Why is the “eBafia Don” destroying eBay?

[Bazza]

This 'buying feedback' problem is something of a storm in a teacup. If a seller intends to use bought feedback to enhance their reputation it's wasted time and money. When a buyer clicks on a sellers feedback 'number', they are taken to the 'feedback as a seller' page. I see very little evidence of 'enhanced feedback' being used to dupe regular eBay buyers.

Can you show an example Phil where a seller is using bought feedback to enhance their 'selling' reputation? How wide-spread is this 'problem'?

[Philip.Cohen]

Quote: “When a buyer clicks on a sellers feedback 'number', they are taken to the 'feedback as a seller' page.”

And how many buyers do that?

I have not dug any further into this activity (no time; too busy poking a stick at active shill-bidding sellers). In some cases it may not be a feedback buyer’s selling ID feedback that is being manipulated; it could be the unscrupulous seller’s 10-20 shill bidding “buying” IDs that are being periodically enhanced with feedback to make them look more genuine.

All those common bidders with zero or very low feedback (that never or rarely increment) that habitually appear on some sellers’ auctions should eventually start to look a bit suss to any thinking buyer who may have the misfortune to be regularly dealing with an unscrupulous seller, and I would put anyone who spends big money with a particular Rolex watch seller into that category. But then you have to do a multi-auction analysis for such suspicious activity to become obvious.

Regardless, it is some sort of fraud on the feedback system—not that eBay would worry about that.

Unfortunately, although we can know the underlying user ID from the feedback profile, that ID cannot easily be related back to the masked bidding aliases now is use. One could ascertain an alias by tracking back through to any purchases (that may well be genuine purchases), but that would not expose any meaningful info on any shill bidding aliases that never or rarely succeed in buying anything.

So you could say that eBay thinks of everything when it comes to obscuring untoward activity that is of indirect benefit to them. But is it by deliberate design or by simple incompetence? That is the question, and I think it has to be by deliberate design as so many supposedly intelligent people cannot be that stupid. 

[Philip.Cohen]

One of my interests is Australian “flat art” so I tend to notice some particular artists when their works are offered for sale.

Here is a David Boyd painting offered now BIN for $1295.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320447117127&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:AU:1123

Gee, how can they do that when they have only just sold it at auction on 9 November for $793.04 (39 bids!)
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/DAVID-BOYD-EUROPAS-GOLDEN-WINGS-WILTING-IN-THE-OUTBACK_W0QQitemZ320442426516QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Paintings?hash=item4a9bdb6494

I guess that makes the winning “newbie” bidder, “n***8 (0),” another candidate for “bidder did not pay” …

[Bazza]

I've no idea why someone would put forward such an 'interesting' spray on 'feedback buying', without actually having any substance to their point. Perhaps it's more of a 'slight breeze' than a 'storm' in a teacup.

And so....we move back to shill bidding.

Is it even minutely plausable Philip, that “n***8 (0)” was a legitimate bidder who pulled out of the sale? Or is the seller automatically guilty because a '0' feedbacker won one of their auctions? Where is the substantiating evidence to convict that seller? Why bring it here?

Is shill bidding so bad?

Shill bidding has become part of the sellers tactic in some cases, that can't be denied. I say, so what?

Let's look at the case you high-lighted with the artwork Philip. Let's 'assume' that the ID “n***8 (0)” was there to bump the price up on behalf of the seller.
Some points to consider:

1) The painting was never going to sell for less than the seller required to profit from the sale.

2) The painting is worth substantially north of the highest bid on the auction to the seller or they cannot stay as an ebay seller. Anything less would be suicide.

3) The lack of a reserve facilty requires that the final bid is the sale price.

4) It is fact that bids create bids on auctions. More bids equals more interest, equals a higher sale price. It doesn't always work dependent on the particular bidders on a given auction.

4) Buyers want to pay no more than they have to. Buyers are as greedy as sellers and in some cases more so. Buyers will never pay more than they are prepared to pay regardless of who they are bidding against.

5) A successful sale at an agreed price between a buyer and a seller is what ebay is all about. Shill or no shill, it's win/win.


The war against shill bidding.....another slight breeze in a teacup.
JMO

[mandurahmum]

Actually Phillip - I like most buyers - do check see what the sellers feedback says - I am not interested in the number - that means very little.  My feedback score is 190 - but I have never sold a thing - so my feedback means nothing to a buyer.

[*CountessA*]

When a buyer clicks on a sellers feedback 'number', they are taken to the 'feedback as a seller' page.

