Sneaker Authenticity Guarantee Loophole - Buyer Dispute through Financial Institution

[dubbber]

First time selling through the sneaker authenticity guarantee program and trusted the T&Cs to protect the seller because we all know there is so much risk when selling sneakers.   Item was sent and authenticated to the 3rd party and sent to the buyer.  Buyer received it and disputed the item through the financial institution claiming it was not authentic.  Buyer sent a mysterious package to my house and I assume they wanted to send something to show proof of a return but did not report the return to eBay. 

Of course, the financial institution sided with the buyer.  I filed an appeal since I thought under the sneaker guarantee program my shoes were 100% authentic.  The appeal was denied and now i'm out $600+.  What are my options here?  How can I escalate this again?  Customer Service rep would not escalate further for me even though I did everything correctly selling through their Sneaker program.  Never again am I selling sneakers through eBay and will now go through StockX since I know i'm better protected.

[bbravo65]

...wow, scammers now even skipped eBay, just went straightly to CC charge back...

...and eBay did nothing...

...this problem could be a reason one day in the future eBay will be dismissed...who really wanted to keep losing money by selling valuable items on eBay...???

...I terribly felt for your matter, OP...so sorry for your lost...!!!

[katzrul15]

You can try reaching out to e-Bay for Business on Facebook, but others are reporting when they do, e- Bay is not engaging to assist as they did before.

Have never sold high-end sneakers thru this program.  You scenario is disappointing to hear.  Had thought about listing several handbags thru the new authentication program.  Will certainly revisit that now.

[valueaddedresource]

@dubbber  - I'm sorry this happened to you.

Per the FAQ for the sneaker authentication program, returns must go back through the authenticator.

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

I wouldn't hold my breath that eBay will do the right thing here, but as a long shot, maybe go back to them and make sure they understand that the return tracking that was used for the chargeback did not follow the required return procedure under the terms of Authenticity Guarantee?

In my opinion, eBay *should* protect you on this one based on that, but I've seen a whole lot of things about the authenticity program that eBay should be doing and isn't, unfortunately. ☹️

[donsdetour]

1:

First problem is that you do not know if it was a stollen account (financial) or not.

A lot of stolen cards and information is used to purchase items on eBay and when the original owner finds out it all comes back.

That said:

2:

the next is the charge shows paid to eBay with some number and letters after it so the user has no idea what this charge is. Typical Mis managed payment system.

 Again not much one can do about it but ask the purchaser why they did a charge dispute on their purchase:

By asking some folks have got that problem stopped.

3:

Of course the next is out right fraud and theft and is used to rip of sellers on ebay.

Advice is to file fraud and theft with law enforcement.

[tdumonde2014]

OP's buyer is claiming the sneakers are not authentic. This despite the fact that the sneakers were authenticated by ebay and were sent to the buyer by ebay. Ebay should be responsible for covering claims like this.

[dubbber]

Exactly why I thought selling through ebay would be safe.  If the buyer didn't want the shoes, it would have to be sent back to the authenticator.  However, this scammer ended up sending me back an old ipod.  But good idea to use the return policy that the buyer didn't follow the procedure.  Worth a shot.

[eunster1313]

@valueaddedresource 

Charge Backs are not contingent on nor do they require a buyer to return the item in question.

It's worse with the Authenticity Guarantee sales because eBay blocks all communication between Sellers and Buyers once a sale is made. So you can't even contact the buyer to

request that they return it. Not that they would anyways.

[comicscauldron]

Ebay is not a safe place to sell. Sell your sneaker´s elsewhere

[valueaddedresource]

@dubbber also if you are active on Twitter, eBay has a page specifically for the sneaker program as well as their regular @askebay support page.  Maybe they would be more familiar with the specific policies for authentication and be able to help more?

https://twitter.com/ebaysneakers 

[1tuna]

I woud speak to somone in the authenticity program.plase get gold of ebay and insist that you speak to them

I am unsure how a normal CSR can do anything if they are not a specialist

reguar CSR`s always say you need to get hold of the MP departments or the GSP or the EISD department

the authenticity protocall was just not followed at all

maybe you shoud contact sports illustrated or an interested party with a sad story

I woud love to know what will be done about this

[valueaddedresource]

---

@eunster1313 wrote:

@valueaddedresource 

Charge Backs are not contingent on nor do they require a buyer to return the item in question.

It's worse with the Authenticity Guarantee sales because eBay blocks all communication between Sellers and Buyers once a sale is made. So you can't even contact the buyer to

request that they return it. Not that they would anyways.

---

@eunster1313  - thanks, I understand that.

However, eBay has specifically sold the authenticity guarantee program as something that offers additional protections for both buyers and sellers above and beyond regular policies.

In this case, there are specific protections regarding claims of "not authentic" and returns.  While I understand the financial institution isn't bound by eBay's policies here, eBay should be and this seller should be given the protections that are clearly spelled out as part of the authenticity guarantee program, even if that means eBay has to eat the chargeback.

[ittybitnot]

Per the FAQ for the sneaker authentication program, returns must go back through the authenticator.

@valueaddedresource 

All that "return" business on the FAQ pages seems to refer to the appropriate EBAY procedure.  The buyer is bypassing the EBAY procedure and going strait to their payment provider.  The more that eBay can pass these chargebacks off to the seller, the more eBay saves.  

If eBay charges the seller for the "not authentic" (SNAD) Payment Dispute, they are basically discrediting their own authenticity program as well.  
 

Presently, I think the OP's hope lies with documentation of the whole scenario sent to the people that are dealing with these fraud issues via the MESSAGE system on the eBay for Business Facebook page.  When those people start quoting "it is the credit card company and nothing we can do" we are all basically doomed.  

[valueaddedresource]

---

@ittybitnot wrote:

Per the FAQ for the sneaker authentication program, returns must go back through the authenticator.

@valueaddedresource 

All that "return" business on the FAQ pages seems to refer to the appropriate EBAY procedure.  The buyer is bypassing the EBAY procedure and going strait to their payment provider.  The more that eBay can pass these chargebacks off to the seller, the more eBay saves.  

If eBay charges the seller for the "not authentic" (SNAD) Payment Dispute, they are basically discrediting their own authenticity program as well.  
 

Presently, I think the OP's hope lies with documentation of the whole scenario sent to the people that are dealing with these fraud issues via the MESSAGE system on the eBay for Business Facebook page.  When those people start quoting "it is the credit card company and nothing we can do" we are all basically doomed.  

---

@ittybitnot  - Absolutely, I understand that is what is going on here - I'm just saying that based on how eBay has presented the authenticity program and the terms thereof, there are additional protections in play that *should* make this not the seller's problem.

Of course the financial institution is going to follow their own procedures here and allow the chargeback, my point is just that eBay should eat it on this one, not the seller - just like they do with other situations where seller protections are applied.

I've had plenty of situations where a buyer ended up getting a refund on a claim, but it was paid by eBay not the seller because there was a signature or other criteria for seller protections were met - my argument would be this should be no different, though I completely understand that what eBay *should* do and what eBay * does* do are often not the same. 

[donsdetour]

Well with other responses to this topic:

Still eBay has been bypassed:

So you will still need to file fraud and theft with law enforcement: due to the returned item was a fraud.

File a copy of said report also with eBay: (for sure under return abuse by the purchaser):  it might make it to the financial that the purchaser filed with...

Such are not happy to be used in fraud and theft... Just saying...