The troubles that were, the troubles that be and the troubles that are yet to come. Have you ever actually taken the time to thoroughly read the eBay's user agreement? I have. eBay has you signing away and legal recourse against any wrongdoing by them or their affiliates. They have you signing away getting screwed. Why do they do that? Because they know at some point they are going to screw somebody.
Here is some current news about eBay:
Class Action Claims eBay Price Gouging Consumers Over Coronavirus-Related Products
EBay Inc. joins Amazon.com, Costco and other retailers sued for allegedly price gouging consumers seeking high-demand products during the COVID-19 pandemic.
News Class Action Claims eBay Price Gouging Consumers Over Coronavirus-Related Products EBay Inc. joins Amazon.com, Costco and other retailers sued for allegedly price gouging consumers seeking high-demand products during the COVID-19 pandemic. By Amanda Bronstad | May 04, 2020 at 08:58 PM
Headquarters for eBay, located at 2065 Hamilton Ave in San Jose, CA E-commerce giant eBay Inc. is the latest retailer to face allegations of price gouging high-demand products during the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, a class action alleged that eBay, despite vowing to curb price gouging on its site, continues to encourage the practice by charging a “final value fee” based on the price of the product sold. Jeanette Mercado, a California driver for Lyft and Uber who bought a two-pack of N95 masks on eBay for $23.98, with the same product selling at other national retailers for no more than $8.99, filed the suit in federal court in the Northern District of California. “While eBay publicly states that it is trying to stem the use of eBay’s platform by sellers who have charged, and continue to charge, gouging rates to consumers across the country, eBay’s very business model not only allows but encourages such price gouging, to eBay’s financial benefit,” says the complaint. Her attorney, Adam Moskowitz, of The Moskowitz Law Firm in Coral Gables, Florida, filed the case along with AK Law in Orange, California; Sonn Law Group in Aventura, Florida; and Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint in Phoenix. “We know eBay is now trying to catch up and prevent these thousands of daily horrible instances of price gouging, but they set up this pricing structure which encouraging the worst in our society to take advantage of people, so they need to do more or accept the responsibilities and penalties that our laws have established as consequence,” Moskowitz said in an email. An eBay representative did not respond to a request for comment
The only thing about the above article that makes me smile is that I reported this both verbally and in writing to eBay several times and they did nothing. They feel they are untouchable and that they have so much money they do whatever they want to do and they do.
Tag: eBay lawsuit
eBay Sued by Its Own Collection Agency April 17, 2020 11:39 pm Ina Steiner Bay was sued by its own collection agency on Friday. eBay hired IC System, Inc. to go after delinquent accounts, but it claims eBay provided inaccurate customer data that got it into legal trouble.
Lawyers frequently target public companies on behalf of investors when there’s bad news that impacts their stock price, sometimes it seems purely by reflex. That’s what’s happening to eBay after PayPal revealed in its earnings […]
eBay will pay $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2012 over practices related to its Buy It Now feature. Luis Rosado sued eBay after becoming fed up with a non-paying bidder for an eBay Motors […]
Readers may remember the class action lawsuit against eBay over its Featured Plus optional listing upgrade, though if you’re having trouble keeping track of seller versus marketplace lawsuits, it’s understandable. But some sellers were pleasantly […]
Two online sellers filed class action lawsuits against eBay claiming it did not make it clear that it charged recurring fees for Good Til Canceled listings, and on Friday, sellers began receiving notice of a […]
An eBay seller filed a class action lawsuit against eBay and PayPal for, among other things, Breach of Contract and Unfair Business Practices, alleging that eBay has created a “buyer always wins” policy to the […]
eBay will pay restitution to the state of California as part of a settlement reached with the state and with the U.S. Department of Justice in a “no poach” hiring lawsuit. U.S. Assistant Attorney General […]
It took almost 2 years, but a seller who filed a class action lawsuit against eBay over its Featured Plus optional listing upgrade has reached a court-approved preliminary settlement with eBay. The company, while denying […]
