posted on October 16, 2000 08:19:05 AM new
From this morning's New York Times online edition:
EBay Faces Suit on Sale of Fake Goods
In a case closely watched by critics of online auctions, a California judge has allowed six people to proceed with a lawsuit that strikes at the core of how eBay runs its business.
The ruling, last Wednesday, involves a lawsuit filed by people who say they bought autographed sports memorabilia later found to be fake. The lawsuit asserts that eBay, the largest online auction operator, has a responsibility to ensure the authenticity of the sports memorabilia sold through its World Wide Web site.
EBay, which lists about four million items for sale daily, has repeatedly argued that it merely operates a venue for sales and cannot be held liable for fraudulent transactions. Company officials have said that if eBay were forced to verify every piece of listed merchandise — or even only sports memorabilia — eBay would not be able to offer consumers such a large marketplace.
Last week's ruling came from Judge Linda B. Quinn of Superior Court in San Diego County, where the lawsuit was filed in April. The ruling was a preliminary response to eBay's assertion that the case should be dismissed.
Though she did not grant a dismissal, Judge Quinn sided with eBay on several points and told the plaintiffs to restate their case in terms that would more specifically rebut eBay's arguments.
The case is based in part on a California law governing the sale of sports memorabilia. EBay is based in San Jose, Calif.
Legal experts say they are watching the case because while several states have laws intended to protect consumers from fraudulent auctions, most of them were written before the Internet made online auctions possible.
"It is definitely an open issue as to whether online auctions like this should be regulated under those state auction statutes," said Thomas Bell, a lawyer in Seattle who specializes in Internet law.
In the California case, six eBay users filed the complaint after discovering that several autographed baseballs and other sports items carried what law-enforcement officials said were forged signatures. Also included as defendants in the suit are nine sellers and authenticators of sports memorabilia, most of whom live in San Diego and who have been investigated or indicted by federal officials for their roles in what the Federal Bureau of Investigation says is a nationwide swindle.
James C. Krause, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said his clients wanted to recoup the $1,100 they spent on the items, and to stop eBay from providing what they said was a channel for the sale of fake merchandise. Mr. Krause has requested class-action status for the lawsuit, which could turn the case into a multimillion-dollar complaint including anyone who can prove that they have unwittingly bought counterfeit sports memorabilia on eBay.
The judge is scheduled to begin considering the request for class- action certification on Nov. 17. Lawyers on both sides say a final judgment on the case will probably not come until next year.
The case may hinge on how the judge interprets a section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The law says that Internet service providers are not liable for the material that is sent out over their networks.
EBay declined to comment on last week's ruling, but in court documents, it has said it is not an auctioneer since it does not list the items for sale, does not write the descriptions of the items and does not have the items in its possession at any time. As a result, eBay's lawyers say, the California law on sports memorabilia dealers does not apply to eBay.
Mr. Krause said he intended to argue that eBay was a "content provider," rather than a service provider.
The lead plaintiff is Lars Gentry, an Illinois resident who used eBay to buy four baseballs whose signatures were found to be forged. He also bought a couple of "cuts" — documents that feature the autographs of famous sports figures — that were found to be forged.
Mr. Krause is using the California law, adopted in 1992, to support several key parts of the case. The law forbids dealers — including auctioneers — to represent items as collectibles if they include forged signatures. It also requires dealers to certify that items are authentic. Under the law, people who have been misled by dealers are entitled to recover 10 times the sales price of the items purchased. Mr. Krause says the law applies to eBay because the company is essentially an auctioneer.
"The statute is there for the people to rely upon," said Mr. Krause, adding that eBay was `not doing a good job of protecting the public."
The lawsuit also accuses eBay of not revoking the privileges of the sellers after receiving complaints from other users who asserted that the goods were fraudulent. EBay has said that it makes a good-faith effort to protect its users, and the company has taken a few steps recently to deter fraud, including an announcement in July telling its users that some sellers of sporting items had used fake certificates of authority to entice buyers.
EBay has said it would no longer list items that featured those certificates. The eBay users who were named in the F.B.I.'s indictment are facing probation or suspension from the Web site, according to Kevin Pursglove, eBay's spokesman.
