Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts United States

US Sues eBay Over Sale of Harmful Products (reuters.com) 101

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
The U.S. government on Wednesday sued eBay, accusing the online platform of violating the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws by allowing the sale of several harmful products, including devices that defeat automobile pollution controls. From a report: EBay could face billions of dollars in penalties, including up to $5,580 for each Clean Air Act violation, according to the government's complaint filed in the federal court in Brooklyn, New York. The Department of Justice said eBay illegally allowed the sale of at least 343,011 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help vehicles generate more power and get better fuel economy by evading emissions controls.

EBay was also accused of allowing the sale of at least 23,000 unregistered, misbranded or restricted-use pesticides, violating a 2020 "stop sale" order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The San Jose, California-based company also allegedly distributed 5,614 paint and coating removal products containing methylene chloride, a potentially lethal chemical linked to brain and liver cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. "EBay has the power, the authority, and the resources to stop the sale of these illegal, harmful products on its website," the complaint said. "It has chosen not to; instead, it has chosen to engage in these illegal transactions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Sues eBay Over Sale of Harmful Products More

US Sues eBay Over Sale of Harmful Products

Comments Filter:

  • Ebay real provides no way to report bad listings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thatseattleguy ( 897282 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @04:53PM (#63881791) Homepage
    Defnitely. Data point: I saw a couple years ago that hundreds of (mostly overseas) sellers were advertising things under titles like "Carbon Monoxide Detector Smoke Alarm". It was clear that they were all just CO detectors alone, with no smoke alarm capability at all (assuming they worked even for their designed pupose of CO detection, but that's a different story....)
    .
    So people would clearly buy these thinking they were protected against CO and ordinary smoke, that they both kinds of alarms - but in reality had only the arguably less important one. (Regular household fires and choking smoke event are _far_ more common than CO poisoning - although both are deadly if they do happen.)
    .
    Anyways, I tried for an hour to find a way to report this through Ebay's Trust and Safety system - and gave up. It didn't fit any of their preconceived categories of "Listing Violations" and there was no way they would allow someone to alert them about (dangerously) mislabeled products. It was clear that Ebay, in the end, really didn't seem to want to know that something's being sold on their site that shouldn't be - they just wanted the revenue.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Keyword spam in titles and descriptions is a problem on many platforms. So far nobody has come up with a good solution to it.

  • Not going to lie (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Several years ago my home AC quit working. It was a bit low on R22 freon. I bought two pounds from an eBay seller and refilled it myself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by laktech ( 998064 )
      baller. I needed to kill a wasp nest and was able to find the good stuff and did it myself.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      The thing is R22 freon is not illegal to use. It's illegal to manufacture. Nobody's saying you can't use R22 in your aging AC. But as the supply dwindles, the price will go up. And from what I understand, because of the harm to the environment, only certified professionals can purchase and use it. So the fact that you bought R22 on eBay could implicate them in the process, but I think this is arm-twisting by U.S. against eBay. Instead of going after individual sellers, they're trying to pawn the probl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )

        The thing is R22 freon is not illegal to use. It's illegal to manufacture.

        And illegal to import into the US.

      • You can't buy R22 without a valid license.

        • you can get a Section 608 Technician Certification online. you can also use R152 as an alternative to R22, it's the gas used in air duster cans that is intentionally vented to atmosphere and is compatible in r22 HVAC systems.

  • This word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

    It's unfortunate that nobody has linked to the lawsuit itself, but I'm sure https://www.techdirt.com/ [techdirt.com] will.
    - Who is the plaintiff? "US" is unclear. Is it the US DoJ?
    - What are the damages to the plaintiff?
    - What laws did the defendant violate?
    - What circumstances change the calculus? (e.g. 230's safe harbor provisions)

    Nothing burgers. I'll have fries with that.

    • I don't have the slightest clue what you're rambling about. What does section 230 have to do with eBay selling restricted items?

      • Umm, let's see .. I know thinking is hard for you, but try.

        eBay is a website. eBay has users that lost items on that website. Section 230 says that eBay is not responsible for the items that those users list on their site.

