Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Ebay Negative Feedback Lawsuit Dismissed 208

Posted by timothy from the silence-is-golden dept.
ccnull writes "Slashdot readers may recall the Ebay user who was suing Ebay over allegedly libellous feedback. That case has now been dismissed under the CDA, essentially giving Ebay 'common carrier' immunity, much like an ISP. Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? You decide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ebay Negative Feedback Lawsuit Dismissed More

Ebay Negative Feedback Lawsuit Dismissed

Comments Filter:

  • First post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aliencow ( 653119 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @12:57AM (#5888486) Homepage Journal
    And I will TOTALLY sue you if you mod me down !

  • Perhaps they should add... (Score:5, Informative)

    by paranoidsim ( 239426 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:00AM (#5888498)
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Decision (Score:5, Funny)

    by Maxwell'sSilverLART ( 596756 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:00AM (#5888500) Homepage

    Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? You decide.

    Me? I thought that was up to the judge, who already decided.

  • Of course ebay is not liable. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:01AM (#5888508) Homepage Journal
    This is because they don't screen the comments. I think we all remember how AOL and Prodigy were found to be liable for what was in their forums because they moderated them. But ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there. His beef is with the poster, not with ebay.

    Now, it would seem that ebay should be liable for anything for sale on it because they do screen items offered for auction, though perhaps the commerce aspect of things protects them in other ways.

    • Re:Of course ebay is not liable. (Score:5, Informative)

      by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:06AM (#5888535) Homepage
      The person suing was suing because Ebay wouldn't remove the comment, not because the comment got put there in the first place. Still, Ebay shouldn't be liable, and their EULA probably sees to that.
      • The person suing was suing because Ebay wouldn't remove the comment, not because the comment got put there in the first place. Still, Ebay shouldn't be liable, and their EULA probably sees to that.
        Exactly, and if Ebay decided to remove it than they would be moderating the boards and be liable for what gets posted. Hence, they lose immunity. Ebay should tell Mr. Grace to stick his 7 legal newspapers straight up his ass.

        It would be analogous to Slashdot deleting comments, and thus losing it's immunity...

    • Re:Of course ebay is not liable. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ccnull ( 607939 ) <null.filmcritic@com> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:09AM (#5888560) Homepage
      But eBay will remove comments in certain cases. Post someone's phone number, for example; they also act as an appeals court and can be persuaded that a comment is wrong or malicious -- this is rare, sure, but it does happen.

      You're right though: the catch though is that eBay goes to extreme lengths to monitor the items for sale on the site but then professes hands off on user comments. It's kind of like me saying that I'll watch your kids while they're in my house but if they head out back to the pool and drown that's tough shit. I think eventually this will be decided in the courts as it's a very thin line the company's straddling.

      But yeah, the guy should have sued the poster of the comments. Suing eBay is incidental. But they have a lot more money.

      • Re:Of course ebay is not liable. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dmoynihan ( 468668 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:27AM (#5888627) Homepage
        Actually, it gets weirder.

        Ebay's got this partnership/close-connection/they spam you with a group called SquareTrade [squaretrade.com] that you can sign up for (I think you have to have certain number of feedbacks/powerseller status).

        SquareTrade lets you do feedback resolution [squaretrade.com]--though of course you have to send them an extra couple of dollars each month.

        I guess ebay uses a third party to keep from being considered in any way responsible for comments... but I don't think it's that hard to remove negative feedback (never done it myself.)

    • But should they be? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:26AM (#5888625) Homepage Journal

      This is because they don't screen the comments. ...ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there.
      Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion.

      Personally, I think Grace sounds like a slimebag. But his argument does have merit: eBay is not simply a conduit for information, like an ISP. eBay actively publishes content onto the web, and Grace is arguing that eBay should be held responsible when that content violates the law.

      Without reading the judge's decision, it's difficult to speculate as to his reasoning. [I'm not very familiar with the CDA.] I wonder whether his decision applies only to libel. If someone posted an auction including child pornography images, for example, and that auction made its way onto the search pages...could the government prosecute eBay, as a publisher of that illegal content?

      It's also worth noting that the entire case has not been dismissed. Grace sued both eBay and the "memorabilia dealer" who allegedly posted the "libelous feedback." The judge dismissed Grace's claim against eBay (Grace vows to appeal), but presumably the claim against the dealer still stands.

      crib

      • Re:But should they be? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jetson ( 176002 )
        Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion.