Meg Smith, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, said the lawsuit illustrated the dilemmas that face online auction services. "EBay is caught in the cross-fire here," she said. If the providers of the service make no effort to protect its users, "they look like a bad corporate citizens," she said. "But the more responsibility they take, the more they look like an auctioneer and the less they look like they are just a forum."
posted on October 16, 2000 08:37:43 AM new
Wouldn't a valid parallel be the Want Ads in your local newspaper? At first glance it seems that the local paper is in the same category as eBay, both provide a venue for sellers to reach buyers.
I would have a hard time deciding in favor of the plaintiffs. However I also find it hard to be shocked by civil suit decisions, particualrly ones in California.
If the plaintiffs win I can't imagine the size of the can of worms that will be opened. Would sellers have to have certficates of authenticity on all the items they sell? Who would decide what constitutes an authentic item? Gives me the shivers just thinking about it.
posted on October 16, 2000 08:42:52 AM new
HCQ - A very interesting read ... thanks.
I believe that eBay has a point in that they are not able to verify every listing. Firstly, they don't have the staff, which they freely admit, and secondly, they don't have the expertise. This particular case involves sports memorablia. Can you imagine the number of other types of items eBay would have to be able to verify? Antiques, coins, stamps, etc. They would have to have an army of experts, which would need to be funded. I can see the day where sellers of legitimate items will have to pay an eBay expert for verification prior to listing.
Unfortunately, the 'buyer beware' adage is extremely difficult to preach where items are bought and sold sight unseen, and where nothing is know about the seller except an email address and maybe some kudos (FB) from his/her friends.
Referring to the current threads about the sales of illegal video tapes on eBay, I wonder what the courts would say in cases where eBay HAS been notified by experts that they are allowing infringing items to be sold on their venue, yet they continue to allow them to run. In these types of cases, they cannot claim ignorance, or inability to police their site.
posted on October 16, 2000 09:05:02 AM new
Thanks, HCQ.
I cannot see how Ebay can
effectively "filter" all those listings of fakes. No, Ebay is NOT an auctioneer. It is a PLACE where auctioneers/sellers, sell their wares.
Sellers have to take responsibility for their actions (and auctions), just as buyers have to learn to beware....I personally would not buy that type oif item online, where there is so much room for fraud...At least, I can tell a fake pottery, porcelain, Art Glass...
In the case where Ebay has been contacted, and chooses to close it's eyes, yes, Ebay has to take responsibility.
posted on October 16, 2000 09:14:43 AM new
They could have used escrow or asked for proof. I would have tossed a suit like that out save for a claim to be reimbursed for loss. eBay is not an auctioneer, they sell space to auctioneers. The comolaint really should be against the parties who sold the bogus stuff. The lawyers want to milk eBay at legitimate sellers' expense.
posted on October 16, 2000 09:21:39 AM new
So if Ebay can be sued for sellers selling Bogus items---then that would also open up Flea Markets being held responsible for the items that are being sold there--The Buy & Sell--and so on and so on.
posted on October 16, 2000 09:23:51 AM new
Looks like my being of two minds puts me in good company
I agree that the "classified ad" analogy is apt - up to a point. With a very few exceptions (the Want Advertiser in Massachusetts), classified ads are pretty much prix fixe - by the word, by the week, whatever. What the "venue" earns from the listing is not dependent on how much the listed item sells for. Ebay, OTOH, receives a fee based on the item's sale price, and thus has a vested interest in obtaining the highest bids possible. It can, therefore hardly be considered as disinterested as the local shopper's guide (or the local flea market), which gets paid whether the item sells or not. I think this is a critical distinction. (Incidentally, flea market around here ARE held liable for allowing vendors to sell knockoffs, for example. Our local market will kick a vendor out on his behind right in the middle of the day if they find out.)
I also agree that it's physically impossible to review every listing on a site as big as ebay. I'd go even further: I'd say that it's downright wrongheaded to involve ebay in this sort of thing. Not only has Ebay no way of examining the merchandise; *I* know my merchandise better than anybody at ebay, thank you, and I'd appreciate their keeping their fingers out of the pie. What's next: determining what my opening bid can be?
However, as RB has stated (better than I'm going to), when an auction site is repeatedly notified - with documented evidence - that it's promoting (passively or aggressively) what amounts to fraud, and yet it takes no action whatsoever - where it was merely dipping its toes into the water, it's now crossed the Rubicon of disinterestedness and is well into the territory of self-serving inaction. It becomes a knowing party to fraud. (I can think of another site which pulled this boner not too long ago, to its considerable embarrassment.)
