What's the eBay response to 60 minutes segment on harassing journalists for trying to do their jobs?

[peszar-0]

This is SICK tactics by eBay to try and bring down a journalist who is trying to bring to light a crackdown on 2nd Amendment rights. And the CEO exits with a golden parachute. **bleep**!!!!!!

[vintagecraze50]

I understand and thanks for the concern for me. I know it was done in that spirit from you.

[vintagecraze50]

Right, they did not instruct them in that fashion. After I read Liz’s fantastic reporting on this I glossed over some of the issues.

[vintagecraze50]

Right again, the holding the corp responsible has not been proven. Mr Baugh and the people he was responsible for were prosecuted. Whether they can can consider ebay as a whole responsible has not been proven yet. I am thinking there might be some protection with this if they can proof that Mr Baugh and his team acted on their own with this situation involving what’s called frolick and detour. I am no lawyer so I cannot say for sure.

[mam98031]

Again, what is your agenda????  " Whether they can can consider ebay as a whole responsible has not been proven yet. "  It is like you are looking for a way to make Ebay at fault here even though the FBI didn't find them so after four years.

IDK why some have a difficult time imagining or accepting that ANY corporation can have a few bad apples among their employees.

Unfortunately for those that want to have Ebay responsible for some or all of this, they are likely never going to know as the pending lawsuit against them from the Steiners will likely never be tried, but rather settled.  If Ebay were to go to trial, seems that would mean that they have strong evidence that they should not be held financially responsible for these idiots that actually did the crimes.

[valueaddedresource]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

Again, what is your agenda????  " Whether they can can consider ebay as a whole responsible has not been proven yet. "  It is like you are looking for a way to make Ebay at fault here even though the FBI didn't find them so after four years.

IDK why some have a difficult time imagining or accepting that ANY corporation can have a few bad apples among their employees.

Unfortunately for those that want to have Ebay responsible for some or all of this, they are likely never going to know as the pending lawsuit against them from the Steiners will likely never be tried, but rather settled.  If Ebay were to go to trial, seems that would mean that they have strong evidence that they should not be held financially responsible for these idiots that actually did the crimes.

---

@mam98031 just FYI, the Steiners' civil lawsuit isn't the only thing in play here - the US Attorney's Office says their investigation is ongoing and the disclosure in eBay's most recent 10-K explicitly states there is a possibility of action for criminal liability against the company which could result in fines, remediation, and additional compliance and reporting requirements in addition to the Steiners' civil suit.

https://investors.ebayinc.com/financial-information/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?Fil... 

Full text from that section of the 10-K below, emphasis mine:

The Company is also responding to inquiries from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts regarding potential criminal liability of the Company arising from the stalking and harassment in 2019 of the editor and publisher of Ecommercebytes, a website that publishes ecommerce news and information.

Six former Company employees and one former contractor have pleaded guilty to crimes arising from the conduct. The Company has begun discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which discussions include a potential settlement.

We expect any such settlement may include fines, other payments, and non-monetary remedies, such as additional remediation, compliance and reporting requirements. Although the Company has concluded that losses in the U.S. Attorney matter are probable, we are unable at this time to estimate the losses that may be incurred because the matter is still under investigation and involves open questions relevant to the Company’s potential liability for conduct of its former employees.

The editor and publisher also have a pending civil action against the Company, which seeks unspecified damages arising from the above-described conduct. In connection with the government matters and civil action described above, the Company to date has accrued for probable losses of approximately $64 million in the aggregate.

Given the uncertainties involved, the ultimate resolution of these matters could result in additional losses that may be material to our financial results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period.

[mam98031]

@valueaddedresource 

I take no issue with that.  The DOJ has had four years to gather info.  In that timeframe they absolutely should have looked at Ebay.  I've never said any different.  And yes I'm aware of the Civil lawsuit, isn't that what this thread was created to discuss?

I thank you for bringing this info to the thread.  I don't dispute any of that.