        Why not? None of the participants on the site are compelled to be there against their will. You are clearly told when you sign up (and many times thereafter) that the vendor and winning bidder will be subject to feedback.

        Personally, I think Grace sounds like a slimebag. But his argument does have merit: e

      • Re:But should they be? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:21AM (#5889370)
        "Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion."

        Yes, they can. They can design their site to take advantage of any legal status they wish.

        Although you perhaps don't realize it there's no technological reason why the phone system and the post system are designed the way they are either.

        The phone system *could* be a monitored party line. They only *choose* for it to private and unmonitord.

        Similarly the post office *could* only carry postcards and refuse to deliver any they deemed unappropriate.

        They don't lose common carrier status *because* they chose to be common carriers. That would be doofey.

        "Hey, you. Over there. Yeah, you buddy. You're under arrest for murder because you *chose* not to kill someone. You Bastard."

        KFG
      • This is because they don't screen the comments. ...ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there.

        Isn't that just how things are these days? No one wants to be responsible for what they're doing or what they're up to. And thus not being responsible, when you should be more responsible, it takes the actions of having to bring law proceedings forth to get someone to act or change. And that, I believe, is costing lots of money, and is a whole load of foolishness.
  • Thats like Arizona Jeans sueing JCPenny because someone posted something bad on some forums about their "Arizona Jeans they just bought at JCPenny." Rediculous....

    • Re:Well Duh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SYFer ( 617415 ) *
      Actually, your analogy is off the mark. It would be more like JCPenny, as an integral part of their business, promoting and touting a "rate the vendor" board where a customer made libelous statements about AZ Jeans. I think AZ Jeans would be justified in a suit (naming both the libelous speaker and the facilitator, JCP). The Seller Comments section of eBay is much more than a mere uncontrolled bulletin board--it's the stock in trade of the people who do business there. It's not billed as a chat board,

      • Re:Well Duh... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rifter ( 147452 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @03:51AM (#5889042) Homepage

        Well regardless I am pretty sick of hearing of lawyers who seem to define libel as "anything negative however true." I should also point out that opinions are not libel. If I think Ebay sucks, and say so, then I am stating an opinion. Libel is when someone knowingly and maliciously tells lies in order to harm someone's reputation.

        If I think GWB blows goats, and it's not true, but I say he does, I am just a looney. But if I know for a fact he does not blow goats, and say he does, that is libel. If we stripped lawyers of their licenses and made them go back to school when they came up with bullshit like this, taht even a layman can see is a spurious legal argument, maybe we would see less of it.

        • If I think GWB blows goats, and it's not true, but I say he does, I am just a looney. But if I know for a fact he does not blow goats, and say he does, that is libel.

          I believe libel suits also involve a measure of plausability - it's only libel if a 'reasonable person' might believe it was true. For instance, no one would believe Bush really blows goats (unless you're a looney ;) ), but if I were to say that I saw Bush's two (at the time) under-age daughters drinking at a frat party (true) and then getti

  • Makes total sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by icemax ( 565022 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <enots_d_wehttam>> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:03AM (#5888522) Homepage
    Ebay created the system of social moderation and assignment of trustworthyness. People who abuse it should be dealt with in that system, but by no means is the system creator responsible. Just my $0.02

    • Re:Makes total sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:49AM (#5888697)
      Plus, the lawsuit is totally silly. One bad feedback isnt going to mess up his rating. The beauty of ebay is that it works on averages: so all he would have to do is make sure his future auctions completed to everyones satisfaction.

      Sure, it kind of sounded like the guy who won the auction was being a dick, but thats hardly ebay's fault.

    • commerce and publishing: ebay should be liable (Score:5, Informative)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @02:42AM (#5888866)
      should ebay be liable, yes. why? because a major part of what e-bay is selling is your good reputation. That is to say, one of the reasons you come back again anad again to buy or sell and the whole reason you use the same user name is to build your reputation.

      its cumaulative tangible value infact exceed the value of the profit margin on MOST if not all transactions. You can infact SELL your user ID for cash proving this point. think about it.