        How the fuck is eBay supposed to know what is and is not legal, safe or anything else? That is the whole purpose of the safe harbor provision.

        The government needs to go after the individual sellers .. SMFH.

        • Section 230 says that eBay is not responsible for the items that those users list on their site.

          eBay banned Confederate flags and Nazi memorabilia. While I support the Section 230 argument in theory, they can certainly be forced to ban illegal item listings if they can willingly ban legal items on behalf of the woke.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gavron ( 1300111 )

        I don't have the slightest clue ...

        Yes, that's evident. Other posters have explained it well. I'll try to add to it:
        eBay hosts user generated content (UGC). They don't moderate or edit it. They are a US company and under US law (cited) they have a safe harbor from being held as the publisher or responsible party for content they didn't post (i.e. UGC).

        That means, genius, that the US DoJ has no business suing eBay, and [as a previous poster has pointed out] it should be going after the actual creators of the content (advertising for items

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          eBay hosts user generated content (UGC). They don't moderate or edit it. They are a US company and under US law (cited) they have a safe harbor from being held as the publisher or responsible party for content they didn't post (i.e. UGC).

          That's not how it works in a marketplace boss. If you think otherwise, start selling some illegal drugs on eBay and let us know how it works out for you.

          • That's not how it works in a marketplace boss. If you think otherwise, start selling some illegal drugs on eBay and let us know how it works out for you.

            Which "us" is this you think is owed some due diligence?

            YOU are welcome to go sell drugs if you want. I don't violate the drug laws just to show a genius on /. how eBay sucks at moderation.

          • Exactly, there is absolutely a line and the government is telling eBay they went over it. If we think eBay is behind the line well, this case will put it to to the test.

            Section 230 is not a magic blanket over anything and everything, the most obvious exception to it's rules are actions on a website that are illegal or facilitate illegal activities. You can't sell drugs, you can't threaten violence, you can't coordinate violent acts and on and on.

            The main thing the government will probably show in this cas

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shaitan ( 22585 )

              "That's what gets a site in hot water, showing no effort to moderate."

              I'd contend the most recent supreme court ruling [I believe it was facebook, child porn/sex trafficking] essentially indicated that ebay would both have to know about the activity, know it was illegal, and be going out of their way to treat it differently than other similar content to lose their liability shield.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            As so many have been quick to point out in defense of social media companies taking sides in politics, eBay is allowed to enforce their moderation policies and doesn't become liable if they imperfectly do so.

        • Basically we can't sue Chinese citizens, but we can sue a U.S. business. While legally Ebay/Amazon/bababa/etc. are currently a safe harbor, I would suggest the problem is at the point that safe harbor status has to change to address the increasing problem. And yes allowing foreign businesses to circumvent our own consumer and environmental protection laws IS a problem.

        • Sounds like a reasonable defense to put into a motion for summary dismissal to me. Let the judge - an expert on the law - sort it out.

          This is exactly what the courts are for, by the way.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            Sure is but that doesn't mean it isn't also fair and insightful commentary to post on here.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        Ebay doesn't sell anything and Section 230 protects them from liability from content third parties list using their platform.

        The government is trying to ignore/bypass this because they don't want to do the same unreasonable work they expect Ebay to do, police all the sellers.

    • Hey, this here:

      "- What laws did the defendant violate?"

      There's only 1 law any more. It is: "Don't do anything unusual." Check and see - you find that people get stopped in their cars for shit that is nowhere close to illegal, but they just happen to be the only one doing it, so... arrest 'em. "For what?" "Never mind, we'll think of something."

      It's like Michigan, who never had a radar detector law, was arresting people for having one anyway, and trying to apply something obscure and decades old, befor

  • Walmart and Kroger for selling Coca Cola and Pepsi, as those are clearly harmful products?

  • Aren't most of these eBay "defeat" devices scams?

    They connect to the OBD-2 port, make a show of blinking lights, and that's it, the rest is all placebo.

    Anyways, if eBay gets struct down for these, I won't complain, even if it does nothing to emissions.

    • In a lot of cases that's enough since if you have a CEL on your car from say, disabling an emission device in a state with inspections you can't pass.