Judge rules class-action suit against eBay and PayPal may proceed Plaintiff claims "buyer is always right" policy hurts honest sellers, helps dishonest buyers Jennifer Abel A federal judge in California has ruled that eBay must face a class action suit alleging that its policies are unfair to sellers and make it easy for dishonest buyers to defraud them. Courthouse News Service reports that eBay seller and lead plaintiff Maggie Campbell originally filed suit in 2012, complaining that eBay and PayPal (the payment-processing company owned by eBay and required for all eBay transactions) always side with buyers over sellers in any dispute, allowing buyers to keep whatever items they bought and receive a full refund of the purchase price. Furthermore, Campbell's suit claims, in such instances eBay also keeps the listing and selling fees collected from the sellers. Ebay tried to have the complaint dismissed, and a district court judge in 2013 agreed to dismiss it with an option to amend, if Campbell would address “the nature of the restrictions that are the basis for her complaint and why those restrictions are not part of the agreement she acceded to as part of her user agreement.” So Campbell filed an amended complaint which eBay again sought to dismiss, claiming that its “contracts with her allow all the conduct alleged.” Courthouse News said this: [Campbell] argued that eBay wrongfully refuses to credit final value fees back to sellers when sales are rescinded, in breach of its buyer protection policy; did not allow PayPal to accept money from potential international buyers on several occasions; and unfairly sides with "dishonest, deceptive" buyers during disputes rather than investigating each matter to determine who is right. In opposition, eBay argued that the buyer protection policy allows it to settle disputes any way it chooses, and claimed that Campbell signed an agreement that lets it limit acceptable payment methods, including international transactions.
[Judge] Rogers sided with Campbell on this one, stating that eBay's "arguments miss the point of the allegations."
The Observer Money ‘Sitting duck’ eBay sellers take a stand against the scammers It’s a matter of principle as they fall victim to the auction site’s lavish ‘buyer protection’ Anna Tims Sun 13 Jan 2019 03.00 EST
Seller Vishal Vora simply asked for an item he had sold to be returned. Photograph: Christian Jungeblodt/The Guardian Vishal Vora used eBay to auction a £115 Baby Björn bouncer when his children had grown out of it. He washed it, listed it as used and accepted an offer of £56 plus £5 postage from an expectant mother. As soon as it was delivered the buyer complained that it was “literally covered in faces” and demanded a £20 reduction in the price. Vora offered £7.50, although the screenshot of a photo sent by the buyer did not show evidence of staining. The buyer then opened a case with eBay which advised she could return it and receive a refund. She was duly refunded by the company but she never sent the bouncer back. Weeks later, Vora found photos on the buyer’s social media accounts showing her baby happily installed in it. For most eBay sellers the story would end there. Vora, however, decided to make a stand. He emailed the buyer demanding the item, or his money back. She then reported him to the police for harassment. So he took her to court and, two years after the sale, was awarded £62. Advertisement “It happens often, buyers thinking they are entitled to free goods due to eBay’s liberal approach to refunds,” he says. “My case wasn’t about money, more about the principle.” The principle came at a cost – the £70 in court fees and administration outweighed the award and he must find a further £70 if he wants a summary of the judgment. In 2014 Vora issued legal proceedings after selling an iPhone4 to a buyer who claimed the box arrived empty. Despite proof from the Post Office that the parcel weight corresponded with a handset, eBay refunded the buyer. It eventually settled out of court. Vora is one of a legion of sellers to have fallen victim to eBay’s lavish buyer-protection policy. Launched in 2013, it refunds buyers who raise a dispute if an item is not received, or not as described. The promise was to encourage buyer confidence in the online auction site, but it can be exploited by unscrupulous buyers to obtain free goods. Scores of sellers, both private and business, have contacted the Observer over the years to complain that the company has unquestioningly refunded buyers who had failed to return the goods they bought or sent them back used, damaged or substituted. Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you Read more Anna Wabrobska is a business seller of car parts. When a buyer returned a part, which he admitted had been damaged by his mechanic, eBay told her it would investigate but then refunded the buyer without her knowledge. “When I appealed they told me to submit a police report,” she says. “The police say they do not deal with such cases, so eBay told me to get a crime reference number from Action Fraud. I did so, but my appeal was rejected as I did not provide the report from the police.” Ebay told the Observer that, as the buyer had declared the part “not as described”, he was due a refund. Business sellers do not have the right to appeal against a decision under eBay rules which leaves a court as the only alternative, it says. Catherine Lewis was left out of pocket after selling a coat. When the buyer claimed she had not received it, eBay issued a refund. But when Lewis studied feedback about the buyer, she got a shock. “All the messages told the same