      Many stores delberately sell items cheaply to establish an intial good reputation which allows them to seek higher profits later. E-bay knows this and promotes this will all sorts of "power seller badges" and the ability to restrict sales to people with good feedaback, and even offers the opportunity for enhanced selling venues to people with lots of good feedback. They are selling you the chance to improve your reputation.

      if this reputation had no directly related commercial value, such as on slashdot then one could safely argue that ebay was not selling it. but they are and they are making money off of it. therefore their obligation to help you protect that reputation exists.

      the fact that they cannot economically do so given the number of users is not any excuse at all. General motors could sell cars more cheaply too if they did not have to obey laws on car safety.

      in deed, digressing a bit, e-bay does not adequately police the safety of their web site against fraud. just because it would cut into their profits to do so again does not make this an excuse. Night club owners are obligated to hire security to protect their patrons from evil doers. so is e-bay. Why? again because e-bay is making a profit off the activity.

    • The system does allow sellers to respond to any feedback they receive, so if someone leaves some negative feedback they can always put in their side of the story. It does not affect score, but it does show up when you look at comments like the lawyer was complaining about. It's too bad he did not just use the system for resolving his problem instead of claiming the system has no way to resolve his problem. Perhaps Ebay should countersue him for libel ;) ?

  • This is definitely a good thing (Score:5, Informative)

    by localghost ( 659616 ) <dleblanc@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:03AM (#5888524)
    If ebay were held responsible for unmoderated feedback other users left, that would set a very bad precedent. There's not much difference between that and modding a post down on slashdot. Now if someone accuses you of something that isn't true, that's something to take up with that individual. Suing ebay for that would be like suing someone's ISP because their SMTP servers were used by someone to send a libelous email about you. It just doesn't work that way.

    • Re:This is definitely a good thing (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "...used by someone to send a libelous email about you."
      Sue them? Why not just get them arrested? Arizona law, at least, states:

      "Recklessly using a computer... (to) Cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress"

      Read the Statute [state.az.us]

      Class 5 felony; pretty funny prank to pull on your friends next time they piss you off. Of course Sheriff Joe [arpaio.com] would be glad to help his campaign with a few more numbers on his charts... jackass anyone?
    • If ebay were held responsible for unmoderated feedback other users left, that would set a very bad precedent. There's not much difference between that and modding a post down on slashdot.

      Well, sorta. Ebay feedback is an evaluation of you as someone to do business with. Ebay owes its existence and success to the establishment of trust via the feedback system. Moderation on Slashdot, OTOH, is something that applies to an individual post, not its author. The purpose is to make good posts visible above the ba
  • victory for an end to frivalous law suits? Haha, just kidding. There are many more frivalous law suits to come, and for god knows what. Maybe that "spider bite I got at Disneyland" (Bart).

    the article sez it best : "The ruling is just too sophomoric and silly not to be appealed" . And that is how I feel, not some sort of law gone haywire or victory for free-speech, just silly.

  • Well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Raven42rac ( 448205 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:04AM (#5888530)
    Gee, tripe like this clogs the legal system, while hundreds of more relevant cases go unheard, god bless america. That would be like me suing a person's parents when he calls me an "asshole", does not make any sense, does it? An alternate route would have been to get a court order to make eBay disclose the identity of the alleged libeler (is that a word?, yes according to dictionary.com) then go after him directly, seems like a no-brainer, if I have learned one thing from this country, it is that it is much easier to sue the shit out of a person than a "big, evil corporation".

  • Phew! (Score:5, Funny)

    by H0NGK0NGPH00EY ( 210370 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:05AM (#5888534) Homepage
    So, I guess this guy [ebay.com] is probably safe then.

    • Re:Phew! (Score:5, Funny)

      by mrjive ( 169376 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:54AM (#5888713) Homepage Journal
      Reminds me of the 600+ customer reviews [amazon.com] for a David Hasselhoff "Best Of" album that all appear to be written by one person.
      • That is the funniest shit I've read in months!
      • 1) Do you think David Hasselholf searched for his album on Amazon and saw the reviews?

        2) Do you think David attempted to contact the people who "wrote" the reviews?

        3) Is E.W. going to do a special on the return of David Hasselhoff after finding a link on a certain forum that shows evidence of a resurgance, hinting at a new undercurrent in the Bay?

