Ebay article: 7/09 COINage- Faked Out

Very true. And the judge will also be giving you, as the jury, specific instructions on point of law or to disregard certain aspects of the evidence or testimony presented. The jury does not have the option to simply disregarded these instructions.

Yes, but and investigation can lead to a number of possible outcomes including a simple closure of the investigation for no wrong doing, a lawsuit brought by the government against eBay, or simply a consent decree settling the matter.

They have policies in place to "protect the buyer". As far as negligence is concerned, your definition may not match that of the jury. I am curious how you view that eBay has itself financially harmed you? If you are referring to losing money to a seller that has committed fraud against you, it is that seller that has done the financial harm. The sales contract is between you and that seller, not you and eBay. As far as your last point, Federal Courts have already determined that eBays policies and implementation against counterfeits is already sufficient. i do not see where the breach of duty has occurred.

See, the biggest problem is that eBay has really not committed illegal or unlawful acts as determined already through current actions and investigations. The primary reason I have read is because eBay does in fact have policies in place and they implement said policies. Some of the policies may not be enforced to our liking, but that does not necessarily denote negligence on their part.

That is not to say that there are not significant problems with eBay, as I have noted in the past. When bad seed makes bad decisions, it sometimes takes time to correct policy and implementation to the higher standard expected by some. I am not trying to defend eBay, except for the fact that we should be fair in our assessment of them and their activities.

Furthermore, if people are truly having so many unresolved issues and problems with eBay, I still fail to see why said people are still refusing to write the Attorney Generals' Offices in California and their own respective States on these issues. Like you said, things will happen if people start complaining more and more, but if nobody is complaining or not complaining to the right people, then nothing will happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Neither do I, but the biggest problem is not the knowledgeable coin connoisseur, but grandma or grandpa, or even ma and pa, who go onto eBay to look for a great present for their coin collecting young'un. It is the ignorant* who are left with the chaff.

The owner of the building at your local coin shop may very well also be providing a venue for the sale of counterfeit merchandise. Does this mean that the building owner's activities of renting the building to a coin dealer who sells some counterfeits is committing illegal actions?

Why does an ISP not get towed into court when a computer cracker is caught and arrested? The ISP provided the service and venue for the cracker to conduct his illegal activity.

The point is, eBay is a venue. I have even used this very fact in dealing with eBay and PayPal a few times when they tried to interfere with a contract. Regardless, eBay does have and implements policies against illegal activity on their venue.

Here is the problem. Your definition of sufficiency in prevention may not necessarily be that of others. If such an item came before a competent jury, do you truly believe that there is the greater chance of convincing them that your definition is any better than eBay's? This is where the fight is. If you can convince a jury to your side on this issue, then the case against eBay would be much stronger.

In the Tiffany case, one of the issues was that of counterfeiting. Tiffany made the same arguments that eBay's active role against counterfeits was not sufficient. The court disagreed. This is the point that the "battleground" will most likely stand.


*ignorant: Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.

 

I do not believe it is really new. It's just the fact that the internet makes it easier to do.

I would have to disagree with you in this point. It is in no way a problem that the laws do not exist, nor that the laws are not enforced. It is the fact that people are simply not reporting the illegal activity! The Secret Service investigates all matters of counterfeiting, including the sale, as well as utterance, of such.

Have you filed a complaint with the Secret Service lately on any coins you see were counterfeits being sold? Are you sure enough, beyond doubt, that said coins are, in fact, counterfeit? Are you willing to testify or give deposition regarding the authenticity of said alleged counterfeit? Are you willing to put your name to a written affidavit?

These are very serious questions. If you are not wiling to do such, then really, do you think you should be making the accusations at all? I get very vocal on issues when I deem it is necessary. But, I also take proactive steps against what I see as a possible legal wrong. If more people did this, then we would likely see less and less of these illegal activities occurring.

No further legislation is needed. If investigation is required, it will happen. If you want to see the investigations happen, start filing the official complaints with the proper government agencies. The Secret Service, The Federal Trade Commission, the States' and Federal Attorney Generals' Offices, the Postal Inspectors...all of them have authority to investigate various aspects of the various forms of fraud committed on eBay.