Bazza, that's correct in as far as it goes.

I just checked again in case my memory had been playing tricks on me, or things had changed recently - but buyers have two links onto which to click: the seller's name and the seller's feedback number. If you click onto the number, as you say, the "Feedback as a Seller" results appear. However, if you click onto the seller's name, and then click onto the number next to the seller's name, the "All Feedback" results occur. This does give buyers a potentially misleading impression...

Like Mandurahmum, I check through the numbers and the comments. The comments are perhaps the most enlightening aspect of a seller's integrity, although of course not entirely foolproof.

Bazza, you say "Shill bidding has become part of the sellers tactic in some cases, that can't be denied. I say, so what?" I'm a little surprised by your comment... since in some forms of auction, it's a criminal offence. It's not a criminal offence on eBay (at this point), but it IS against eBay's Terms of Use. There is no denying that some sellers are caught out and suspended temporarily. I don't believe in favouritism, and it makes my blood boil to think that large businesses with carefully arranged shill-bidding gangs are getting away with an unfair advantage while others, not so sophisticated, are caught.

Either eBay should permit shill-bidding (which would not be acceptable; can't you see the resulting inflated prices generally putting off bidders, and can't you see eBay getting in trouble for explicitly allowing it? - The door opens to legal action when buyers find they'd bid more than they wanted to, with buyer's remorse setting in, and a REASON for blaming eBay for the high price is there in black and white for them. Watch the world go sue-crazy against eBay) - or it continues to disallow shill-bidding (but actually do something more effective against it).

I'm strongly in favour of ID verification. It would cut down on quite a lot of shill-bidding. Not all... but a lot. The career criminals remaining with their sophisticated set-up would be the only shill-bidders to persist, and eBay could work on designing a real algorithm to cross-check and identify suspicious patterns of behaviour rather than deny there's a problem.

However, here I know I'll be running into the ID-won't-help viewpoint. I continue to assert it will help.

Bazza, you make a very good point when you talk about the lack of a reserve facility. I think that's outrageous. It's my opinion that sellers ought to be able to set a reserve on items for auction, and this would very often negate any feeling of a seller thinking he "has to" shill-bid to create a reserve by other means.

[Bazza]

I understand your thinking on shill bidding Countessa but the bottom line is, sellers need a certain price to continue trading and buyers want to pay that figure or less. If ebay did away with auctions altogether, neither buyers or sellers would be better or worse off. The price is the price and sellers need to find the most effective way of achieving that price.

Selling on ebay should not involve a risk for the seller. That's what buyers are looking for. Buyers want sellers to 'take the risk' of auctioning goods. They want the 'win'. Generally, they don't give a rats if the seller lost on the deal.

The only real answer is to bring back reserves but buyers don't like that either.

Could someone please point out to me, the difference between, adding a reserve price to an auction and shill bidding? I understand that retracting bids to find a buyers maximum bid does occur but that is a seperate issue.

[*CountessA*]

Shill bidding is illegal in many instances; it's misleading; it is deliberately designed to create a false impression... I'll quote from the source I hate (Wikipedia) on the subject:

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions^[1] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.

As you would have to be agree, a shill-bidder on eBay is not an example of the "buzz" type of shill. Shill-bidding on eBay DOES place the uninformed parties at a risk of loss. Whether the risk is realised or not, the fact is that buyers are unaware when placing their bids that a seller is driving up his/her own price by false bids.

This sort of behaviour is morally wrong, it's against eBay's rules, and in many cases it's actually criminally wrong.

[Philip.Cohen]

Hi Bazza,

Your several responses to the matters I find quite amazing, indeed I find it unbelievable that anyone could put forward such views, particularly your apparent support for shill bidding. With attitudes like yours (and I presume that you are professional seller) is it any wonder that buyers are staying away in droves and eBay is continuing its slide into the abyss.

As far as ‘wire fraud’ in the US is concerned, US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 63, §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”, is the applicable Federal statute (State laws applying to traditional ‘attended’ auctions may also apply):

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. …

In every civilized country in the world the “making of a ‘false representation’ for the purpose of making a gain for the maker or another, or to cause loss to another”, eg, a vendor bid at an auction which is not disclosed as such when it is made (a ‘shill’ bid) is fraud and is a criminal act. The laws of each land apply to eBay as well, although one could be excused for getting the impression that such laws do not apply to eBay. Simply put, ‘shill bidding’ is criminal fraud.