        4) Will MacRumors.com chastise E.Weekly for reporting without fact checking, and posting fabricated benchmarks?? (David H. vs. William S., CIFS, GLMark, TCPA-B

      • Re:Phew! (Score:4, Funny)

        by Paul87 ( 201172 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @03:29AM (#5888996)
        ...and my personal favourite [amazon.com]
    • Damn, I just found my new fortune file !
    • I go skinnydipping and think of you when the fish are nibbling my reef.

      Its a veritable gold mine! Harvest the trolls of ebay to increase the variety on slashdot (because trollkore and sci-fi offtopic is getting boring).

      Remember kids, all comments are attributable to the poster. Judge Willhite says so!
    • Andy can be honest from time to time.....

      maverick1(312)
      Mar-31-99 18:56:41 PST
      78377512
      Praise : Swift, smooth transactin. Great buyer, an asset to theeBay community. A++++
      Response by andy46477 - I have to disagree with what he said. Generally, I'm no asset to any community.

  • Neither? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:06AM (#5888537)
    Common sense prevails? Since eBay did not make the libelous statements why should they be held responsible.
    • Because the publisher of an article can get sued for libel. That's why newspapers get sued.

  • Feedback system needs work... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SamMichaels ( 213605 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:06AM (#5888539)
    With the amount of money they make, you'd think they could dedicate a little more man power to their feedback dispute resolution department. All it takes is a simple 'delete' SQL command, yet it seems to take the Supreme Court to get their attention.

    Are they going to get a zillion complaints from people if they relax their dispute policy? Sure. But guess what...it's a big company, they should be able to get the man power.

    There are plenty of people who abuse it [ebay.com]...
    • ...while people do abuse it, most of the disputing feedback receivers are probably doing it for frivolous reasons. I've had to leave negative feedback for a few people, and it's not a pleasant experience. It doesn't matter if you're just telling the truth--they send you nasty emails, leave *you* negative feedback even if you did nothing wrong, etc.

      So Ebay would probably end up spending all their time pointing out to people, "Yes, if you lie about what shipping method you're using, they're justified in le

  • Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jonin893 ( 666637 )
    If that case didn't get thrown out something would be seriously wrong.
    If EBay can get sued for that, I'd hate to see what would happen to Amazon.com for their buyer comments. As long as EBay makes it clear that the views of its posters are not their views, that's how the system is supposed to work. The reason other users are allowed to make comments is to warn other people about crazy sellers.

    And does anyone else find all the supposed "first posts" amusing? At least this time the true FP was apt.
  • Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? You decide.

    Ok, Victory for free speech.

    Wow, that felt good, thanks Slashdot.

  • Horse puckey (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:08AM (#5888549)
    I've seen at least one case where eBay altered the scoring of comments. It was an account used by Microsoft, and contained commment after comment still smouldering from the fifth circle of Hell, and yet they all had a 'neutral' rating. Tell me eBay wasn't tamperng with those.

    • Re:Horse puckey (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jms ( 11418 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:37AM (#5888650)
      I've seen at least one case where eBay altered the scoring of comments. It was an account used by Microsoft, and contained comment after comment still smouldering from the fifth circle of Hell, and yet they all had a 'neutral' rating. Tell me eBay wasn't tampering with those.

      I emailed ebay at the time and got this response:
      On Wed, 31 May 2000 12:57:51 eBay Customer Support wrote:

      > Hello John,
      >
      > Thank you for taking the time to write us with your concern about our
      > feedback policy. I will be happy to address your concerns. First the
      > feedback for msoft@buddy.ebay.com hasn't been altered and our policies
      > haven't been changed for this member.
      >
      > About three months ago we changed our feedback policy. Before members
      > could leave neutral comments to any other member at any time. Negative
      > comments had to be transaction related, so when members were upset with
      > another member even if it wasn't in regards to a transaction they had
      > completed with that member they could leave neutral comments.
      >
      > To answer your first question the feedback wasn't altered from negative
      > to neutral. All of the comments that are neutral were originally left as
      > neutral comments.
      >
      > Many alternatives to curb misuse of the Feedback Forum while still
      > maintaining a non-transactional feedback option were considered.
      > However, the input that we received from the community was
      > overwhelmingly in favor of linking every comment to an actual
      > transaction on the site.
      >
      > Based on that, we decided to change the past system to make all feedback
      > transaction related. I hope that this information helps explain why this
      > member has so many neutral comments. If you have any other questions or
      > concerns feel free to contact us.
      >
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Dale H. D.
      > eBay Customer Support
      I just checked, and it appears that all of the feedback for msoft has completely disappeared [ebay.com] at some point in the last three years.

