rather my item was going to someone/somewhere else? Never had I seen this. And I’ve shipped to some shady places and this ranks among the top. This is how ambiguous this is and I still actually don’t fully understand what transpired, who removed agency from my own sale and frankly, exposing multiple people to potential fraud, damage, product loss (more on this below), etc. These shoes that I sold are in fact brand new, but the style is a “worn” look. I took extremely clear photos of the insoles, outsoles, side, serial numbers, etc. Heck even the stickers were still on the insoles. They were listed correctly, despite any statement from eBay’s authenticator claiming otherwise. Even their comments were conflicting. Wearing these around the house to try on still makes these new. And this is where things get complicated and a really dangerous grey area for eBay. Yes I am using their platform and they make all the final calls, I sign off to that, but this is a gross overreach of authority taken by someone who should not have that position or ability to make such a decision. Out of this whole multiple thousand word rant, the greatest take away is that someone - after shipping my shoes - handled my item that was not authorized to do so and should not have had any role with how this deal was consummated. Period. If this person doesn’t exist. I don’t write this rant. They took overriding action for a party who did not authorize this (I spoke to the buyer - more on that much lower). None-whatsoever. Zero. Objectively 99% of the population would also consider these shoes as brand new. Apparently there is a very small subset of buyers, so called “sneakerheads” so I am told, that this whole ridiculous concept is geared too. Compounded by the fact this third party service employed by eBay is specifically geared to accommodating sneaker heads thus likely holding a different standard/expectation of such items. If you step back and really think about it, it makes your head hurt. The literal stupidity. 

Umm, I’m not selling a rare limited edition pair of Air Jordan’s…And frankly, were I selling such an item, I’d have authenticated by my own third party and sell with certificates, etc, etc. Never would I allow or employ eBay to take on that role. That’s financial suicide as far as I’m concerned. I feel like what happened is a microcosm of our overall society - really shocking when you step back and look at it. eBay is tailoring it’s functions to a very small and apparently vocal group of buyers who serves precisely no one. eBay effectively stepped into a deal without permission, or requests from either party, to I guess, monitor listing descriptions. I mean that’s what they’re telling me. They say authenticator. I say hall pass monitor. There are five other ways to address this type of thing - what transpired with me wasn’t one of those methods. They sabotaged a deal with a 100% feedback buyer with over 1000 positive reviews and a 100% feedback seller with almost 200 positive reviews. One has to ask the question; what in the hell was eBay thinking? I’m not selling you know, a stack of “found” Sony tv’s. To me authentication means chain of custody or ahem, authenticity (i.e. they are not a reproduction, serial number look up, etc). Not a proverbial hall pass monitor to dispute if the item I am selling was tried on once or twice, because effectively that’s where we are at. Splitting hairs. My GF has 10 pairs of these shoes - I know with every fiber in my body they're authentic. I have a perfect 100% feedback. Yet, they failed the "authentication" process.  

What is authentication really? 

Beats the total heck out of me…

Apparently, some of these items are flagged for the new authentication process. This is apparently a counter measure to buyer abuse. I am not quite sure how this was established or decided, but it makes absolutely zero sense. There is no arbitration, no communication, nothing. I shipped this package to some location in Las Vegas, apparently, and to what I now understand is something called sneakercon. Don’t know, sounds stupid to me. 

Additional points: 

1. At no point in my listing contract was I advised my item would be handled by a third party. Any seller has a right to be aware that any item we sell, will be handled by another person prior to the buyer receiving. Seems like they do a good job broadcasting this to buyers. But not sellers. We assume tremendous liability now knowing this. This was very unclear initially. I could care less if the 1,5,10 emails sent about these changes and “authentication” is a new tool, etc. There needs to be information at the point of sale. Period. 

2. I was not notified who this third party is, their qualifications, and contact info. There should absolutely have been a notification (again chain of custody) that another individual was in possession of my item immediately upon receiving this, as I have a right to call back or decline such handling. This is the exact moment when I should  be told who this person is and what their roll is - along with any relevant qualifications. How do I know some overzealous power hungry kid didn’t just do this for kicks (possible reason in my opinion). You know, you give someone overreaching power to control a narrative, trust me, they’ll take it. 