Please don’t let me hear about what happens at traditional auctions, I already know all about them. The fact remains, if the vendor’s bid is not disclosed as such when it is made then that is a ‘false representation for the purpose of making a gain’ and that is fraud. The fact that no one has ever been prosecuted for such fraudulent activity at a traditional auction does not make it either ethical or lawful.

In lieu of the ability to set a reserve in Australia, if a seller wants to put a floor price on an item he should set the starting price at that amount. Let’s face it, when a reserve can be set that simply encourages more shill bidding up to the point of the reserve. Better, no reserve; let the seller set the starting price at the minimum they are prepared to accept. But, you say, then you wont get a bid! And I would say that the auction process is about fairly finding a market value for the item on the day, it was never intended as a mechanism to be manipulated by vendors so that they can get the price they otherwise could not get. If you don’t like the way the English auction process is supposed to work, have a go at BIN or Best Offer.

We’ve been through all this before but if anyone new to the thread is interested a summary of the various Fraud statutes in the UK, US and Australia is at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=24316

Mandurahmum, The feedback count per se is pointless anyway as feedback can be bought for $0.01 per increment or thereabouts; I am only surprised that not more of the shill bidders have made use of this activity to make their shill bidding IDs look a little more legitimate. Auctions that habitually have so many IDs bidding on them with feedback counts in single digits tend to look very suss to me.

[mandurahmum]

I would like to see ebay crack down on bid retractions - I think that may help cure one of the problems.  I saw a bidder who had 47 bid retractions - and I dont know why they are even allowed on the site - they are a waste of time.  Surely there should be a limit on bid retractions that a user can do.

I understand shill bidding is a problem, but it is also hard to prove sometimes.  We had a coin seller suspended for suspected shill bidding, however it was not the case.  It just so happened that a one of the members really liked buying of them, I was also a frequent bdder, but normally did not win.  The member that did win the majority of the auctions always paid, and there is no way they would be involved in shill bidding.

[Bazza]

No-one is going to argue that shill-bidding is unlawful. Morally wrong...that's debatable. Bringing the laws of the land into the arguement doesn't wash with me. I live in the real world where profit and loss mean survival, where shill bidding is used as a competitive edge and where reserves don't exist within the largest on-line marketplace in Australia (with few exceptions). We can talk all we like about the law, but it's real and it happens.

Morally wrong?

A reserve price is legal if allowed on eBay. That reserve is set by the seller. The bidder is forced to bid up to that reserve price while not knowing what that figure is, if they want the item. The reserve is hidden. It is a figure which the seller is willing to accept for the auctioned goods.

Please tell me the difference between a reserve price and a vendor bid? Both are hidden and both drive the price to a point the seller is willing to accept.

The downside for sellers is...sometimes they get stuck with the goods just as with a reserve auction.


particularly your apparent support for shill bidding. With attitudes like yours (and I presume that you are professional seller)



You assume far too much Philip.

[*CountessA*]

Mandurahmum, absolutely right. The bid retraction process is a huge loophole. Of course mistakes CAN happen, but I think there needs to be more control over bid retractions, and some follow-up. For instance, if a buyer uses the "wrong amount" excuse, he should not be able to get away with not bidding his "correct" amount. Otherwise, he's clearly taking advantage of a system that allows specious use of the process.

Bazza, I stand by what I said in connection with shill-bidding being "morally wrong". A reserve price is not the same as a shill-bidding price. Shill-bidding implicitly and explicitly demonstrates false interest from others (not from the seller), thus setting up a situation where the legitimate bidder is encouraged or even lured into paying more than he intended or than which honest market forces would set as the price for the item. (I know you might want to talk about buyers being adults and being able to make their own choices and exercise their own good judgement - but the fact remains that shill-bidding is misleading.)

A reserve price implicitly and explicitly represents the minimum price at which the seller will sell, and in fact the minimum price at which the seller is OBLIGED to sell if a winning bid equalling or exceeding the reserve price is made. There is no attempt to misrepresent the item as being hotly fought over by other (genuine) bidders; it merely represents the seller's minimum. A buyer can place his maximum bid and then discover he's still not reached the seller's minimum; no one then encourages or forces the bidder to bid again over his maximum. I recently bid on an absolutely beautiful Georgian silver piece, only to discover that the seller's reserve price was higher than I was willing to pay. I sobbed, stamped my foot and had to leave that item with longing looks over my shoulder.

I have no problem at all with a seller having a reserve price for an item where the seller needs to receive a certain minimum, but where he's encouraging the bidding by starting the bidding figure low. That is a perfectly fine scenario.