      For my Tacoma I had a failed "Secondary Air Injection Pump Smog Pump" which is just an air pump that injects air into the manifold to reduce emissions but only ever on cold startups. At the time it was $900 to replace since you had to buy an entire assembly. Since I am not in an inspection state I was able to purchase a little PCB that wired in and both disa [hewitt-tech.com]

      • I built a similar device for an old Benz of mine. The engine passages were carboned up and the O2 sensor would not detect enough of a change when the air pump was running. It was a little board with a relay and a few other parts wired into the ECU compartment. When power was applied to the blower it turned on the relay and switched some resistor in the path of the O2 sensor. The readings looked like it dropped and the check engine light stayed off.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        Disabling parts of your emissions system and/or ignoring the CEL is rarely to your long term benefit. If nothing else you will accelerate wear and tear on the catalytic converter and those cost a small fortune to replace. You are usually shooting yourself in the foot on fuel economy too.

        There's photo sensing technology out there that can detect vehicles with faulty emissions systems on the roadways outside of the annual inspection game. The NMA [motorists.org] has a position paper [motorists.org] on it and advocates for wider scale ad

        • Sure, in a lot of cases it can be bad, especially like in your case an O2 sensor is not really an "emissions" component but a vital part of the engine, not servicing that is really going to wreak havoc since your ECU has not enough information to know how it should adjust trims. Like a lot of things having some knowledge and ability about your car and a bit of research goes a long long way.

          In my particular case I found out pretty quickly it's a well known issue amongst these vehicles and pretty established

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            These unusual but so common we all run into them on the regular situations that don't fit in the one size fits all rules are exactly why freedom requires imperfect law enforcement.

            Basically the state should have limited enough resources to fight crime that they never get around to harmless good faith workarounds and minor mutinies like this. And if they do so anyway, flipping them the bird when they try to jail your neighbor is what jury nullification is for.

        • There's photo sensing technology out there that can detect vehicles with faulty emissions systems on the roadways outside of the annual inspection game. The NMA [motorists.org] has a position paper [motorists.org] on it and advocates for wider scale adoption in lieu of costly annual inspections.

          Not every state requires emissions checks.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shakrai ( 717556 )

            The point is the roadside sensing technology is better than emissions checks. Even the States without emissions checks have laws against faulty emission control systems. They just don't waste your time compelling you to take a perfectly functional vehicle through an annual test. You can and will get pulled over if your vehicle is trailing smoke though. Ditto in the States with emissions checks, that "passed" sticker doesn't negate the cloud of smoke coming out of the tailpipe.

      • In a lot of cases that's enough since if you have a CEL on your car from say, disabling an emission device in a state with inspections you can't pass

        What's a "CEL"?

        This is all interesting talk...I've never lived in a state where I had to get my emissions checked.

        I thought it was pretty much only California that did that on cars....

        • CEL = Check Engine Light.
          In WA, more urban counties require emission testing, but rural counties don't.
          I remember when I first moved to WA (from CA, where I didn't have to go through inspections) with an old car, having to drive to the emission station, working my engine hard to heat it up; park nearby; raise the idle way up to try to keep it from dying; back off engine timing from "recommended" to "CA emission requirements"; get tested; pull off and reverse everything so that it would run properly again. I

    • Things like oxygen sensor simulators or "tuning" devices so people in diesel trucks can pwn libs by rolling coal. Personally I find wiping my ass with dollar bills more fulfilling than converting diesel into soot.

  • If you have a non-astigmatic prescription for nearsighted glasses, you can get "myopia reading glasses" on EBay for $10-15 ... whereas legit glasses stores tend to charge $100+ for the same damn thing.

    I know, "myopia reading glasses" is an oxymoron, but it's technically illegal to sell negative diopter specs OTC in the US (unlike basically all of the rest of the world, thanks Big Pharma), so they use a workaround.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I don't know what you're talking about. Those glasses are for sale in my local grocery+ store. (I'd say department store, but it's mainly groceries.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by r0nc0 ( 566295 )
        IDK but I've never seen negative diopter reading glasses for sale, only positive diopter ones. I think that's what the poster is talking about here.