1. I was not given any opportunity to defend myself, my reputation, and item representation. In this absurd process. I was notified at 7:32PM that the authentication partner declined the…well I still don’t know what they declined, but the sale was reversed. At 7:52PM I received a follow-up email that the buyer was refunded in full, shoes were packaged and in return transit to a very old address that they had taken from eBay. (Another thing I learned last night). So in a matter of 20 minutes, I’m out $328 (refunded to the buyer), out $16.10 for out of pocket shipping and no $500 shoes that are being mailed to an incorrect address. Wonderful and my first thought is I have absolutely no idea who to contact or what to do. That the next step would be a phone call to someone in Indonesia who can’t help me at all. If I were going to have a stroke, it would have been at that moment. You laugh, but we all know I am 1000% correct. It’s frightening in hindsight. It should be stated that the return address I had was not correct in the account. Totally ridiculous since as a private seller who doesn’t accept returns who deals with private buyers “return address” was never relevant. 15 years - never once was relevant. All my other addresses were in fact correct in the eBay system, along with a matching and correct address on the actual parcel. None of this was cross referenced and no attempt was made by eBay to verify such a thing before making a return (gross negligence) and exposed them to serious liability. In the matters of 20 minutes it was judge, jury, verdict..See you later type of thing. 
2. Third party vendor failed to cross reference buyer and seller info. Whatever algorithm they’re using, it sucks. Straight forward. There was no weight given to either acting party. None. Which is frankly bizarre. This is the part that worries me the most. And why I throw out the whole over zealous kid theory because any functioning algorithm or rational person would see this and be like - all green lights. How anything was flagged needs eBay to ask questions internally. 
3. Third party vendor failed to cross reference mailing information. Who assumes liability if my shoes are lost or not returned? 
4. Lacks complete context. Why would eBay ever consider getting involved in a transaction between two eBay people who have perfect history and scores. It evades all logic. 
5. Why wasn’t the authenticator or eBays immediate next step after giving a failing grade to STILL contact the buyer, report their findings and ask if they would like to proceed. I mean seriously, this is the obvious next step. Had they simply reached out to the buyer saying, our authentication process states that these shoes are in fact “authentic” however we feel there is a little more wear on them. To which the buyer would have responded this is the known style and approved the completion of the deal. 
6. Why didn’t this authenticator reach out to me the seller to confirm listing details and/or in the event of failure? We believe this error occurred, what next step would you like to take?

Conclusion/Current status: 

I spoke to the buyer. This person confirmed none of this was requested or authorized by them. Very nice person also. How about that?! Two quality people come together on this platform and we’re the grown ups here. The buyer understands clearly what was being purchased and wishes the deal was completed. So eBay just sabotaged a perfectly solid deal and lost a bunch of money in the process. 

I have no idea where my items are. To be fair in the my hour long problem solving last night - I did get someone from fraud department help clean up this monumental mess eBay made and at face value, seems like a knowledgeable and nice guy. He said he will hunt down the package and fix all of this. We’ll see. As of now - no money and no shoes. Wonderful. And who knows if I’ll actually get my shoes back, even if they get the address straight. What if I get a pair of flip flops or socks in return. Wha the heck know’s, but I have reason to be skeptical. 

Regards, M

[craigstevensstudio]

nope,  buyer ALWAYS WINS!     no matter how many pictures you have showing the item before/after, ebay will ALWAYS side with the buyer.

[kensgiftshop]

---

@fi.ra wrote:

Baffling response you just made. I almost can't think of the correct words. Honest question, what's up with a few of you folks commenting - like Ken's gift shop? 

So please tell me again what my problem is? Had you read the rest of that statement what I said doesn't admit fault of past use - I am using hypothetical wording to prove a point that, the perspective of this authenticator was that the shoes are used when THENNNNNN the buyer would have said, no, no, that's just the style and I approve the deal. And before your next brilliant comment of "how do you know the buyer would have approved" like I said 3-4 times, I already spoke to the buyer and guess what, they approved. 

I'll be nice, but seriously ma'am, flex those mind muscles a tad bit...

---

What you're not understanding, it's not up to you or the buyer.

They started the authentication program so the buyer receives what the seller stated in their listing.

If for some reason, they don't think the item matches the listing, they are not going to ship it to the buyer.

[fi.ra]

New update and a bit more insanity with this authentication process. 

8:10PM EST tonight. Message from eBay stating we'll respond to your appeal in 48 hours. 

"This case was closed previously, but we understand you have concerns. We'll review this inquiry and get back to you within 48 hours."

But this makes absolutely no sense since they are no longer in possession of the item. Even if they admit they're wrong and reverse it, how would this even work? 😖

Speaking of which, the authentication team sent me a separate email and they failed at recalling the package so it's in transit and more than half way to the wrong return address. They still seem to think it's possible to call back to the authenticator. 