I do have problems when I bid on an item on which no one else has bid, and within hours some rather suspicious-looking bidding activity occurs. (I should add that I rarely assume shill-bidding is in progress, but just occasionally - oh lord - just now and then it's obvious. I won't detail the triggers that cause me to think something is suspicious.) When that happens, and when a little checking increases my gut feeling that the seller is shill-bidding, I go to my snipe programme and cancel the automatic bid I have in place, searching for another listing of the item. My real bid is then never placed on the item... and I can tell you that both times this has happened, my suspicions were proved correct. I didn't report the sellers (I report only if a seller is selling copyrighted or faked items), but both disappeared not long afterwards, so I assume it's just possible that other potential buyers became suspicious and reported them.

I have sympathy for sellers who are frustrated by being unable to set a reserve price - but shill-bidding is still wrong. It is a deliberate intention to deceive. I don't like deception.

[Roo]

We also have to remember that shill bidders could be partly to blame for increasing listing costs for genuine and honest sellers.

Taking advantage of starting auctions at 99c and paying minimal or no fees (when Ebay have special listing days), then using shill tactics to bump sale prices, must surely affect Ebay's profits....therefore causing listing prices to rise for those that follow the rules.

This then actually disadvantages the honest sellers that start their listings at prices closer to the prices they wish to achieve.

Definitly not an even playing field ...in my opinion.

[tellomon]

eBay says: " Shut up and buy stuff ".

[*Brum6y*]

Morally wrong.


This is just so simple to answer....


If I go into ANY exercise, there will be rules of conduct - that is, the rules by which I am EXPECTED to follow and which my counterpart is also EXPECTED to follow.  These include: social custom, terms & conditions, user agreements and legislation (sorry - but they DO qualify as being part of my expectations!)

For any activity I then enter into, I will conduct myself based on those expectations.

If the other party quite deliberately acts contrary to one or more of those expectations, then their behaviour IS MORALLY WRONG.


Ebay declares shill bidding is forbidden - so if I enter into a bidding war against a shill - then that is MORALLY WRONG.

However, if eBay were to say 'Vendor bids are permissible' (you can bet your boots it will be given a nicer name than 'shill') then it would not.

It is as simple as that.


Oh, and as for the difference between 'vendor bids' and a 'reserve' - there is a very clear difference.

A reserve is simply a point where, AFTER GENUINE BIDDING BY INTERESTED PARTIES, the final price attained by the market must reach for a sale to proceed.  The seller is not obligated to accept any amount below the reserve ... and since all the bidders would be aware of this possibility, then there is nothing wrong about it.

On the other hand, a vendor bid artificially raises a price.  The market has not set the value.  However, if there is ONE bidder who is keen to acquire the item, then there is a big question about vendor bids unfairly bleeding the bidder dry.  This is an issue that is very significant in some areas - so much so that there has been legislation set down to prohibit them or to permit a single bid, which must be declared as the 'vendor bid'.

Again, whether prohibited, permitted or limited with conditions - if the vendor abides by them, the bidders will have a known playing field and will play the game accordingly.

It is MORALLY WRONG when a bidder comes to play the game according to the rules (which encompass their expectations) and find the other players didn't.

If the bidder's expectations were to be based on the perverted 'rules', the bidder would play a different game or possibly not even play.



To underline the vendor bid issue, I offer this true story:  A person I've met a couple of times and know much from reputation had a piece of real estate recently put up for auction. Being the greedy sod they are, bidding just wasn't going the way they wanted so, in a pre-arranged ploy, a 'mate' put in a bid (on their behalf) that got things up to the level they wanted.  That killed off the bidding and the moron ended up winning their own property!  I believe the auctioneer was not impressed.

Gave me a good laugh.  Poetic justice.

[*smee*]

but at least it made their  auction look busy ! *shrug*   dont ask me but apparently thats important ?

[*Brum6y*]

Cute, Smee. 

[Bazza]

Morality aside just for a moment. I maintain that the outcome of an auction is determined by the lowest price acceptable to the vendor or the highest bid over that amount. The amount that the vendor accepts should always be the vendors choice. ebay have determined that buyers do not like reserves so where does that leave the seller? Don't run auctions or take the risk on losing money. Some will argue that the starting bid should be the minimum price the vendor will accept. The reality is, that figure needs to be a BIN price. You cannot trade successfully if you are living in hope that someone is willing to bid higher than your bin price. Sellers are either going to make money and continue trading or shut up shop and leave the buyers with nothing to buy. Some can cope with lower margins, some can't.