        • It's illegal to sell negative diopter glasses OTC in the "Land of the Free."

          So sellers label then as "myopia reading glasses" or "negative reading glasses" just to get around EBay's nanny content filters.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Well, ISTM I've seen both on sale. I can't be really certain, as it's been well over a year since I examined them. (They didn't work, because I have too much astigmatism, so I stopped looking at them.)
          A quick google search shows Walmart advertising both farsighted and nearsighted glasses.

      • Only reading glasses (+ diopters) are sold OTC. Distance glasses (- diopters) aren't sold OTC in the US. Jokes on them ... I got an eye exam for $25 in Eastern Europe and two pairs of good quality astigmatic Rx glasses for $30 per pair. Suck on it, Warby Parker!

    • I know, "myopia reading glasses" is an oxymoron, but it's technically illegal to sell negative diopter specs OTC in the US

      How about positive dioptre glasses because reading glasses have positive dioptre lenses to move the near point of your vision nearer so that you can read.

      • Positive dioptre glasses are legal OTC in the US, negative are not. But smart sellers brand negative glasses as "reading" or "readers" to get around nannyfuck content filters.
  • It's amazon, they are the real monster in the room and they are both equally bad. The worst offenders are resellers pawning fake power supplies from china. These power supplies have the UL label (and other NRTLS) silkscreened onto the product or on a sticker, but if you look up the serial number they are fake. It is a huge problem because when they came up with saftey processes for retailers it was supposed to be enforced at the retailer and if you bought a defective or unsafe product you could sue the reta

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Amazon isn't usually the retailer, they are just the listing platform, the seller listing is the retailer. Ebay as far as I know doesn't retail anything at all.

      • Yeah, but they have to be the gatekeepers on enforcement, because they hold the legal framework and the policies on listing and selling. They payments go through them so I would argue that they are selling products.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          No, the Feds would like them to be gatekeepers on enforcement. They don't have to be even if they to some extent choose to selectively be, that is what 230 is about.

          "They payments go through them so I would argue that they are selling products."

          By that reasoning Visa, Mastercard, and Amex and pretty much every bank are in deep trouble... millions of illegal transactions run through them every day.

  • More Fearmongering (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @06:05PM (#63881985)

    Too bad really. Methylene chloride isn't illegal. It's an effective solvent that used to be used in paint removers. It was removed from consumer paint removers in 2019 because some basic precautions are needed that consumers can't be trusted to follow (like gloves and adequate ventilation), but it's still used in professional paint removers and other products. The fact that it's "linked with cancer" is completely irrelevant, it just requires some basic training to use safely, but you can't trust the average DIYer to understand basic instructions anymore. Everything has to be safe enough to bathe your child in now or it's banned.

    I actually hope ebay weasels out of those charges because it's the only effective way to remove some paints.

    • You can also find it for sale as "dichloromethane." You can buy the pure stuff legally ... it just can't be sold as a component of a paint stripper anymore.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      That's what has always been great about ebay, you can get around most nonsense nanny laws when you need to and most importantly you can bypass so called 'safety' regulations that are really nothing more than exclusive contracts for paid servicers.

      This is how I have a light and uv curable resin I can bust out when the dentist claims I have "pre-cavities." For $60 I have everything covered for more than I'll ever need. I actually have lidocaine and could do it but for a real cavity that could have decay that

  • I remember when it was possible to buy parts for fighter jets on ebay. Those were the good ol days of freedom.

  • The San Jose, California-based company also allegedly distributed 5,614 paint and coating removal products containing methylene chloride

    eBay isn't Amazon, they don't distribute stuff. They just connect buyers to sellers and also optionally sell postage. It's UPS, FedEx, DHL and the USPS that did the distribution. But they're common carriers (actual ones, not what the people opposing free speech on the internet think it means) so you can't sue them...

  • ...they keep selling horse speculums nothing will really change...

  • i wonder: Are eBay executives forcing people to buy these items? Is the government collecting taxes off these sales?

Slashdot Top Deals

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Close