  • libel (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ramzak2k ( 596734 ) * on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:09AM (#5888556)
    this whole libel thing is scary. i cant think of one particular case where it could be used rightly. I find the court defaulting against libel rather comforting. Honestly, If call someone bitch repeatedly can he/she sue me for libel ? Where does one draw the line between good freedom of speech and libel speech ??

  • There is some sanity (Score:5, Informative)

    by jlechem ( 613317 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:09AM (#5888559) Homepage Journal
    Really did anyone expect anything else out of this case? Of course I'm biased *cough*paycheck*cough*. I didn't expecet anything less and eBay even makes you agree to the following when you sign up. I'm just glad no silliness happened and they were actually found liable.

    Section 8 of the user agreement [ebay.com]:
    Feedback.

    8.1 Integrity. You may not take any actions that may undermine the integrity of the feedback system. We may limit the number of bids and listings you may place on the Site based upon the level of your feedback. If you earn a net feedback rating of -4 (minus four), your membership may be suspended, and you may be unable to list or bid.

    8.2 Export. You acknowledge that your feedback consists of comments left by other users and a composite feedback number compiled by eBay, and that the composite number without the comments does not convey your full user profile. Because feedback ratings are not designed for any purpose other than for facilitating trading between eBay users, you agree that you shall not market or export your eBay feedback rating in any venue other than an eBay operated website.

    8.3 Import. We do not provide you the technical ability to import feedback from other (non-eBay operated) websites to eBay because a composite number, without the corresponding feedback does not reflect your true online reputation within our community

    Also the stock is down 1.3% to 94 bucks, good god that is amazing in these tech stock days of woe.

    • user agreements cant limit your right to sue. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      its a fact: unconditional user agreements cant limit your right to sue. unless you actually negotiated your right, say in return for a lower price, you cannot give up your right to sue, even though the contract says so. this is classic legal construct recognized in all 50 states for centuries.

      you are engaging in a contract with e-bay when you pay them. they have to excersize due dilligence. Simply stating they are not responsible is not a legal excuse since the contract is not negotiable.

      skiing is not
  • If a journalist writes an artical for a food Zine that is not in too high regard, can they recive the same treatment? Oprah and cows all over again.

  • The ruling is correct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:12AM (#5888572)
    Grace said he would be liable if one of his papers carried defamatory information from a third party, and said Web site operators should be held to the same standard.

    Will Grace's papers allow me to have something printed for free, and without checking it out first? I think not.

    The ruling was the correct one, and the only thing "sophomoric and silly" about it is Grace filing it in the first place. If he can prove the remarks made by the other party were libel then sure he should be allowed to collect from that third party. But I think the only reason he went after eBay too was to a) make a name for himself (and I can think of several choice names that would fit), and b) because eBay has deep pockets whereas the dude he feels libeled him probably does not.

    And to anyone who thinks that eBay should have been held responsible, I would ask this...should Slashdot now be held responsible for what I am saying in this post?

    • And to anyone who thinks that eBay should have been held responsible, I would ask this...should Slashdot now be held responsible for what I am saying in this post?

      Microsoft and the Church of Scientology seem to think so. I think it is funny that whereas /. never removed comments before, even those which broke MS agreements, they removed a comment containing what they say is copyrighted material but which is freely available by order of the courts (google for Fishman Affidavit).

      The Church of Scientolo

  • Absolutely, a victory for free speech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) * on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:13AM (#5888574) Homepage
    People need to understand the spin/slant/censorship of medium they're reading, and it should be clearly disclosed. If ebay's feedback were filtered to protect the guilty, then who'd trust ebay? By the same token, anyone reading the feeback should realize that USER feedback is given by the USERS, not ebay. It's so fucking simple... I'm glad the court dismissed this quickly.

    I'm apalled that google, for example, downplays the fact that their search results are filtered, tuned, and censored depending on regional law and demographics. The flip-side of this is that anyone hoping for "common carrier" status must truly be transparent to whatever information they convey.

