ebay and Racketeering and a 40% upcharge

[3brothersdeals]

ebay has made it impossible to fight SNADs no matter how obvious it is that it is a remorse purchase, even when the buyer puts it in writing. They are literally ignorning a written record from a customer.

Then, as the fake SNADs balloon , ebay is going to apply an additional 40% to seller fees. Their 'out' for getting around this is to use a homemade peer comparison model. Yet when everyone is under the same deceitful and fraudulent model, that's not going to fly.

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

"What is 'Racketeering'
Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO Act includes a list of 35 crimes. If convicted of racketeering, a person could serve up to 20 years and be fined up to $25,000."

The dishonest service is the return system and their refusal to adjudicate fake SNADs. The problem therefore exists because of the dishonest service and is in turn monetized by a 40% upcharge.

[dhbookds]

additional 40% to seller fees.

While I can see where this is coming from......... from 10% to 14%, the lack of explanation makes it read to me as an additional 40% to existing fees.......10% (or whatever is applicable) + 40%.......

[2015mhfashions]

It is a 40% increase, as the previous post states E Bay's refusal to use common sense when it is an obvious remorse return but the buyer simply lies to avoid postage ( And it's getting more and more frequent ). For now it's been suspended until early next year, My example 1 snad from 131, puts me slightly above my peers, 1 are you kidding ? and this was for the only negative i received claiming fake, all store purchase receipts uploaded to the case showing date address and the items purchased, they simply say fake and that's it, no proof needed, Negative remains which is a complete and utter lie, fortunately other buyers can see right through this scammer, about time E Bay started to do so also, also remember if a Snad is opened and the buyer admits they hit the wrong button that also remains, they will not change it, Totally unfair whichever way you look at it. Disaster waiting to happen.

[luckythewinner]

---

@3brothersdeals wrote:

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

---

'Class action' and "criminal charges' have been tossed around regarding eBay for well over a decade.

They have been suggested about returns.

They have been suggested about SNADs.

They have been suggested about prohibited items.

They have been suggested about VERO.

They have been suggested about Top Rated Status.

They have been suggested about PayPal holds on funds.

They have been suggested about FVF on shipping.

They have been suggested about 'rolling blackouts'.

They have been suggested about Best Match.

Why not add the 4% penalty fee to the list?

[missjen831]

---

@2015mhfashions wrote:

It is a 40% increase, as the previous post states E Bay's refusal to use common sense when it is an obvious remorse return but the buyer simply lies to avoid postage ( And it's getting more and more frequent ). For now it's been suspended until early next year,

---

It hasn't been suspended until early next year. It starts next month.

It was only suspended in the UK

[monster-deals]

Yeah. I sell mostly books for some reason ebay has 3 reurns, 2 that were fake, for books in "collectibles" for my "return metric"

Broken before they even started using it.

Who would've seen that coming?

[thecurvymama]

The list of potentially lawsuitable changes is just too funny not to leave a ....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[hioctane62]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@3brothersdeals wrote:

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

---

'Class action' and "criminal charges' have been tossed around regarding eBay for well over a decade.

They have been suggested about returns.

They have been suggested about SNADs.

They have been suggested about prohibited items.

They have been suggested about VERO.

They have been suggested about Top Rated Status.

They have been suggested about PayPal holds on funds.

They have been suggested about FVF on shipping.

They have been suggested about 'rolling blackouts'.

They have been suggested about Best Match.

Why not add the 4% penalty fee to the list?

---

None of what you listed is like this money grab. Ebay is creating the circumstances to FORCE innocent sellers into their higher fees. For a small seller, it will take very little to push them into ebay's money grab. Ebay is doing this solely for money, NOT to better the marketplace as they claim.

THIS issue has a much higher likelihood of being a class action type offense, as well as a criminal offense as described in the OP.

[buyselljack2016]

---

@hioctane62 wrote:

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@3brothersdeals wrote:

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

---

'Class action' and "criminal charges' have been tossed around regarding eBay for well over a decade.

They have been suggested about returns.

They have been suggested about SNADs.

They have been suggested about prohibited items.

They have been suggested about VERO.

They have been suggested about Top Rated Status.

They have been suggested about PayPal holds on funds.

They have been suggested about FVF on shipping.

They have been suggested about 'rolling blackouts'.

They have been suggested about Best Match.

Why not add the 4% penalty fee to the list?