It's a tough call, and I am glad not to be sitting on the bench on this one Given it's in California, I suspect the scales will tip - at least somewhat - in the plaintiffs' favor, and cause a whole new mess of legislation.If anybody still questions why other sellers turn in fraudulent auctions, this is one good reason: if we don't encourage auction siteis to self-regulate, the big guys will be happy to do it for them - but it will be OUR necks that get stepped on, in the form of new legislation, site rules, and additional fees to cover the cost.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 16, 2000 09:25 AM ]
posted on October 16, 2000 09:24:07 AM new
I have to think of this in terms my poor brain can conjure up. So, with that in mind....I go to the swap meet. I find a skirtset I want and it says CAROLE LITTLE, material rayon, on it. I pay 20 bucks for it. I take it home. I look inside the dress to make sure all is well, all the seams are still intact. I see another label. It says KMART, material POLYESTER. I look closer at the CAROLE LITTLE tag. It was sewn on to make it LOOK like a CL, but inside the skirt, it REAL tag said KMART. So I sue the swap meet because someone who sold there was a rip off artist.
Nope. I should have looked closer, and I knew there were somechances of running into a con artist while at said swap meet.
Sorry for changing the story, but it helps me put things in perspective for me, since Im not into sport cards.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:13:08 AM new
mauimoods: I'd extend the analogy a bit further, though, to include one of HCQ's points. Suppose this swap meet seller were a "regular" and continued to be there with exactly the same mislabelled goods, and suppose the owner of the flea market, or whatever, operated at least partially on a commission against total sales at the site. Suppose you took your evidence to the owner and they refused to even go over to the booth to inspect the remaining merchandise? Is there any additional responsibility or liability expected under these circumstances? Personally, I'd think so, but it might now be up to the defrauded buyer to call the cops or file a lawsuit.
I will note that eBay seems to be allowing fairly good documentation to appear on some of its internal boards for auctions that may fall into these questionable categories. In the fairly recent past, a collector stamp lot appeared that was described in part as being untouched, sort of "who knows what's in these sealed boxes." One of the participants in the stamp chat board claimed to recognize the exact lot (except for a few extra nice items apparently added on as a "teaser" that implied the sealed boxes might also include some surprises) as having very recently been bought from another partially online auction house. He provided URLs to a "prices realized" listing on which a lot could be seen as described as "all cheap stamps" and claimed he'd personally inspected it, hardly a "who knows what's in here" situation. The eBay photo of unopened boxes showed them all with a number label corresponding to this other auction house's lot number, too. Very little doubt it was the same stuff except for the one nice extra group being added on.
There had been bidding on the lot and "somehow" the high bidder was directed to the chat board so he could find this documentation. He and several other bidders cancelled their bids with very pointed comments as to why, but some other low-FB user is in fact listed as having bought the lot. (The final price didn't seem to be outrageous considering the extras, but was a nifty markup over what was apparently paid a few weeks earlier.) There's no sign of eBay having done anything one way or the other... I'm a bit surprised, actually, that there wasn't a fuss about "auction interference" but I didn't see anything. Perhaps they just didn't notice, one way or the other? Or is there some loose policy forming there?
Having experts in some areas like stamps being able and willing to express cautions about specific listings doesn't help eBay buyers in less-expertized categories, though. Plus, I think it's really questionable for them to claim they have no responsibilities when the web lets people research details and transmit very clear documentation to eBay that certain auction listings are misrepresented in some specific important aspects.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:26:57 AM new
Maybe off topic but
these autographed sports memorbilia... say someone catches Big Shot Baseball Pitcher(insert whoevers name there) and its for real, the pitcher signs it and walks off.
You've got this baseball signed by Big Pitcher, how do you get this certified or whatever? Excuse my ignorance, but anyone could look at it, and say naaaa, this is fake or forged.
I am only into the game, not the cards, or autographed memorbilia. So if I had one, watch the player sign my baseball, how do I prove this is real.