  • Good Lawyers (Score:2, Informative)

    by LamerX ( 164968 )
    Looks like eBay had better lawyers than Slashdot did in this case:

    http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226.sh tm l

  • Agree with the decision ... not necessarily eBay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adzoox ( 615327 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:18AM (#5888595) Journal
    I agree with the decision because the eBay user agreement states that everyone owns there own feedback comments.

    However, while there are places like SquareTrade [squaretrade.com] that remove feedback, I still find eBay's policy of NOT removing libellous comments irresponsible at best.

    As a seller on eBay for more than 5 years, now with more than 1500 feedback comments (99.2% positive), I have felt every negative for WEEKS! after I have gotten them; getting emails about what went wrong, etc etc. I also KNOW LOTS of eBayers will peruse through feedback, even with my high rating and look for my one or two negatives. Where this really comes into play is if the buyer is a problematic or habitual complainer, they will use your previous negatives as ammo against you to say, "See, you have a past of poor service" (Not that I experience that many problems) Just, it seems the last two negatives I have gotten as an excuse to justify the poster's poor communication skills.

    I wish eBay had a trade sytem, like exchange 1000 positives for 1 negative once a year. OR I wish they would institute a system that makes it as diificult to leave a negative as it is to apply for an auction fees listing credit. Like; post, wait 10 days before it ACTUALLY posts to the other account, in the meantime, seller/buyer are warned of the potential of the negative comment, on the 10th day negative poster can choose to return to eBay and finalize the comment. This gives oppotunity to work something out.

    • However, while there are places like SquareTrade [squaretrade.com] that remove feedback, I still find eBay's policy of NOT removing libellous comments irresponsible at best.

      You go on to say that you have a several feedback items that are negative, yet simply being "negative" does not mean it is "libellous". If somebody was not happy with your service, for whatever reason, they are fully entitled to let others know why. If I go to a restaurant and I think the food sucks, I'm gonna tell my friends the f

    • The trick to getting negative feedback removed is to get the other user suspended for having invalid contact information. Check out the Feedback Board on ebay.com

    • As a seller on eBay for more than 5 years, now with more than 1500 feedback comments (99.2% positive), I have felt every negative for WEEKS! after I have gotten them; getting emails about what went wrong, etc etc. I also KNOW LOTS of eBayers will peruse through feedback, even with my high rating and look for my one or two negatives. Where this really comes into play is if the buyer is a problematic or habitual complainer, they will use your previous negatives as ammo against you to say, "See, you have a pa

  • The thing is, it's always the person with the more expensive lawyer that wins. At least it seems that way. When the Scientologists sued Slashdot, the church seemed like they may have had more money to throw at the case. This guy suing eBay, didn't have a chance. eBay makes so much more money and could afford so much better lawyers. Its just like big companies sueing to take away domain names from people, and certain companies sueing for intellectual properties rights. Why do you think they are starting out
  • It deeply offends me whenever I see lawsuits like this, especially when I'm not the plaintiff. He wasn't hurt in any way that matters, and eBay did nothing wrong in relation to this case. I'm glad to see that the case was dismissed, and I hope he goes though many costly and unsuccessful appeals, finally being counter-sued for eBay's legal fees.

  • Only the tops of trees grow. A+++++++ (Score:3, Funny)

    by plastik55 ( 218435 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:22AM (#5888612) Homepage
    While we're on the subject, check out the hilarious feedback left by andy46477 [ebay.com].
  • That thing is still on the books? The bill that caused a LARGE portion of the 'net to go black for 48 hours [google.com] in 1995? The bill that started the EFF's blue ribbon campaign [eff.org]? I thought the bill was ruled unconstitutional, or were just the "evil" parts?

  • Caveat emptor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @01:34AM (#5888642) Journal
    The ruling seems to make good legal sense.

    I've bid on things on ebay, and sold things there too. Most people (99%?) seem to be reasonable about feedback and realistic about it. If I see someone with a feedback rating of 50, and some guy with a feedback of 1 posts a questionable gripe.. WHO CARES?

    Ok. I can understand the seller's point. It's like being a good store, and having some kook stand outside telling people not to shop there. He's entitled to do that. People are entitled to - and likely will - ignore him.
  • ....get even! If someone writes nasty "graffiti" on your feedback page, return the favor!

    No...seriously....if someone has bad feedback for me, I will listen, and try to improve my relations with the next customer.

  • ILLEGAL!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @02:26AM (#5888817)
    Free speech. Definitely free speech.