---

None of what you listed is like this money grab. Ebay is creating the circumstances to FORCE innocent sellers into their higher fees. For a small seller, it will take very little to push them into ebay's money grab. Ebay is doing this solely for money, NOT to better the marketplace as they claim.

THIS issue has a much higher likelihood of being a class action type offense, as well as a criminal offense as described in the OP.

---

More "chicken little" scare nonsense.

It has already been stated that the 4% FVF increase will not be assesed on low volumn sales.   Sell 2 items in a category, have 1 return, eBay is not going to slam you with the extra 4%

[zamo-zuan]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@3brothersdeals wrote:

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

---

'Class action' and "criminal charges' have been tossed around regarding eBay for well over a decade.

They have been suggested about returns.

They have been suggested about SNADs.

They have been suggested about prohibited items.

They have been suggested about VERO.

They have been suggested about Top Rated Status.

They have been suggested about PayPal holds on funds.

They have been suggested about FVF on shipping.

They have been suggested about 'rolling blackouts'.

They have been suggested about Best Match.

Why not add the 4% penalty fee to the list?

---

I have had this exact discussion with you and another user on here in the past.

This is a different case than all of those. In this case, the determination of a defect is based on the BUYERS decision, without any oversight. There is absolutely no way to fight it. 4% FVF's are HUGE, and can literally be the difference between being able to compete in your category. And there's a huge potential for abuse.

Some have said you "have more to worry about from SNAD's themselves, than this penalty". This is in no way accurate!

For our store selling the amount we do, at the average price of $100 per item, we would need over 60 SNAD's each month to compare to the damage 4% FVF's would do to us.

Furthermore, it would not be simply the monetary loss as damage. Margins would need to compensate for the loss.

Take a look at our category, 4% is the difference between a manufacturer and drop shipper in many cases.

4% on top of your prices on a top seller, if you do the math & compare it to other sellers in the category, is the difference of damage in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month. Typically 20-25th place is about 4% higher prices than the top sellers, in our category at least. It's a significant bulk of sales lost if you don't have those competitive prices.

It's so exploitable as well. Marketing agencies could have a few people do false SNAD's, and suddenly a competitor is no longer competitive.

Before anyone says this is unlikely to happen, take a look at what marketing agencies, especially those that specialise in SEO, actually do. It's a job heavily based around false claims/reviews/etc.

History of eBay and Amazon have shown that if there's an exploitable option, people WILL take advantage of it.

I am positive that if they do not give a way to fight this, it will be a CS story unlike any eBay has seen for many years. Just wait to see the phone line times when sellers start having fees tacked on and can not fight them.

This isn't even getting in to the "seller metrics" page with "peers" that are obviously not sellers of any comparable bulk. 

[zamo-zuan]

---

@buyselljack2016 wrote:

---

@hioctane62 wrote:

---

---

None of what you listed is like this money grab. Ebay is creating the circumstances to FORCE innocent sellers into their higher fees. For a small seller, it will take very little to push them into ebay's money grab. Ebay is doing this solely for money, NOT to better the marketplace as they claim.

THIS issue has a much higher likelihood of being a class action type offense, as well as a criminal offense as described in the OP.

---

More "chicken little" scare nonsense.

It has already been stated that the 4% FVF increase will not be assesed on low volumn sales.   Sell 2 items in a category, have 1 return, eBay is not going to slam you with the extra 4%

---

Then why are the "Peers" on the sellers metrics page, counting sellers who have only sold a couple items in the category?

Why do you think the "peer average" for your category is so low on the metrics page...?

[zamo-zuan]

---

@buyselljack2016 wrote:

---

---

More "chicken little" scare nonsense.

It has already been stated that the 4% FVF increase will not be assesed on low volumn sales.   Sell 2 items in a category, have 1 return, eBay is not going to slam you with the extra 4%

---

Let's also look at the types of defects eBay is counting as SNAD according to the Seller Metrics page:

"Missing Parts or Pieces"

"Not working or defective"

"Arrived damaged"

"Wrong item"

"Not as described"

"Not authentic"

So your items that arrive damaged, even if you have evidence that it was damaged during shipment, are counting as SNAD.

In Motors, when people order the wrong part, they pick "wrong item". We have many documented cases of this. People admitting to ordering wrong size truck covers. People who ordering wrong liter size for their engine. 