(this has never happened to me, and don't expect it to, just a question on how they 'certify' these are for real.)
posted on October 16, 2000 10:44:53 AM new
Pyth00n said "Suppose this swap meet seller were a "regular" and continued to be there with exactly the same mislabelled goods, and suppose the owner of the flea market, or whatever, operated at least partially on a commission against total sales at the site. Suppose you took your evidence to the owner and they refused to even go over to the booth to inspect the remaining merchandise? Is there any additional responsibility or liability expected under these circumstances?"....first, thanks for keeping it in a way I can understand better. And if this was the case, then yes, I would want to hold the swap meet owner liable because they were aware of this vendor doing unethical things. However, I think that would be hard to do, without proof from a court of law that said vendor was doing it. Just hearing it from other people, with no legal documents to prove it, I would have to "go after" the vendor himself and sue for misrepresentation. Then again, I would also not go to that vendor if I continued to shop at said swap meet. Heck. I wouldnt GO to the swap meet in question if I knew they allowed this to continue. Buyer beware, sort of thing.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:53:22 AM new
I'd say the fake question goes deeper. My understanding is that they can now make diamonds (not cubic zirconia). Of course they aren't the "real" thing, but who's going to know. There are forgeries that defy detection. For this we would hold all sellers liable? If I sell you something over the Internet by email is my ISP liable and the phone company liable for carrying the email and so forth?
This is the same baloney that holds tobacco manufacturers liable for people who consciously choose to smoke and gun manufacturers liable for the actions of criminals? How about suing GM for the drunk drivers on the road? Maybe we should sue Oneida when I gain too much weight?
This whole thing smells...if they aren't going to go after the guys responsible, they really show that this is strictly an ambulance chaser.
eBay does make attempts to monitor things, but it is obviously not going to happen in the way everyone would like. It would open up a can of worms that would more closely resemble a dictatorship. How would you like someone knocking on your door to inspect your goods before you can offer them on eBay?
California is known for permitting greater and greater intrusion on personal freedoms to satisfy the whiners and politically correct liberals
posted on October 16, 2000 11:11:15 AM newmballai ........I couldn't agree more. Sports autographs have a long history of forgery, long before eBay came into being. Any half-wit that sends $1,000 for an autographed baseball item without using their CC, or better yet, i-escrow, needs to have their brain examined.
The only group that should be held responsible in a case like this, are the sellers who are selling the fake items.
IMO eBay should never be involved in authenticating *anything* being sold on their site. Nor should they have to act on complaints, unless solid proof from lawful authorities can be provided.
And people wonder why fees have increased, go figure.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:36:16 AM new
"This is the same baloney that holds tobacco manufacturers liable for people who consciously choose to smoke ..."
Whoa Lightning! This is not the same baloney at all ... not even close. Without getting too into this, tobacco has been proven to be addictive, and the manufacturers have known this for years. Besides, it'll stunt your growth!
"How about suing GM for the drunk drivers on the road?"
I think the people who serve alcohol already have this responsibility, but, how about suing Firestone and Ford for making bad decisions about which rubber they chose to meet that road
"eBay does make attempts to monitor things"
Do they? Are far as I can tell, they only "investigate" items that have been reported to them, and even at that, their "investigation" doesn't go any further than having one of their employees read the listing and apply his/her "expertise" to it before making a decision. In defence of these employees, they cannot be expected to know everything about the gazillion items currently listed on eBay. If I were Mr. eBay, and my company received a letter from a legal firm about illegal items being sold on my site, I do not think I would ignore it.
On the bogus diamonds and that ilk, I really don't have an answer. I am fairly confident though that there are people out there who CAN tell the difference between a real diamond and a manufactured one. If I was going to spend a few grand on a diamond for my lady, I think I would buy from a jeweler with this expertise - not an on-line auctioneer.
As to the Big Pitcher signed baseball card ... if you're the fan and if it was given to you, YOU know it's real. Who cares what anyone else thinks, unless of course you decide to sell it, in which case you're not a real fan after all
posted on October 16, 2000 12:19:56 PM new
Totally agreeing with RB about the cigarettes issue: Tobacco industries KNOW the product can create a health hazard... That is ONE product: tabacco
When one rents a store and opens a business, the Landlord is NOT held responsible for what is being sold in it: it is the Renter's responsibility to make sure the merchandise belongs on "this side of the law"... The Police came to inspect my store and asked me to sign a statement that I legally owned all the merchandise (meaning not "fenced". The Landlord did not have to sign any such statements.
When a Dealer at a show was "raided" for selling fenced goods, the Show Promoter was NOT held responsible.