I maintain that the buyer is, and need not be any the wiser regarding their bidding opponents. If a buyer bids on a reserve auction, they cannot know what the minimum amount required to purchase the item is. They see a bidding history which tells them only how much they need to bid to be the high bidder before the end of the auction. The reserve is set by the vendor, it is therefore a vendor bid. The end result is no different to a shill pushing the highest bid to that amount.

Please don't be under any illusion that a reserve facility will end vendor bidding. It won't.

Morally wrong? It can be argued, all sellers should abide by the rules of the venue. The rules of the venue are not always 'right' in the eyes of those using it. I would use the members of this forum as a prime example of people who don't like all of ebays rules. 99% of the people here have broken an ebay rule at some point. They get it wrong sometimes.

The people who complain the loudest about shill bidding are buyers who think they have paid too much for an item which they should have 'won' for much less. Why would the seller lose money on that sale and the buyer win? They don't complain when the seller loses.

[Poddy]

Bazza,

99% of ALL people anywhere have broken an ebay rule.

The guide posts move so often and fast that you cant help breaking those rules, even if you wanted to.  

[Bazza]

.........and the other 1% percent lie 

[Poddy]

nar Bazza, they are dead hahaha

[Poddy]

They broke the rules too often 

[Poddy]

By the way Bazza,  what is the difference in insertion fees between a 99 cent start auction and an auction with a reserve price?

That may give you a clue to why dishonest sellers shill  

[*smee*]

that would depend on the reserve/starting price  ...................

Insertion Fees
 
Starting or reserve price  Insertion Fee 
AU$0.01 - AU$0.99
 AU$0.30
 
AU$1.00 - AU$19.99
 AU$0.50
 
AU$20.00 - AU$49.99
 AU$0.75
 
AU$50.00 - AU$99.99
 AU$1.50
 
AU$100.00 - AU$399.99
 AU$2.50
 
AU$400.00 and up
 AU$3.50
 
Cars AU $5,000 and below AU$8.00
Cars AU$5,000.01 and up AU$10.00
Motorcycles AU$5.00 (fixed)
Other Vehicles     AU$8.00 (fixed)
Cars, motorcycles and other vehicles Classified Ad AU$19.99 (fixed, 28 day duration)
Real estate
 AU$49.95 (fixed
 

[Poddy]

Go to the top of the class master Smee 

[Bazza]

Agreed Poddy, if you are going to shill, you might as well start at 99c. Same with reserves if you could.

[Poddy]

Bazza, I have followed large sellers of high priced items and most of them start at 99 cents.

One seller sells 6 of a certain item daily EVERY day of the week all start at 99cents and all finish over $180 NEVER under NEVER.

In all of the auctions the 1 to 3 bidders had low feedback counts, between 0 and 5 with a smattering of genuine bidders, the low feedback count bidders nibble bid up to $180 then stopped ,all the low feedback count bidders had between 90% to 100% bid history with that seller.

This is over a 2 month period, that is a total of 360 units. Big dollars. eBay was alerted time after time data was provided with irrefutable evidence of shill bidding. ZIP happened.

The last time I looked the seller is still doing it 8 months later.

I stopped trying to piss on the moon when my piss ran out

[Bazza]

Exactly my point Poddy. It's as if your seller had a reserve of $180 on those items. Same result.

Please don't get me wrong. I would like to see a level playing field for all aswell. But as long as there are buyers who want to pay less than sellers need to make a profit, we will have vendor bidding.

Goodnight.

[tellomon]

 

[Poddy]

Bazza,

But as long as there are buyers who want to pay less than sellers need to make a profit, we will have vendor bidding.

But as long as there are buyers who want to pay less than sellers WANT to make a profit, we will have SHILL bidding.

If a vendor WANTS $180 per unit and will not sell under that why not BIN at that price?

Is it to sucker in some unsuspecting buyer or is it to avoid a higher insertion fee or both??

Underhanded whichever way you look at it.

And why is eBay refusing/ignoring their own policy on blatant shill bidding?  OH YES !! The bottom $ line.

Why make a rule and then not enforce it? OH YES !! The bottom $ line. But you can say there IS a policy, that will work and hoodwink the unsuspecting masses.

[Bazza]

If a vendor WANTS $180 per unit and will not sell under that why not BIN at that price?

Would the buyer be any worse off?

How much should the item be sold for? Obviously the market price is north of $180 or the vendor would not be selling any of that item.