story,” she says. “Buyer claimed item didn’t arrive, eBay gave refund. Even on items that were signed for. Worse, the buyer has been reported to eBay three times before for this and no action has been taken.” Only when the Observer intervened did eBay refund Lewis. Ebay insists that each dispute is investigated before refunds are issued. “As an online marketplace we take action to protect thousands of sellers in the UK every month, and we’re constantly improving our systems to make our marketplace as safe as possible,” it insists. “Our team is on the lookout 24/7 for bad buyer behavior and they’re backed by large-scale, automated detection systems that examine millions of transactions every day.” However, the company freely acknowledges that its policies are designed to keep customers spending. Buyers can, for instance, leave anonymous negative feedback against a seller, but sellers are only given a positive button to rate buyers, although they can type a more forthright comment beneath the cheery “+” heading. The seller’s only recourse, if a comment unjustifiably damages their status, is to report a buyer to eBay and negative comments are only removed if eBay receives numerous complaints about an individual. Most controversially of all, any case opened by a buyer shows as a defect on the seller’s record and a maximum defect rate of 2% (0.5% for top-rated sellers) is permitted before penalty fees kick in. Since eBay ordered its business sellers to extend their returns policy from 14 to 30 days last year, sellers complain that return rates have escalated and they are being penalized for complying. Customers who change their mind about a purchase often cite a return as “not as described” rather than “no longer wanted” to avoid incurring postage charges and these count against a seller unless they are successfully appealed. Ebay counters that its penalty fees for return rates of over 2% are “to ensure buyers receive the best shopping experience possible, bringing more buyers and more sales for sellers” and “maliciously filed returns are stripped out of the calculations”. Like Vishal Vora, other sellers are fighting back. Roland Grimm, a personal seller, sold a Tannoy to a buyer who, 60 days after confirming receipt, claimed it had never arrived and raised a dispute with PayPal which offers an alternative buyer protection scheme to eBay. “Professional scammers often never notify eBay, nor leave feedback because, if they do, sellers can respond via feedback which stays forever to warn other sellers,” he says. “Instead, they make a PayPal claim after 60 days when the sales record for a transaction disappears from the seller’s file and feedback can no longer be left on the buyer’s record.” Grimm supplied PayPal with proof of postage and the buyer’s confirmation of receipt but PayPal nonetheless issued a refund. It eventually settled out of court days before the hearing. The company declined to comment. Grimm is now considering legal action against eBay after a seller claimed a keyboard he had sold was defective. It was returned damaged. In its response to the buyer, eBay wrote that although the item had been returned “in a different condition to which it was sent” he would be refunded anyway. Ebay claimed that, since it can’t verify the condition an item is returned in, it refunds sellers on a courtesy basis, but that Grimm has made several such claims of returned goods, so no longer qualifies. Ian Ewers received a similar message to Grimm after a buyer claimed two brand new £2,300 power supply units he’d sold were faulty a week after leaving a five-star review of them. They were sent back unboxed, poorly packaged and apparently damaged during use. He sent before and after photos to eBay who told him they would refund the buyer and Ewers could appeal against their decision afterwards. When he tried to do so, he was refused. A message from customer services explained opaquely: “I understand that in our return policy the buyer should return an item in same condition and most of the times we our seller how if they receive item back in different condition. However, there are policy in place for this seller’s coverage and I am afraid in this case it would not be possible to grant your appeal [sic].” Ebay told the Observer that business sellers can’t appeal against faulty returns and says since the buyer provided a detailed description of the problem he had a right to return the goods. It has since unleashed debt collectors to recover the £2,300 from Ewers. “I’ve told them to take me to court and I look forward to defending the claim if it ever happens,” he says. He has also withdrawn his custom from eBay to whom he’s paid nearly £30,000 in sellers’ fees over 14 years. “I have finally realized I cannot do business with this company any longer,” he says. “Ebay sellers are like sitting ducks waiting to be scammed.”
As you can see from the articles above, I am not the only victim of eBay but you can also see that although eBay forces you to accept their policy in order to sell, you can still take them to court. Nobody can make you sign something that takes away your rights or allows them to misuse or abuse you, nobody can do this.
TO BE CONTINUED