[vintagecraze50]

Yes Liz that seems correct. 

[vintagecraze50]

Geez you are really taking my comments to mean what they do not mean. 

[vintagecraze50]

Yes the bad apples can be held responsible for their action alone through a situation called frolic and detour. If you do not know what this is a simple way of describing it is they frolicked their own way and were not instructed by they company to do what they did. That’s just a rudimentary understand by me of this process.

[chapeau-noir]

Another way of putting it is FAFO - only I think the legal department was more "Whatever you're gonna do that we said you should not do, we don't want to know about it."

[vintagecraze50]

Why do you keep bring up MY AGENDA. On this thread I have tried to look at both sides of this picture. On one side remarks by posters on that blog about the company and Mr Wenig that inflamed them and was a part of this messy situation. The other side of the torture that this couple went through because of what Baugh and his team did which was w-r-o-n-g. I am not taking any sides here.

[zamo-zuan]

Well it seems part of the dispute is that both sides can be true as well because of the different definitions of "responsible".

Being real-life responsible (for lack of a better term) and being legally responsible are often times two different things. Heck, even a large company being held responsible compared to a small company being held responsible often time plays by completely different rules.

If I was told by our lawyer that legal action wasn't possible, then I went to a manager and said "This competitor is a problem. I need you to fix this situation. I know there's going to be blowback and I understand - it's part of running a business. Shut them down!".... Then that manager goes to one of our drivers and says "This person is your target. Find this persons identity and then burn them down to the ground. Neutralize their site. Do whatever it takes, I want to see ashes."

Would we have the same outcome as eBay had? Very unlikely. We're nowhere near as rich as these people. I have a family member who recently became a lawyer, as well as a paralegal in the family, and one of the things that is taught is that the legal system in the US is often designed for who has more money has the advantage. Capitalism at it's finest.

To make it worse, Wenig is still connected to one of - if not the biggest - legal company in the country. Make no mistake, they are to this day following his tracks. 

For the criminal case, there was a much higher burden, which pushes these advantages even further.

So I think this makes it important to distinguish what type of responsibility we're talking about here. If we're not talking about legal definitions, obviously Wenig and Wymer must share some responsibility. If we're talking about legal responsibilities, well that's an uphill battle Vs people like this. Civil has a better chance, but we'll see how that goes. 

In terms of eBay as a company responsible, it's the same deal, only even more complicated. Considering we have evidence that these employees were literally covering their tracks as best as they could, it will be hard to determine how much they knew. Which means we're left with a situation where any of those who were a part of eBay who are held responsible will then not want it to fall on them but will then implicate eBay (such as Baugh is doing). If Wenig or Wymer or anyone else at the company went down, it's likely they would place the blame on eBay as well.

And what was just mentioned here is probably how it went: Legal probably said "If you're going to pursue this, we don't wanna know". Does that mean they're not responsible? Again, do we mean realistically or legally? Realistically, a legal department doing their job should have monitored the situation. Legally, there would need to be claims and/or evidence to appear, and that will likely only happen as more try to shift responsibility from themselves to eBay.

[cardxcraft]

We're saying the same thing..."It goes without saying" 

You're the one that thought it was worthy to note they were ex Ebay employees....I'm the one who pointed out the obvious:  which is there is no need to mention they were Ex-Ebay employees as we understood this from their sentences. 

[cardxcraft]

Yes, it was political. 

There's no need to interject your biased political opinions on to the rest of us.  

We're here to discuss Ebay and not Wokeness.  

[mam98031]

---

@cardxcraft wrote:

We're saying the same thing..."It goes without saying" 

You're the one that thought it was worthy to note they were ex Ebay employees....I'm the one who pointed out the obvious:  which is there is no need to mention they were Ex-Ebay employees as we understood this from their sentences. 

---

I get it except that isn't what you said.   You didn't even bring that statement up on the post I responded to.  You said "I hope they're ex-Ebay employees"  I simply confirmed to you that they were.