Why does E-Bay continue to allow an unfair and dishonest VeRO process?

[wills_thrill]

trinton@ebay

I was just hit today with a VeRO claim from a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list.  Then E-Bay hit me with a 3 day restriction on my account.  The VeRO claim was that my item was counterfeit.

In reality, the item was authentic and not counterfeit.  The VeRo filer rescinded their claim.  It took an entire day and a dozen emails and hours on the phone to straighten the whole mess out.  Then E-Bay has the gall to say that it will take another 24-48 hours for them to remove the VeRO strike on my account!

Well guess what, 1 day to resolve the issue with the company, plus 2 days for E-Bay to remove the strike is 3 DAYS!  The full 3-day restriction punishment will still apply, with no recourse or compensation to me for it having occurred falsely!  I'm going to lose revenue for 3 days through no fault of my own! 

E-Bay has no grace period to allow a seller to address this issuer with the VeRO filer.  They just screw over their sellers immediately and irreversibly!

But it gets even better!  A rep for the company admitted that they have people in India searching E-Bay for counterfeit items.  They provide a list to corporate, and then corporate just takes down whatever listings India provides, without confirming each of them. 

In my case, the item was a product that has been discontinued since 2018.  The workers in India only know the current product offerings.   SINCE MY ITEM WAS NOT A CURRENT OFFERING, THE INDIA WORKERS ASSUME IT IS COUNTERFEIT, SO IT GETS FILED FOR A VeRO!

This is total **bleep** and a total abuse of E-Bay sellers, that E-Bay allows to happen by using a flawed VeRO system.

No account restrictions should occur until after a grace period for a seller to either resolve the dispute, or file a counterclaim.  It's one thing to take down the one listing incorrectly over a VeRO claim. 

It is entirely another thing to issue an account restriction that affects a seller's revenue stream irreversibly, because of a falso VeRO filing!

E-Bay needs to implement a new process immediately to stop the VeRO abuses that sellers constantly struggle with! 

No matter how many VeRO strikes on an account, when VeRO is filed:

1. the item is temporarily removed. 
2. A grace period of 3-5 days is given for a seller to address this with the VeRO filer, or by counterclaim. 
3.   After the grace period passes, if the seller hasn't resolved the issue, then E-Bay can issue whatever restriction is required based on account history.

At least this has some chance to be fair to the seller, unlike E-Bay's current police that is 100% UNFAIR!

[myangelandmyprincess]

MEant to add a response to the this as well. 

“You don't sentence someone and send the to jail, before you hold the actual trial!”

no you dont sentence them but they can be arrested and held in jail until trial 

[wills_thrill]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

MEant to add a response to the this as well. 

“You don't sentence someone and send the to jail, before you hold the actual trial!”

no you dont sentence them but they can be arrested and held in jail until trial 

---

Only for the most serious crimes.  You think using the word Velcro in a title rises to the same level as selling gun parts?  Nazi propaganda?

And you can't be held in jail without bail, unless you pose the most serious risk to public safety.

Sorry, not the case with a VeRO claim.  They even call it a CLAIM, not a VIOLATION.  Their own terms admit that it may or may not be the case.

[wills_thrill]

We will have to agree to disagree. But Hillary Clinton wasn't charged by the FBI (per Comey) because it wasn't her intent to distribute classified materials.

If the law worked the way you state, it would have been cut and dry that she be prosecuted.

And some lawyers also seem to disagree with you:

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/ignorance-of-the-law-may-be-an-excuse.html

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@wills_thrill wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree. But Hillary Clinton wasn't charged by the FBI (per Comey) because it wasn't her intent to distribute classified materials.

If the law worked the way you state, it would have been cut and dry that she be prosecuted.

