The actual administrators SV Partners I think, were inundated with claims from consumers out of pocket....I'm just having a look to see if any resolution came out of it....If I find something I'll post it...
No wonder. Didn't a lot of people pay via Bank deposit?
Just getting back to the thread topic.....and without a reasoned debate turning into the usual subjective argument....I think the comment above misses the point........
Ebay were negligent to all consumers in the EBS fraud, in even allowing it to happen, and even more so once it became a KNOWN risk. Nevertheless, after EBS, there was DDD, LI and then CS....... It's not a matter of feeling like they're in the wrong..... under consumer protection laws, and tested in the right arena, they WOULD have been found to have been negligent in their duty of care...they profit from it, so they are responsible to ensure their marketplace is safe, irrespective of payment method...it's simple really. And this is supported by statements made by more learned in the field of consumer protection. I'm simply agreeing with those statements.
You might recall on the ABC transcript the following:
ELIZABETH BEAL:eBay have an obligation to provide a safe system and operate in a way that prevents negligence,if they are benefiting from the transactions taking place. So in our view there are legal obligations on eBay that have not been fully testedThis was their 'legal' view....and the recommendations made by that precedent study (Going, Going, Gone) addressed mitigation strategies, and consumer redress strategies on a qualified, National basis. I tend to trust published data over supposition and I definitely don't subscribe to the 'blame the victim mentality' that seems to be fostered by statements such as the above. It demonstrates no sympathy whatsoever for victims of injustice.
The law doesn't support this view, not even the TPA supports this view, and you may note in regard to the Paypal victims in particular, that Graeme Samuel had this to say.
The head of the ACCC has already warned eBay and its subsidiary PayPal that he's watching how they promote their buyer protection policy.GRAEME SAMUEL, ACCC: If those terms and conditions are, for example, set out in small print, which people don't read or can't read or can't understand, then there's a prospect of consumers being confused to the point of being misled or deceived.That's just an example..i.e. small print...it also applies to ambiguity that may cause confusion, or omissions that may cause a consumer to be misled.
So whether it's Paypal, or whether it's Bank Deposit, Ebay had a duty of care to protect ALL consumers from this dodgy trader and also plenty of opportunity, but they didn't bother. The fraud originates from the seller, not the payment method.... but as Elizabeth Beal noted:
I don't think there's any real motivation for eBay to stop fraud. They still benefit from fraudulent sellers because they still collect the fees.