******************** Shosh
posted on October 16, 2000 12:33:10 PM new
FYI re the synthetic "diamond", Moissanite (silicon carbide)
Antique & Collectors Reproduction News reported on this April, 1999.
"In an experiment conducted in late 1997, 40 jewelers and pawn shop owners incorrectly identified synthetic moissanite, a new diamond substitute, as genuine diamond. They were fooled because they all used what was until then the most widely used diamond tester, a thermal conductivity probe."
It seems moissanite and diamond thermal properties are so close that the thermal diamond testers register them as genuine diamonds.
Moissanite has been around a long time, but not produced in commercial quantities until late 1997 and marketed in 1998.
There is a tester on the market for moissanite, to be used in conjunction with a thermal diamond tester.
Bottom line...know your jeweler. And, go out and buy your sweety a (real) diamond.
posted on October 16, 2000 04:19:36 PM new
Tobacco manufacturers know...
So do their customers, middlemen, and retailers at every step of the process.
Gun Manufacturers and everyone else in the chain know that that product is specifically designed to kill.
and these are legal products, same goes for alcoholic beverages.
Forgeries are illegal from the start. ebay will boot dealers known to offer forgeries.
This suit strikes at the core of ebay. There is no way they can verify the merchandise sold at 1.5 to 5 % of the take.
But they are different from traditional businesses and have deep pockets... always a great attractant for novel liability theories.
posted on October 16, 2000 05:06:06 PM new
1) Ebay can't possibly police all this stuff. 2) Serves those people right for engaging in this cheap-ass collecting hobby. They should have just sat bat, relaxed, and been happy. Chances are they'd have never known they were fakes. I have several baseball cards I mailed to players when I was a kid using addresses from a book. Maybe they didn't actually sign them themselves. It doesn't make any difference to me. I believe collecting pointless garbage like that is a mental illness of some sort, anyway. I don't collect them or anything else. That neat 4x8" autograph Virgil Trucks sent me is now worth anything on here anyhow, but I'd not sell it if it was. There is no point to this stuff if you don't have a connection, met a player, special thing a player sent, etc. I don't feel one bit sorry for these "collectors" aka mindless compulsive aquisitors.
posted on October 16, 2000 05:18:59 PM newWhen one rents a store and opens a business, the Landlord is NOT held responsible for what is being sold in it
If I lend my car to a friend, or rent my storefront to a complete stranger, and he uses it to conduct illegal business (say a fence operation), you bet I'm going to be held to account - unless I can demonstrate I neither knew nor should have known about his intentions to use my property in the commission of a crime, and particularly if the amount of rent I collect is contingent on the tenant's profits or if my friend gives me a $50 at the end of his "business day".
Whether the buyers are greedy or stupid or selfish or "deserved it" has nothing to do with whether the sellers committed fraud.
posted on October 16, 2000 05:45:36 PM new
Hi, thanks for this interesting tidbit. The issue isn't whether eBay has the manpower to verify every item, or how much it would cost. The question boils down to "is eBay a content provider or service provider?" If they are a content provider (i.e., the auctioneer) then they are responsible for the content of their site.
"The lawyers want to milk eBay at legitimate sellers' expense...."
No, I don't believe that is true. The plaintiffs in this case are the injured party. There were bilked out of thousands of dollars. Their goal is not to rip eBay off, but to prevent eBay from letting this happen again.
eBay has been relying on the "we're only a venue" excuse for way too long. As eBay has grown so large, that defense just won't hold water any more. They've got their finger in the pie of every single auction at their site. They only disclaim responsibility when it suits them.
Last year, in October, because of pressure from the feds, eBay banned sales of home-made CDRs in the software categories. The exception was where a seller was distributing his own wares, or the seller had written permission from the content owner.
Today, look at the software categories and see how many home-made freeware/shareware compilations are being sold. Sellers just download warez from the Internet, put them on discs, and resell them at eBay. Thousands of copies are sold each week. There is no doubt that the sellers have no right to distribute these bootlegged items. eBay refuses to take any action, despite their own prohibitions, regarding these illegal sales. The so-called "rules" are for show only.
I have complained to eBay about these phony collections many times, because they directly compete with my own legal items. eBay's response was, "unless the ad specifically states 'CDR' in the description, we won't do anything." I even forwarded emails from a dozen purchasers of those CDROMS stating they were home-made CDRs. Then eBay replied that they will only acknowlege a complaint from the individual copyright holder.