Let's also factor that items like Ignition Coils, who manufacturers state that a STRONG rate of failure for ignition coils is 1-2%. They brag about such a low failure rate in their marketing. Now do the math, when some vehicles take 8 or more individual coils in one package.

There's also mechanics that install improperly, something you see very often in Engine Mounts, they try to change the mount without hoisting the engine, and ends up improperly balancing the engine.

We offer free returns, and very often they say the item was unused, they picked wrong item out, they choose "wrong part"... and that is counting towards our SNAD defect rate on seller metrics??? That is ridiculous.

Considering all this, they claim the average in our category is: "Peers = 0.69%". No way that is possible! Not a chance. We have advanced software and 2 employees whos sole job it is, to visually verify items packed in the box before it is taped. There is almost never an error on our part. Yet it still claims our percentage is "You = 1.23%".

If we are at that rate and we offer free returns, you can be sure every seller in hte category who does not offer free returns, is higher than that.

What good reason, that is fair to buyers & sellers, could they possible have to not give sellers a way to defend themselves, from all the situations I've listed above?

[hioctane62]

What good reason, that is fair to buyers & sellers, could they possible have to not give sellers a way to defend themselves, from all the situations I've listed above?

That's an easy one (if you're not an ebay cheerleader):

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[carlmarxx]

---

@zamo-zuan wrote:

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@3brothersdeals wrote:

Not only are they going to be looking at a class action suit, they could be looking at criminal charges.

---

'Class action' and "criminal charges' have been tossed around regarding eBay for well over a decade.

They have been suggested about returns.

They have been suggested about SNADs.

They have been suggested about prohibited items.

They have been suggested about VERO.

They have been suggested about Top Rated Status.

They have been suggested about PayPal holds on funds.

They have been suggested about FVF on shipping.

They have been suggested about 'rolling blackouts'.

They have been suggested about Best Match.

Why not add the 4% penalty fee to the list?

---

I have had this exact discussion with you and another user on here in the past.

This is a different case than all of those. In this case, the determination of a defect is based on the BUYERS decision, without any oversight. There is absolutely no way to fight it. 4% FVF's are HUGE, and can literally be the difference between being able to compete in your category. And there's a huge potential for abuse.

Some have said you "have more to worry about from SNAD's themselves, than this penalty". This is in no way accurate!

For our store selling the amount we do, at the average price of $100 per item, we would need over 60 SNAD's each month to compare to the damage 4% FVF's would do to us.

Furthermore, it would not be simply the monetary loss as damage. Margins would need to compensate for the loss.

Take a look at our category, 4% is the difference between a manufacturer and drop shipper in many cases.

4% on top of your prices on a top seller, if you do the math & compare it to other sellers in the category, is the difference of damage in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per month. Typically 20-25th place is about 4% higher prices than the top sellers, in our category at least. It's a significant bulk of sales lost if you don't have those competitive prices.

It's so exploitable as well. Marketing agencies could have a few people do false SNAD's, and suddenly a competitor is no longer competitive.

Before anyone says this is unlikely to happen, take a look at what marketing agencies, especially those that specialise in SEO, actually do. It's a job heavily based around false claims/reviews/etc.

History of eBay and Amazon have shown that if there's an exploitable option, people WILL take advantage of it.

I am positive that if they do not give a way to fight this, it will be a CS story unlike any eBay has seen for many years. Just wait to see the phone line times when sellers start having fees tacked on and can not fight them.

This isn't even getting in to the "seller metrics" page with "peers" that are obviously not sellers of any comparable bulk. 

---

Yet Amazon  as acted with new policys  to deal with  the customers that abuse the returns by  , by cutting their buyers off to send back in some case's  , where as in other case's they have shown the buyers the door  .  They  are also working to lower  retail buyer fraud  as well .  Ebay  has not tried to deal with  retail buyer fraud  and Buyer return  abuse .  they aren't  willing to drop their buyer first  policys and  drop the poorly written MBG ,  which both policys help buyer  theft  by mail fraud .

[southern*sweet*tea]

---

@hioctane62 wrote:

What good reason, that is fair to buyers & sellers, could they possible have to not give sellers a way to defend themselves, from all the situations I've listed above?

That's an easy one (if you're not an ebay cheerleader):

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

---

Of course it's about the money. I'm a quasi-cheerleader and even I know that.

Ebay does things in the best interest for Ebay, not their sellers and not their buyers.  They don't give a rat's patoot about either group.