Let me know what the item is because I want to start selling them cheaper than that shill bidder 

[cueperkins]

Morally wrong? It can be argued, all sellers should abide by the rules of the venue. The rules of the venue are not always 'right' in the eyes of those using it.

That might be the case, but it doesn't make the deceitful and predatory conduct of sellers justifiable or even legal .....it just means it hasn't been tested under the law yet.....and many have not been held accountable.....yet !!!   Shill bidding is against Ebay rules, and I think you'll find that they've done their homework, and already know that the law would support a consumer in any such scenario.  Under our laws it appears to be defined as Fraud......i.e. profit by deception. The trick is proving it, but at the very least, I believe it totally voids Ebay's contract of sale anyway, under Consumer protection LAWS.    

This example is not on shill bidding....but it does deal with sellers thinking they can deliberately break the rules with no ramifications........... in one landmark case recently, the law DID support and uphold Ebay's contract of sale (which is at the centre of all transactions on Ebay) when a Seller decided they hadn't achieved the best price for their listing and reneged on the sale.  

Facts: The defendant listed a World War 2 plane on eBay for 10 days with a notation of a minimum bid of $150,000. The plaintiff made a bid of $150,000 and both the plaintiff and the defendant received notification from eBay that the plaintiff had won the auction for the plane. However, the defendant refused to sell the plane to the plaintiff and argued there was no binding contract.

The central argument made by the defendant was that the only contracts in existence were between eBay and the plaintiff and eBay and the defendant, those contracts never crossed over into an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was not disputing that the terms of eBay were not binding, but rather that the consequences of his breach were only that eBay could remove him as a registered user.

Decision: The court held that a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that it should be enforced. The court found that usual contractual principles apply to eBay and when people register with eBay they agree to accept its terms and conditions, including requiring parties to complete transactions where the terms of the auction are satisfied. The court pointed out that both the defendant and plaintiff had accepted, by clicking on an “accept” button, the terms and conditions of eBay. Thus, the court has confirmed the legally binding nature of click-wrap contracts.

Unbeknown to Mr Smythe, Dr Thomas had already agreed to sell the plane to a Queensland buyer for almost $250,000.

news article with further details:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20508505-421,00.html

This might not be shill bidding, but it aptly illustrates the type of seller who happily breaches the rules, and COS thinking that all it will lead to is Ebay sanction as a member...until someone exercises their rights under the law that is..... It also highlights that Ebay's COS is the baseline for all disputes between buyer and seller, and all determinations of law will stem from the User agreement and COS between parties.

Shill bidding is a different issue, because it involves deception for profit....and hence crosses the line to petty fraud.  It's dealt with under WA's Auction Sales Act specifically, but in other States, its ambiguous and difficult to articulate under consumer protection laws.

So where does a buyer stand when they suspect they've been deceived into bidding or paying much more than they might have, due to shill bidding on the part of the seller?...Do you think they have no rights Bazza?......I certainly don't...they are being defrauded first and foremost via deception...e.g. if a buyer knew they were bidding against the seller or a proxy of the seller, they probably wouldn't bother bidding...so as Brumby says, they are being duped into thinking the auction is legitimate when it isn't.

On that basis, the contract of sale (the baseline for all legal determinations resulting from disputed Ebay transactions), is Null and VOID from the outset of the auction !!!   When a seller engages in shill bidding, they breach ebay's UA, and in so doing, they instantly void any legally binding COS over the buyer.

In this scenario, the buyer would not be expected to part with cash under Consumer Protection laws and has the right to refuse to complete the Sale.  If Ebay impose an NPB sanction on the buyer, the buyer has the right to have it overturned and the matter investigated by Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs if necessary.  Its' nothing short of extortionate if a buyer is being threatened into paying a dodgy seller, or receiving an NPB strike against their account.   That's why Ebay have an appeals process for NPB strikes...they never do anything they're not legally obliged to do.

As Phil has demonstrated though....Ebay ensure that the evidence of shill bidding is circumstantial only...but that's enough to void a contract of sale in any consumer rights arena.....  So I wouldn't kid yourself Bazza, in that scenario, it would be the ebay seller they'd be investigating and I'm certain an FT tribunal would find against the seller where shill bidding or any other form of deception is suspected.  

Bazza, bottom line....we have consumer protection laws against dodgy traders, not trader protection laws against dodgy consumers....so who do you think has the law on their side when it comes to profit by deception?  Buyer or Seller?  Just try lodging a Fair Trade complaint against a buyer who has refused to pay and try to argue for payment....lmao...good luck with that...they'd tell you you're dreamin !!  But if you issue a strike on that buyer and they lodge a complaint to FT about you for unconscionable conduct....well, I think you'll find that might be another story...lol

[*CountessA*]

Excellent points, Cupie - that was a landmark case; I remember reading about it at the time.