Does it take time? Of course! Do you have that time? Well...if you are posting here, then you surely have time to file the official complaints with the government.

 

Isn't that the dinner grub triangle clanging I hear?

 

Only if we get to eat the 95 Theses.

This is getting thick but I just had to say something so I could find my way back here to see where it goes.

 

Haha

 

This explanation doesn't satisfy me. I understand there may be some trouble pegging ebay with a crime since they put some 'window dressing' rules in place and take token actions once in a while to ban someone, and then they just create a new username and are back.

A phone company cannot legally track what their services are being used for so no, they could not be held responsible. A phone call involved in a crime may last for a minute. An Ebay auction lasts for 7-30 days, with many people who are able to legally view it and contact the company of wrong doing.

Say a manager of a park knows that a drug deal goes down once a week in a corner of the park. He charges a fee to the dealer to keep his mouth shut and not call the cops. He's still only providing a venue?

You may say that scenario would not apply to a park but it does apply to Ebay. They are running a business that they are profiting from and they are responsible for the scumbags they allow to continue to operate on their site. It is solely used for internet auctions that not only they can legally monitor but anybody on ebay can help monitor. It is very likely that you could provide plenty of proof to show that multiple people notify them about a fraudulent auction and they may or may not remove it. They may or may not suspend the seller's account. They do not have a zero tolerance policy which is B.S. This could easily be implemented but they don't want to lose profits.

You hear about people winning a lot of bogus lawsuits that are absolutely nuts. Ebay has tried to do more in the past to combat illegal activities but now are doing less. They have acknowledged that there is a problem but now do less. The case against ebay seems like an easy one to me.

I'm talking about repeat offenders. I'm not blaming them for somebody who just signs up, rips people off for a week and runs. They allow it to go on. If a park manager knowingly allowed drug deals to go on for years in the park, is that ok?

I had a guy verbally harrassing me after an auction for 2 months. They 'temporarily' suspended his account after I forwarded about 10 e-mails to them that were insane. They then thought he had learned his lesson and decided to let him back on (for the sake of profits). Which he then did the same to someone else and got permanently banned.

I'm not impressed with their policing one bit.

 

I'm gonna tear apart some sections of your reply to show you a point here:

Do these people contact the legal authorities about the situation? Are you notifying the Secret Service of counterfeit coins being sold in the values of up to tens of thousands of dollars, or more? Do you have a preponderance of evidence to prove that wrong doing is in legal fact occurring?

Are you contacting the Attorney Generals' Offices of the State of California, as well as your respective State and the Office of the Attorney General of the United States of America? Are you providing them with a preponderance of evidence to show that eBay has, in fact, collaborated directly and individually with these sellers to fraud the general public?

Again, are these people notifying the Federal Trade Commission in complaint of the supposed fact that eBay is acting fraudulently against the general public, and providing proof or evidences of such activity?

Consider for a moment a zero tolerance policy. It would simply take an unverified complaint from a person or group of persons with some vendetta against the seller to remove said seller from his venue and source of income. Misuse and abuse are very real, and should always be considered. Wyoming has an interesting clause in its Constitution that includes, "Arbitrary and absolute powers do not exist in a Republic..." Such power is feared by many when it is held by the State, and rightfully so feared by many when held by any private entity. Something to think about.

Read the sections above again. "The case against eBay" is as easy as supplying the above referenced items of evidence to the proper authorities. Doesn't seem as easy anymore when you consider that, now does it?

The point is, it is not as easy as it may first appear to take such a case victoriously into court. What you are suggesting is that eBay is committing a crime somewhere. And if not a crime, then they are somehow conducting their business in such a way as to be actionable by parties that have been materially injured by eBay's business practices.

Concrete factual evidence is needed to convict eBay of any actual crime. A lesser amount, but still solid amount, of evidence is needed to even make a claim of tort against eBay for their business practices. And if people continue to outright refuse to contact the proper authorities with information and facts when the problems occur, then nothing ever will be done if eBay truly is breaking some law or is open to any action of tort.

Perhaps, that is because they are not the police. You want policing, contact the local police department of the fraudulent sellers that have scammed you out of money, and file a report.