Seems like this authentication team has a really good feel for what they are doing {sarcasm}.

[itscalledapostingid]

.

[chapeau-noir]

---

@itscalledapostingid wrote:

.

---

Agree. 

[t-bone543]

[bonjourami]

LOL...a good laugh to start the morning.

[dolcetreasures]

eBay needs to be transparent about their authentication process at SneakerCon:

1) Who will be handling the shoes?

2) What are their credentials?

3) What governing body certifies their credentials for authentication? 
4) How are they tested? And where do they fall among their piers in evaluations?

5) Was there a background check done? What is their criminal history?

[fi.ra]

Thanks for getting back on the subject. I'm really keen to see what other view points are out there about this topic. While I suppose I should be elated by the appeal, "step 8" is somewhat moot if steps 1-7 are completely botched. And like I said, the item is currently in shipping purgatory. 

[fi.ra]

Two more points: 

- Authentication or review should only take place above a certainly price point when factoring buyer and seller historical feedback. Any 2 year engineer can tweak the algorithm to weigh this. Maybe it's tripped when you have under 100 feedback (or whatever milestone is that middle tier - i forget what the badges are) and over $500. I mean weren't these tiers set up two decades ago for this exact reason - to validate credibility? What's the point if you're going to flag down the hall pass monitor to check how many specks of dust you have on the item..

This is a much better use of this department instead of a one size fits all approach, which obviously exposed all parties in this case to liability and loss. To authenticate all Golden Goose for example I realize now in hindsight is a totally ridiculous approach lacking context when considering the more relevant points of historical credibility of either party. eBay had absolutely zero need to step into this deal. I think most people can agree on this point. 

- Parlays into part one of this comment - this unnecessary feature used excess resources such as fuel and what appears to be up to 4 trips through an already overburden shipping industry. Seems wasteful to me. 

In my case, everything could have been done virtually (including validating the serial number which I photographed) and then simply defaulted to the not described function for the buyer should they choose that. Again, they're afforded a voice in their own purchase.

[rosachs]

---

@debs_popnstuff wrote:

But it's apples and oranges, Bob — what qualifies as new on the racks in a brick-and-mortar isn't the same as what qualifies in an online shoe category listing. Especially not if it's collectible.

---

Apples and Oranges are both fruit, and collectibles are a bag of cats all their own.

eBay's definition of 'New' is complex.  The Help page can be found at HERE , if you are interested.

In general, 'New' requires a sealed package if the product is routinely found at retail in sealed packages.  It requires a box if the product is routinely found at retail is boxes.  It must be in the same condition you would find the item offered at retail -- so those shoes that are walked in at Kohls and Target are NEW on eBay as well, because that's the condition you will find them at retail.

When I was selling shoes on consignment, I got to see how they managed their returns.  You basically had three classes:  resellable (no visible signs of wear), donate or consignment (the ones I got or that ended up at MIFA - Memphis InterFaith Association - for distribution at no cost to those in need), and trash (and those were all shredded to ensure they were not dumpster-dived and sold when they should not be.  From what I heard, the manufacturers required they be shredded.  Donating was the distributors choice - the manufacturers got paid and quality product were being donated.

Look at it this way.  Shoes come in boxes.  If you take them out of the boxes, are they now used?  Because in some eBay categories, that's true.  In others, not.  My feeling is that eBay wants to ensure the best products get the highest status, but they don't want to get so detailed as to be considered a partner in your business, deciding what you can and cannot sell (beyond items Federally regulated or restricted).  So 'New' has a bit of leeway so as to stay in sync with the realities of retail shoe sales.

Just my take on the whole thing.

-Bob.

[rosachs]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

---

It could be a pivotal case that really has the folks at eBay coming up with these terrible ideas to reverse course. 

ROTFL. 

At no point in my listing contract was I advised my item would be handled by a third party. 

Your listing "contract" with eBay is the eBay User Agreement. That agreement lists the brands that are subject to the Authenticity Guarantee, and Golden Goose is on the list. 

https://pages.ebay.com/authenticity-guarantee-sneakers-seller/

---

The OP also needs to be aware that the eBay Sellers Agreement - the one every seller has to agree to if they want to sell here (and yes, it's huge and no one reads it and that's not the point) - is a living document and is updated periodically.  eBay informs the general community when those changes are made - it's up the the individual community member to determine whether or not to read the updates and whether or not they apply to their listings or sales.