As you say, it's more circumstantial when it comes to shill-bidding in many cases, but buyers will have a very good case for refusing to proceed with the sale if they feel they have been "bid up" by the seller, and to have no sanctions against their eBay account on the basis that they suspect the seller has done so. eBay do tend to ignore reports of shill-bidding if it's not immediately obvious (such as identical IPs involved), but given enough refusals to pay, with sellers subsequently trying to get their FVFs back and trying to relist for free the second time around, I suspect that eBay would begin to think about a different approach.

After all, eBay is primarily a business. (That I think their business decisions are often little short of lunatic is beside the point. Their bottom line is profit, unquestionably.) If something is consistently affecting their bottom line, you can bet that they'll be looking at their "hems"... so to speak.

[Poddy]

Bazza,

The fact is that the items worth is in fact around $90 and I did get one from overseas at that price.

It is obvious that the vendor has come to some 'arrangement' with the overseas agent not to supply anyone else with that item and then the vendor has set an artificially inflated price for the sole purpose of profiteering.
It happens all the time.

Underhanded in my opinion.

[Bazza]

I didn't expect to change anyones mind by posting my comments 

I would not argue that shill bidding is outlawed by law and ebay, only that shill bidding achieves the same result as a reserve. Whether or not people feel it's morally wrong, it happens and it works and many satisfied shoppers walk away feeling they have had a win. If that result is achieved via a reserve price or via shill bidding matters very little IMO. The bottom line is: If a seller requires a certain amount for an item, the buyer will never get the item unless they are prepared to pay that price. It shouldn't be any other way. Sellers should be able to dictate the price they require.

But as I said earlier, as long as there are buyers who want something for next to nothing, there will always be shill bidding. I'm not about to confuse deceptive means with demand and supply.

the vendor has set an artificially inflated price for the sole purpose of profiteering.

Poddy, no profit means no availability.

[Philip.Cohen]

There really is no point in carrying on the debate with Bazza on the ethics or the lawfulness of “shill bidding”; he has clearly aligned himself with that sort of unscrupulous seller that we are all actively trying to avoid on eBay’s auctions.

eBay Nr 170403437685 ended 11-Nov-09 09:52:12

I am the underbidder at the huge amount of $10.60

Just received a SCO from the seller, less than 24 hours after the end of the auction. Does anyone think that my response is at all inappropriate?

“Sorry, but I did not realize that your auction was a private listing; I don't respond to SCOs from such sellers as I naturally presume that anyone who uses the private listing format is a shill-bidding cheat.”

Seller’s response:

“well i fell the same, but there is an option that they can remain private, but the winning bidder has not paid in 2 days so i put a SCO for you if you interstead?”

Actually, the “winning bidder” has not paid within 20 hours to be more precise.

I’m bidding on a $10-20 book and it turns out to be a private listing, and you’ll only know that now from the View Item page if you scrutinize the small print at the very bottom of the page.

Does one now have to look out for shill bidders even on $10 items? Do otherwise tell me what purpose has a seller of such books got for using the private listing format other than to hide his own shill bids? Are these sellers stupid or something, if they aren’t shill bidding, do they not realize that most others will suspect them of so doing anyway?

And, as for eBay’s now hiding this little detail at the very bottom of the page—outrageously deceptive; but then that is what we have come to expect from these devious, unscrupulous cretins.

[Poddy]

Bazza,

A fair profit is acceptable to EVERYONE but when it is overinflated by a monopoly it is not only unacceptable but downright criminal.

Bazza would you accept, without question, if your power bill was three times the cost it is now?
Or any other commodity that supplie by only one supplier?

Think about your supply and demand scenario in those terms

[Bazza]

he has clearly aligned himself with that sort of unscrupulous seller that we are all actively trying to avoid on eBay’s auctions.

Not at all Phil. I simply have an understanding of why it happens.

Phil, you obviously thought that item was worth at least $10.60. Why on earth wouldn't you take it. It defies logic.

Or is it more important to pay the smallest amount possible so that nasty seller makes nothing?

lose/lose

Bazza would you accept, without question, if your power bill was three times the cost it is now?

Poddy, if my bill was charged at a rate 3 times higher than everyone elses, I'd have something to worry about. I know the cost of electricity in my area. Electricity is a comodity very few can do without. There's not much on ebay I can't buy elsewhere. As you found with your item.

