eBay Tells Judge It Doesn't Sell the Items on Its Site

by: my2cents

@None Such

"I can understand eBay’s concern.  Then again, their defense became shaky when they start finding ways to increase fee revenue from sellers through advertising fees, promoted listing fees, fees on shipping, fees on payment, etc. "

Like any corporation in business to make money they are constantly seeking new ways to generate income.  It is the American way.  What makes this any different than sellers.  Sellers are usually always looking for ways to make more money.  How is that different??  The buyers pay in the end, every time a seller increases their pricing for whatever reason the seller has.

As to fees for processing the money.  We have all paid this fee from the beginning of electronic money payments and transfers.  Before Ebay became our money processor, we paid the fees to PayPal.  And at the time this changed happened, sellers in most categories were paying 10.2% FVFs and 2.9% to PayPal with a 30 cent per transaction fee.

So as Ebay took over the Money processing function for sellers, the fees were increase to cover the service of money processing.  So in post categories Ebay charged 10.2% FVF plus the 2.9% paid to PP = 13.10%  Currently in most categories on Ebay we pay 13.25%

"If they just charged a flat fee on sales, like ecrater, ..."
I don't use Ecrater, but from what I see on the internet they charge 2.9% on a sale and the buyer pays the money processing fee with whomever their money processor is, likely for many PayPal and PP has raised their rates since the split with Ebay.  Still likely less expensive overall than Ebay.  And if you can get as good or better sales there, it is a good deal.

"i would more readily believe that it is “just a venue”.  But they don’t.  They are involved in so many ways in transactions, including manipulating search and ad placement to pit sellers against each other, etc.  Can’t have it both ways."

Amazon is worse than Ebay for all of what you say above and more.

by: COVID-19

eBay cheerleaders have cheer no matter what! Some commenters here sound like they're on eBay's payroll.

by: pace306

All this is great EXCEPT that 230 was designed for internet usage - ie speech and not sales.

It was created to protect ISPs and sites like this one in case rowdy people posted illegal or inappropriate items - pics, data (pirated movies or music) etc.

The law never had in mind to protect eBay and people like them when they were warned to not let certain items be sold ON THEIR SITE.

eBay knows exactly what’s on its site and it knows how to give you access (Vero members) and CPC members and it knows how to hide you as well. You can’t close your eyes and play that game when it suits you. We know better and I think the government does too.

by: pace306

My2cents

Technically yes PayPal and or eBay are for sure the “Merchants of record” and the governments argument is that it is Seller of record too - making it responsible

by: my2cents

Except they aren't the Seller of Record.  Not technically as you put it.

I just brought up possibly thinking about this in another way.  If it is your position that you hope Ebay is found to not be covered by Section 230, you have the right to do that.  If you choose not to consider the ramifications of that happening, again that is your right.

by: pace306

TBH - I doubt it actually matters to the courts/DOJ as eBay technically is BOTH, just for specific reasons (taxation and such) they claim they are 1 or the other - as it suites them.

They are FOR SURE Merchant of Record:

What is the Merchant of Record (MoR)?

As the party in charge of handling and enabling financial transactions on behalf of a firm, the Merchant of Record (MoR) is an important player in commercial transactions. The MoR takes on financial and legal responsibilities as the designated entity for payment handling, guaranteeing regulatory compliance and reducing risks for the selling entity. In essence, the MoR manages the entire transaction process, from regulatory compliance to payment authorization, offering businesses and customers a simplified and safe environment.

What is the Seller of Record (SoR)?

The organisation in charge of carrying out a sales transaction and supervising the delivery of products or services to the client is known as the Seller of Record (SoR). In contrast to the Merchant of Record (MoR), the SoR concentrates on order fulfilment, inventory management, and providing a positive customer experience rather than necessarily handling the financial part of the transaction. In order to successfully facilitate transactions, the SoR collaborates with the MoR to shoulder financial duties, which it normally does in addition to playing a crucial role in the operational side of sales.

eBay DOES fit the definition of SOR as they are in charge of carrying out the sales transaction and supervising the delivery - INR, shipping times, handling times and they insure a "positive customer experience".

Theres no way out of it for them - they KNOW whats on their site (with 9000 employees) and AI bots that pull down listings "at random" and more.

