eBay Wins Dismissal of US Lawsuit Over Alleged Sale of Harmful Products (reuters.com) 20
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A federal judge dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit accusing eBay of violating environmental laws by allowing the sale of hundreds of thousands of harmful products on its platform, including pesticides and devices to evade motor vehicle pollution controls. U.S. District Judge Orelia Merchant in Brooklyn ruled on Monday that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability over user content, shielded eBay from liability in the civil lawsuit.
The judge said eBay's administrative and technical support to sellers "does not materially contribute to the products' alleged unlawfulness" and does not make the San Jose, California, company a "publisher or speaker" on sellers' behalf. Merchant also said eBay was not a "seller" of some of the challenged products, because it did not physically possess them or hold title. She rejected the government's argument that eBay was a seller because it exchanged the products for money. The U.S. government argued eBay violated the Clean Air Act by allowing the sale of harmful products, including more than 343,000 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help vehicles generate more power and get better fuel economy by evading emissions controls. The company also was accused of allowing sales of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded or restricted-use pesticides, as well as distributing more than 5,600 paint and coating removal products that contained methylene chloride, a chemical linked to brain and liver cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The judge said eBay's administrative and technical support to sellers "does not materially contribute to the products' alleged unlawfulness" and does not make the San Jose, California, company a "publisher or speaker" on sellers' behalf. Merchant also said eBay was not a "seller" of some of the challenged products, because it did not physically possess them or hold title. She rejected the government's argument that eBay was a seller because it exchanged the products for money. The U.S. government argued eBay violated the Clean Air Act by allowing the sale of harmful products, including more than 343,000 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help vehicles generate more power and get better fuel economy by evading emissions controls. The company also was accused of allowing sales of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded or restricted-use pesticides, as well as distributing more than 5,600 paint and coating removal products that contained methylene chloride, a chemical linked to brain and liver cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Another casualty of loper-bright (Score:2)
I would guess a full half of our environmental regulations are a single court case away from being overturned.
On the other hand, if some future president decides to, oh, I dunno, mak
Not about Loper Bright (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the Loper Bright decision.
The judge here ruled that eBay is protected by Sec. 230, so they can't be sued for what their users post for sale.
Suing the sellers of items that allow for evading pollution controls is still on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont believe thats coincidence. That’s probably what happened here as well. Loper-b
Of course (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they’re just going to continue selling this stuff, right?
If the government wants to stop it, they should go after the sellers, not the marketplace.
That's easy to do:
1. Buy cheat device on eBay.
2. Pay with a credit card or PayPal.
3. Subpoena the seller's information from the payment processor.
4. Make arrest.
Reminds me of record companies trying to sue ISPs. (Score:3)
I see a parallel here with record companies suing ISPs [duckduckgo.com] because they're too lazy to sue individuals who pirated their music. Why wouldn't the U.S. government sue individual sellers who sold the harmful stuff? Simple. If they won this case against eBay, they wouldn't have to do all that work. Shortcuts aren't always safe. Forcing eBay to police all the items that go through their service and to ensure the sale of the item doesn't break any federal, in addition to the source and destination laws (states and/or countries) is unrealistic. Had eBay lost this, the ruling would have put a complete damper not only on eBay, but on Craig's List, FB Marketplace, and a ton of other web sites that facilitate sellers and buyers getting together.
Interesting (Score:2)
Does this open the door for other illegal items to be sold?
I may or may not have bought R22 freon from ebay to refill my air conditioner without a license.
Re: (Score:3)
You hope it was R-22. It was pretty common awhile back to just sell propane as refrigerant on eBay. It was a highly profitable scam, and most people weren't the wiser because it does technically work as a refrigerant (ignoring the whole flammability and not being code compliant aspects, obviously).
Now, if you bought an entire 30 lbs disposable cylinder of the stuff, chances are good that was genuine. But the small bottles that look like what you'd see in the camping supply section of Walmart? Yeah, thos
Re: (Score:2)
I may or may not have bought R22 freon from ebay to refill my air conditioner without a license.
If it were guns or drugs the popo might care. That your coolant actually cools or your mattress did not come with a tag interests them somewhat less.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The seller is still vulnerable to action from law enforcement. Which has always been the case.
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't. Because the seller isn't even in America, which is precisely the problem with these online platforms. In many cases the "stores" can't be legally liable for anything. They disappear and then the day after reappear with a different name.
Swapmeet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ebay handles purchasing, shipping, and manages disputes after the purchase. They have exceeded being a swap meet, they are closer to a building with a bunch of different people selling things but to purchase something you have to a centralized cash register and if there is a major issue you go to the owner of the building instead of the person who sold it to you.
Ebay Is Dead to Me (Score:3)
Insane. (Score:2)
I get the section 230 deal but the issue is NOT that they are posting it, the issue is that they are facilitating the sale of items that are in violation of federal law. Either the judge that ruled on this is being an idiot or the DoJ prosecutor totally dropped the ball.
Horrible Decision (Score:2)
The relevant section reads:
The point of this is to protect an information provider from liability for the information provided. Ok, so this all would seem fine and dandy if eBay were just a content-neutral "classi
How does eBay get paid? (Score:2)
Does eBay charge every seller the same rent for a space, or does it take a cut of the sales price?
IMHo, one is a host, the other is a seller.
These companies need to be held more liable (Score:2)
Even Google keeps throwing me adverts for obviously illegal products, such as tools to tamper with the odometer reading of your car (which are illegal to sell and own where I live). I even reported the ads only to get a "no fucks given, contact the company running the advert" email in reply.
With faceless Chinese scammers pushing products via these platforms there's no direct recourse against sellers. We should have a system in place where *someone* is liable at all times. If Google / ebay / Amazon etc want