    If you think otherwise, then nobody would or could set up a website where people can post stuff, because the owners of such a website could be sued for the contents posted by other people. It would literally be impossible to run such a site without terrible legal risks. I can only imagine what kind of messed up legal system we would have if the laws were fscked up like that.

    Actually, in some circumstances, there are really fscked up laws. For example, a guy broke into a school in the middle of the night. While in there ILLEGALLY, he fell down and broke his arm. He sued the school and won, and the school had to pay him damages for an activity that took place while he was illegally on the premises. In my opinion, if somebody is in the process of an illegal activity, the victim of the crime (in this case, the school that was broken into) receives automatic immunity from any liability to the criminal, including shooting them. That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved. Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME would not have to pay damages to the CRIMINAL who performed the ILLEGAL act.

  • I am divided on this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @02:59AM (#5888918) Homepage
    I don't think it should be eBay's responsibility to take down negative feedback if it hasn't been established to be libel, but once it is established to be libel by a court of law it should be eBay's responsibility to remove it.

    Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements. So the proper thing to do would be to first sue the poster and then require eBay to remove the libelous feedback.
    • Correction: Just like ISPs may be required to remove copyrighted content from the websites they host, eBay should be subject to a court's authority regarding the removal of libelous statements.

  • Not quite what was intended... (Score:4, Informative)

    by geekwench ( 644364 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @03:05AM (#5888938)
    So, Mr. Grace sued eBay, citing the so-called "Communications Decency Act." The purpose of this bit of legislation, when it was signed into law by Pres. Clinton, was to crack down on offensive, explicit, or graphic speech and images on the Internet.
    Not quite six years later, the number of "horse f@cking" spams in my e-mail has increased exponentially, and this - person - uses the law against an auction hosting website, instead of the person who posted the comment, over an instance of sour grapes and infantile behavior.

    [sarcasm]Well, I'm just glad to see that somebody's getting some use out of the CDA.[/sarcasm]

    Meanwhile, I'm going to go check my eBay feedback, and see if andy46477 has left one of his surreal little comments for me. Wierd as they are, they're pretty darn funny!

  • Precedent setting case for UK law (Score:4, Informative)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:46AM (#5889836)

    The case that appears to have decided current legal status for ISPs in the UK was the Demon case [isp-planet.com], which effectively decided that UK ISPs are responsible for removing libelous material from their servers. No 'Common Carrier' immunity in Airstrip one.

    Nothing seems to have happened to improve the situation since, either, despite official reports [bbc.co.uk] suggesting following the US model.

  • e-bay depends on this immunity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kupek ( 75469 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @10:27AM (#5890761)
    If e-bay was libel for negative comments, then I think their entire system would break down. They can not verify the legitamicy of every single comment a person makes, so they'd have to just not let people make negative comments about sellers. With no negative comments, people would have not have much to use if they want to judge the merits of a seller.

    I also think that by becoming a seller on e-bay, you're opening yourself up to criticism, good or bad, right or wrong. It's a risk that's inherent in selling something through e-bay. (That's not a legal argument, but an appeal to rational judgements.)

  • Victory for free speech or perversion of justice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @12:07PM (#5891821) Homepage Journal
    Which OR was that? Was that intended to be OR or XOR?

    Are ``Victory for free speech'' and ``perversion of justice'' mutually exclusive?

    Homework: Explain how ``free speech'' must be defined to make the XOR appropriate.
    Extra credit Define ``justice'' and ``perversion''.

  • If eBay is a Common Carrier (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tintruder ( 578375 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @12:17PM (#5891927)
    Does this now mean they can't ban the sale of certain items?

    It is really quite surprising what is on the eBay "Banned Items List", from which if you sell an item, they will stop your auction and threaten to terminate your account.

    But as a Common Carrier, they could not do this, just as your local phone company cannot regulate the contents of your conversation.

    Any attorney out there want to tackle this one?

    • Lawyer? You don't need no stinking lawyer!

      Just look at the User Agreement that every eBay user agrees to when the join, or when eBay revises it as they have in the past week to deal partly with the leak of private information by leaving a chat board admin tool open to the Internet.

      http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-user.h t ml

      In there it says eBay is not responsible for feedback, and you agree to not list things they deem unsuitable for sale. Among that list is anything that is not legal to sell.

Slashdot Top Deals

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Close