And some lawyers also seem to disagree with you:

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/ignorance-of-the-law-may-be-an-excuse.html

---

I’m going by what I learned in college.  My professors made it very clear that meas rea (the intent to commit the crime) didn’t mean the person has to know its a crime.  It just means they had the intent to commit the act.    Lawyers may try to argue the excuse a person didn’t know maybe it will help grant leniency but Knowing its a crime isn’t required for someone to be charged with the crime 

[myangelandmyprincess]

By the way having read your link as I said often laws require showing intent the link mentions things they are the few exceptions.  Such as crimes that require specific intent.  It alSo mentions laws that are not new or not published for the public which would be an obvious argument but as it says that’s a rare case.   As I said often crimes require intent and that’s simply intent to commit a criminal act regardless of if you knew it was illegal.   And I honestly don’t get your argument with Hillary Clinton.  If she didn’t have the intent to distribute the classified materials of course she wasn’t charged.  My argument isn’t that intent isn’t required it’s that the intent doesn’t have to mean you know it’s illegal.  

Also a cease and desist does not have to be sent before suing someone.   It benefits because it can prevent having to go to court but it is not required.  

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

---

@wills_thrill wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree. But Hillary Clinton wasn't charged by the FBI (per Comey) because it wasn't her intent to distribute classified materials.

If the law worked the way you state, it would have been cut and dry that she be prosecuted.

And some lawyers also seem to disagree with you:

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/ignorance-of-the-law-may-be-an-excuse.html

---

I’m going by what I learned in college.  My professors made it very clear that meas rea (the intent to commit the crime) didn’t mean the person has to know its a crime.  It just means they had the intent to commit the act.    Lawyers may try to argue the excuse a person didn’t know maybe it will help grant leniency but Knowing its a crime isn’t required for someone to be charged with the crime 

---

Not sure what happened with spelling there.  Mens rea 

[baantiques]

That seems to be how vero works.  They just compile a list of listings and request they take them down.  Ebay does, no questions asked.  Hyundai and Nissan are particular abusers of this privilege.  I've had multiple listings taken down for simply stating the fact that a particular part fits a particular model - eg tie rod end fits Datsun 510 1968-1973, and that's somehow considered a trademark violation.

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@baantiques wrote:

That seems to be how vero works.  They just compile a list of listings and request they take them down.  Ebay does, no questions asked.  Hyundai and Nissan are particular abusers of this privilege.  I've had multiple listings taken down for simply stating the fact that a particular part fits a particular model - eg tie rod end fits Datsun 510 1968-1973, and that's somehow considered a trademark violation.

---

eBay has to pull them no questions asked otherwise they face their own legal issues.  Which is why vero exists in the first place.  

And yes some companies abuse it unfortunately.  Coach is one I know does.  I choose not to do any business with the companies I know abuse it.  

[pink.fish.rule]

---

@fashunu4eeuh wrote:

@wills_thrill wrote: 

“So far this false claim, and E-Bays unfair response to VeRO claims (which really are just disputes between an IP holder and seller, which shouldn't justify punishment before the dispute is resolved)...”

Ebay has no choice when a VERO claim is made. They have to take the listing down according to the law. That said, when they remove something in error, eBay should make it right. So sorry this happened to you.

---

True, but this "hiding ALL listings" after a policy violation is new and it's pretty harsh when a seller actually didn't.

[wills_thrill]

Well, the E-Bay clown show continues...

I was able to get a response from Kayleigh on E-Bay's VeRO team, basically telling me I have to take this up with the VeRO member who filed it. She said E-Bay can't reinstate the listing or remove the violation/restriction from my account unless the manufacturer contacts them.

NEVER MIND THE MANUFACTURER HAS CONTACTED THEM BY E-MAIL 3 TIMES AND BY PHONE TWICE!

This was on the morning of 12/18 at 7:30 AM EST.

Meanwhile, I am still in contact with the manufacturer, and they are still trying to help me. They provided me with a copy of an e-mail from E-Bay from Stephen on E-Bay's VeRO team with a time stamp of 12/18 @ 1:47 AM (I don't know what time zone). That e-mail says the listing was reinstated (item 333416422690). However, the item doesn't appear in my store, and when I search for that item number, it doesn't appear in current or completed listings.