So basically, a seller must state in large bold print at the top of the auction, "BOOTLEGGED FAKE ILLEGAL WAREZ" otherwise eBay will be happy to look the other way. There is no doubt these discs are illegal, anyone can see it, and eBay is making a ton of money off of illegal sales.
I'm glad this kind of thing is coming to public attention. And you can bet eBay will throw every resource into this fight. It's time they started taking responsibility (not just comissions) for the stuff being sold through their site.
posted on October 16, 2000 06:52:10 PM newI believe that eBay has a point in that they are not able to verify every listing.
That wouldn't be necessary.
I've long advocated that ebay could do much more than they do currently to weed the crooks out of the ranks. If you pay your bill on time and keep the negs down to an acceptable number, ebay's quite content to collect the cash and look the other way.
They could quite easily institute a policy for sellers that "as-is, no returns" auctions are no longer allowed. IOW, they could mandate that sellers stand behind their descriptions and their merchandise by requiring them to refund dissatisfied buyers.
Penalties for failure to do so (following due process) would eventually result in permanent suspension.
Such a policy would have gotten rid of these sham sports sellers a long time ago ... and all the other crooks that have made the headlines prior to and since.
posted on October 16, 2000 07:01:43 PM new
I think a big chink in the 'venue' armor is that ebay provides a place to 'rate' the trustablity of sellers. The are not like the want ads in the local paper, they provide a service that incourages (or discourages) people to buy.
As for this opinion, "Serves those people right for engaging in this cheap-ass collecting hobby." What a crock.
posted on October 16, 2000 07:15:27 PM new
All this is very interesting. I can't see ebay authenticating autographs. They even state that autographs are not under their guarantee (or something like that).
What I would like to see come out of all this is an ebay that actually expelled dead beat bidders and these sleaze ball sellers. What does it take? When a member applies for a new "name" do they investigate?
posted on October 16, 2000 08:52:25 PM new
...institute a policy for seller that "as-is, no returns" auctions are no longer allowed.... >>> I don't think this would work. It would be okay to requrie power sellers to accept returns, but most items I have bought were from very small time sellers. They can't afford to be sending stuff out and hoping it doesn't come back. Not to mention the effect on Ebay motors! I think Ebay would do better to go more hands off, or simply control everything. There is some fraud but most Ebay deals are just great. I have actually lost less buying on Ebay than from (hopelessly disorganized) catalog outfits! Seems with Ebay that it is all your thing when it's convenient for them, and all their thing when it isn't. They need to make up their mind who's running the show and then get on with it. This is all a matter of money.
posted on October 16, 2000 08:55:21 PM new
If it is that close to being a diamond, what difference does it make? Only in this materialist society. The fact that it is a diamond or a piece of glass hardly matters. If you never knew it wasn't a diamond, then what difference would it make? This is probably even more true than the slightly odd comments about sports collectibles.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:50:21 PM new
Twinsoft, excellent point:
The issue isn't whether eBay has the manpower to verify every item, or how much it would cost. The question boils down to "is eBay a content provider or service provider?" If they are a content provider (i.e., the auctioneer) then they are responsible for the content of their site.
I believe their copyright grab, as stated in the Users Agreement, makes them a content provider:
6.Your Information.
"Your Information" is defined as any information you provide to us or other users in the registration, bidding or listing process, in any public message area (including the Café or the feedback area) or through any email feature. You are solely responsible for Your Information, and we act as a passive conduit for your online distribution and publication of Your Information. With respect to Your Information:
6.2 Solely to enable eBay to use the information you supply us with, so that we are not violating any rights you might have in that information, you agree to grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise the copyright and publicity rights (but no other rights) you have in Your Information, in any media now known or not currently known, with respect to Your Information.
(emphasis added)
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-user.html
I don't believe the purported intent matters; they can't take perpetual rights to your listings and other copy without also assuming responsibility for the content.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:08:05 PM new
Saw pretty much the same story on AOL when I just came on. What I found interesting is that ebay says in that article that if they are found guilty, they will have to change their whole auction and charge higher prices.
Of course,I don't think they will be found guilty and they put a disclaimer on every page,"let the buyer beware".
Pursglove didn't seem to worried about the buyers tho, said he might have to suspend some sellers. Duh!
. The Landlord did not have to sign any such statements.