Its one thing if they didnt %500 control search - but they do. They same way you cant list a gun, you SHOULDNT have been able to list those devices - its really simple (even a Harvard trained 1rst year law student could make the case).

I cant see how 203 protects THEM.

As for its ramifications on sellers - nothing (at least for me) changes. Never mind that I have invoices for every thing - even if I didnt - so what?

I dont understand your thoughts on why it would harm me in any way shape or form - my "eBay experience" wouldnt change at all. eBay would be (FINALLY) responsible to police the site "for real" instead of playing games (with their "inspired" Pan Am bags) and allowing listings that say "reproduction" in them to stay on line. They would also have to stop 3/4 of the garbage from China - something that ALSO doesnt hurt me (like the multi game video game carts etc).

eBay has had the smackdown coming for some time - and finally an entity thats BIGGER then they are - are giving them what they are due.

by: Snapped

Over 10 years ago, I listed a 1950’s vintage western cap pistol in original packaging.  Even back then, there was an orange cap over the barrel to indicate it was a toy.

eBay took down the listing, claiming it didn’t have a blaze orange cap as required by law.  The color of the cap (back then) was more of a reddish orange.  Despite also providing photos done the barrel showing the fastening screw completely blocking it, eBay could only suggest I remove the original cap and replace it.  The fact that would completely destroy its vintage value seemed to escape them.  We sold it elsewhere.

Incidentally, there were dozens of similar cap guns being offered, and the caps, when they even had them, were all sorts of different shades of orange.  Imagine that.

The relevant precedent here is that even before eBay made the kind of claims they do today over control over a sale, no matter what acronym applies to describe their ‘role’ - they have always been compelled to and have acted to remove ‘illegal’ listings.  Even to the point of ridiculous albeit inconsistent overkill.  

What’s different about what they ALREADY HAVE responsibility for (and failed to do this time) now?  

by: toolguy

@Snapped

I grew up in the 60's & NO cap guns had orange tips back then!

Not one!

It didn't become law until 1988

by: toolguy

@snapped

This one is from 1970

https://www.ebay.com/itm/174202435971

by: my2cents

Pace

Money processors have to be the MOR or they couldn't process the payments.  It has always been that way.  Even when PayPal was the money processor.  

by: pace306

MY

"For all anyone cares" - they can be either, both or neither - no seller has ever asked about it.

Its mentioned HERE because eBay is (once again) shirking its responsibility in an area WE know they are %100 in control over.

With their iron fisted policies on how the site operates, or its the small things that most sellers never see - that WE HERE know happens all the time - those behaviors tell you clearly whos "in control".

Bottom line - regardless if they are MOR or SOR, regardless of 230, or of ANY other silly things eBay comes up with .... they were told to be "vigilant" about this and to NOT let these listings appear and they ignored it all, then blamed it on the seller(s). Boo hoo its not OUR fault, we dont control anything ... yeh right!

eBay has full %100 control over its site - and if its AI stinks and allowed it to go on - thats on them, if they decided to NOT make any of their 9000 employees work and search out these listings (they mostly go to work to eat the free food and work out in the gym) then its ON THEM, they MC011 people 24/7 for FAKE safety reasons all day - they know QUITE WELL what goes on.

Uncle Jr ended up in jail, so did Ercole DiMeo (before Jackie Aprile), as did Ralph Cifaretto, Carmine Lupertazzi and many more. Since eBay is run like the San Jose Mafia - its time that some eBay honcho go to jail. However here - this is only a lawsuit against them, and eBay will take a guilty please with a reduced monetary fine while promising to "be ever more vigilant" (same BS they said in every OTHER case) ... then resume punishing sellers in an act of vengeance.

by: Snapped

Yes Tool, thank you.  That was the point, it shouldn’t have needed one, and their demand to affix a different one (the one supplied to meet then current 2012 legal demands was the deemed the wrong shade and wasn’t affixed) was what would ruin collectibility.  Thanks for jumping right on that.

All that detail wasn’t really relevant though.  eBay pulled it, citing legality, applicable or not.  

That’s not the only example of that I a cite either.  Maybe if I post more later you can dissect them too.