SO HOW CAN THAT BE REINSTATED?

It doesn't exist on E-Bay for me to even do a relist.

And I am personally received nothing from E-Bay myself letting me know the item has been reinstated or that the strike was removed from my account. I am having to rely on the manufacturer for any information from E-Bay at this point.

[wills_thrill]

Can someone from E-Bay who knows what they are doing, step in and straighten out this mess E-Bay has made?

trinton@ebay
tyler@ebay
alan@ebay

And this is the SR# in the e-mail provided to me by the manufacturer from E-Bay.

SR# 1-239514453084

[carlqsportscards]

You need to type an additional @ in front of the names (it doesn't show after posting)

tyler@ebay 

@Anonymous 

[Anonymous]

---

@wills_thrill wrote:

trinton@ebay

I was just hit today with a VeRO claim from a company that is not listed on E-Bay's publicly available VeRO list.  Then E-Bay hit me with a 3 day restriction on my account.  The VeRO claim was that my item was counterfeit.

In reality, the item was authentic and not counterfeit.  The VeRo filer rescinded their claim.  It took an entire day and a dozen emails and hours on the phone to straighten the whole mess out.  Then E-Bay has the gall to say that it will take another 24-48 hours for them to remove the VeRO strike on my account!

Well guess what, 1 day to resolve the issue with the company, plus 2 days for E-Bay to remove the strike is 3 DAYS!  The full 3-day restriction punishment will still apply, with no recourse or compensation to me for it having occurred falsely!  I'm going to lose revenue for 3 days through no fault of my own! 

E-Bay has no grace period to allow a seller to address this issuer with the VeRO filer.  They just screw over their sellers immediately and irreversibly!

But it gets even better!  A rep for the company admitted that they have people in India searching E-Bay for counterfeit items.  They provide a list to corporate, and then corporate just takes down whatever listings India provides, without confirming each of them. 

In my case, the item was a product that has been discontinued since 2018.  The workers in India only know the current product offerings.   SINCE MY ITEM WAS NOT A CURRENT OFFERING, THE INDIA WORKERS ASSUME IT IS COUNTERFEIT, SO IT GETS FILED FOR A VeRO!

This is total **bleep** and a total abuse of E-Bay sellers, that E-Bay allows to happen by using a flawed VeRO system.

No account restrictions should occur until after a grace period for a seller to either resolve the dispute, or file a counterclaim.  It's one thing to take down the one listing incorrectly over a VeRO claim. 

It is entirely another thing to issue an account restriction that affects a seller's revenue stream irreversibly, because of a falso VeRO filing!

E-Bay needs to implement a new process immediately to stop the VeRO abuses that sellers constantly struggle with! 

No matter how many VeRO strikes on an account, when VeRO is filed:

1. the item is temporarily removed. 
2. A grace period of 3-5 days is given for a seller to address this with the VeRO filer, or by counterclaim. 
3.   After the grace period passes, if the seller hasn't resolved the issue, then E-Bay can issue whatever restriction is required based on account history.

At least this has some chance to be fair to the seller, unlike E-Bay's current police that is 100% UNFAIR!

---

Hi @wills_thrill, while I'm not able to go into specific account details, we have passed this along for review and the listing in question should be in your unsold section for you to relist at this time. When we reinstate a listing after removing it, we won't relist it on a seller's behalf, but instead make it available to be relisted if the seller chooses. 

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact Customer Service to discuss the account specifics related to this situation.

[myemmastreasures]

We hope to sell images on eBay. Can you please advise where and how a person may legally obtain these?

[southern*sweet*tea]

---

@myemmastreasures wrote:

We hope to sell images on eBay. Can you please advise where and how a person may legally obtain these?

---

This is a dead thread from months ago, but if you want to sell images, TAKE THEM YOURSELF, or find ones in the public domain.