The OP also needs to be aware that that same Sellers Agreement restricts his actions when it comes to attempting to squeeze the eBay stone to withdraw your blood.  In fact, it requires sellers to submit to binding arbitration, in Utah, and precludes the filing of lawsuits.  Now... if you could get a sufficient number of members to sign on to the suit, perhaps there's a slim chance that maybe a judge will consider the possibility of upgrading to class action.  But there's a reason that statement is so vague....

I'm all for individual action.  If you don't like the pond your in, find another more to your liking.  I've never been able to understand why people would continue to use a venue that aggravates them when there are now so many other options!  And the OP must be having continual aggravation to have gotten this worked up over a single transaction.

I'm pinning this conversation, and I hope the OP continues to post updates on his progress/status.

-Bob.

[fi.ra]

I appreciate what you have to say, and this was never about pursuing a lawsuit - no reasonable person could think it was warranted in this case. Seller's agreement is entirely irrelevant (despite many thinking it is) in this case. It's relevant in the case of seller fraud, seller abuse of use of the platform, etc. None of which applies in this case. There are many bigger points that are made. 

You are correct about continual aggravation. I run multiple non-eBay business and I am baffled day in and out about the laziness and dumbing down of our culture, our standards, etc. This transaction was just an extension of much of this. People don't understand that there are real people out there that have had to take 140 cuts to the back to accomplish what they have. I got worked up because there are 100 moving parts in my life with clients, etc. I come to eBay to perform a simple and honest sale and it's sabotaged by eBay. No matter the level of my bloviating, the simple fact is, no person should have that type of experience on the platform of a billion dollar company. 

[fi.ra]

Updates: 

I would not call this solved, but a lot has transpired since last night. I received a full apology from a leadership team member in authentication. The are taking full accountability and responsibility for this failed transaction. Many on this discussion or in general felt this would never happen, for eBay to apologize. They absolutely 100% did. It appears this topic, discussion and my many calls have made it to a place in eBay where a leadership meeting was called. The rep was sincere and when I mentioned how this discussion has thousands of views in just a few days, they were very very aware of this.

Much of my feedback is being sent to the appropriate channels and there is a high degree of probability much of it is implemented. Including points I made that the 3rd party must now confirm return address with a "confirm address" button in all correspondence, continuing communication with the buyer (i.e. buyer makes final call), weighing the algorithm when eBay parities have higher feedback history, etc.

So while some may have a distaste for my approach, the reality is, this "pivotal" case will in fact make fundamental change to the authentication process. I exploited it in 5 different directions - especially with this type of item. Remember any person on here has the potential and voice to make change in any aspect of society or business. I just took on a billion dollar company for lunch. But you have to believe in what you're saying, when you're right - you're right and that will permeate through.

Status: 

1. eBay authentication admit full fault in this case. The are now very aware of what took place, the items in question and the flaws with the process. 

2. I intercepted the shoes in my city at Fedex, so I am now in possession of them. 

3. Shoes are returned, but without the limited edition shoe bags, from the manufacture (this is an important point since in their follow up email when they failed authentication, one of the lines states, include any shoe bags to further validate authenticity (ironic). 

4. Point 3 is on going and compensation from eBay will be made. Not sure what or how yet. 

5. They have confirmed buyer wanted the item and understood what was being purchased. 

6. This is the most important point eBay fully realizes they should not have been involved in this deal and they realize the error considering they know the buyer wants the items.

7. I received a small yellow business card in one shoe from eBay authenticator which states: "We're returning this item to you because it was found to be significantly different from the listing description." It was this very thing that caught eBay for being wrong. Unlike some on here breaking my chops over specks of dust, eBay is fully aware that the authenticator had absolutely zero idea what they were handling and that they shoes are in fact brand new (worn once to try on - you all can hack away on the semantics of this being classified as new or not - it is still new). 

Like I said, some of you might not care for my approach or tactics, but this case will absolutely alter this process and make everyone's experience better going forward with authentication. I want nothing for those efforts. I did tell this eBay rep and the same I say here, for the time being, I would not recommend selling anything that requires the authentication process. This is just for good measure to ensure they actually make some of these changes. They know it has holes at this very moment. 

[fi.ra · Accepted solution]

Final conclusion for those that care at this point. 

Compensation agreed and case now closed. 

The cherry on top is that the authenticator (the 3rd party) once again lied and stated the item was returned the way it was sent and that was without the limited edition shoe bags. This is patently false and not only are the sneaker con authenticators unqualified, they are liars too. It's no longer my fight as my case is closed and resolved. eBay did right on this and they took full responsibility. I'll say it again, they are now fully aware of what transpired. 

All the best..