[*CountessA*]

There's not much on ebay I can't buy elsewhere. As you found with your item.

You know, that's sadly true, Bazza. (And I say "sadly" because eBay used to be a place where one could find some truly unique, unusual and genuinely rare items. I find that less and less now. It's become the "Sizzler" of online auctions. All you can buy, but it's not of great quality and it leaves your mouth feeling like a plastic sachet. I do still search for the occasional rare item and I am currently hoping that some items on which I'm bidding will be mine, mine, mine - but compare my bidding activity on eBay to the way in which I was buying 2 to 3 years ago; deflated, definitely deflated.)

[tellomon]

And I say "sadly" because eBay used to be a place where one could find some truly unique, unusual and genuinely rare items. I find that less and less now.

I can testify to THAT!

We all know I'm jaded...but, I got some Drum stuff offa eBay.

Rare. Vintage. Hard to find. One of a kind. Limited Edition. Signature Series.

Real fabulous gear in the Modern Drum World.

You won't find them on eBay...CUZ I GOT IT ALL!

And they ain't listing no more.

[*smee*]

Phil , in response to reply #85

1. In your opinion have you ever been outbid on an item fairly .... ever ... ?

2. have you ever won an item .......... ever ......?

3. are you ever going to get over being outbid on that painting years ago .... ever...?

[tellomon]

[Philip.Cohen]

Smee, Is there a point to your post, or are you simply indicating that you agree with Bazza that shill bidding is an acceptable tactic for sellers to use to get the price that they otherwise could not get for their stuff?

[*smee*]

Phil , I do not agree with Bazza on all his points no no no ...., if you read all my posts on your threads you will see that I have ackowleged that you have done some good work trying to weed out shill bidders , in that regard I will back you to the hilt if solid actual fact is produced in the conviction process , however to date you have refused to honestly answer any of my questions ... there are 3 simple questions in my previous post ... ok the third might be a little facetious but still ....

[Philip.Cohen]

Smee, When I can see a point to anyone's post I am happy to respond; Frankly, I see no point to your three questions, therefore I see no reason to bother responding, as any response I could make cannot be of any consequence to the matter under debate. If you don't understand that, so be it. Most of what I could say on the matter, I think I have probably already said in my several earlier posts. If you indeed want to better understand the points that I thought that I had already made, could I suggest that you go back and re-read those several earlier posts on the matter—more slowly next time.

On the matter of “proof” of shill bidding, that is always going to be difficult because eBay has no intention of co-operating with anyone in that regard, certainly not with mere users; indeed eBay denies that shill bidding is even a problem; regardless, the proof of shill bidding is only ever likely to be circumstantial, but even then that amount of proof may be all that is needed in a civil case for the recovery of defrauded funds because the level of proof required is, “is it more probable than not” that shill bidding took place (it does not have to be “beyond reasonable doubt” as is the level of proof required for a criminal matter). Many of the sellers analyzed in my spreadsheet have such patterns of bidding that I think it is beyond any doubt that shill bidding has taken place.

[*smee*]

yes I agree Phil . proof is hard to find ... but what you do is this .....

lets say a body was found at last weeks Melbourne cup race meeting ... We know someone on course is the killer ......you would hang all 100,000 people there and say I got the bu***r .... yes you did but you hung 99,999 inocent people at the same time ..... see where I am coming from ... the mere fact that they were on course doesnt mean they were guilty ... proof Phil ...actual proof not that the murderer has a entry ticket in his pocket so therefore everyone with an entry ticket in their pocket is the killer !!! .... your example tonight .... regarding the SCO on the book ..... the original buyer(highest bidder) has now paid .........

You refused to admit that you misunderstood how best offer worked .... you refuse to admit anytime that your theories are proved to be buncombe !!! but worse Phil you refuse to answer any questions ... you just expect people to believe you unconditionally ... and yet when asked for evidence you cant provide it .... look at the rolex incident ... look at the results ,you were proven to have been well and truely  off the mark ... Phil wake up and smell the coffee .. the days when you can get away with that are gone .... look where the police stuffed up in recent years doing the same as you do .... I can only quote mainly WA examples ..... the Mickleburgs .... Andrew Mallard .....Ummm heres a non wa one ..... Lindy Chamberlain .... there are many that have been convicted based on ... well lets call it stretching the truth to trying  and prove a theory and using smoke and mirrors with the circumstantial evidence .... all it has done in the long run is undermine the prosecutors  ........ not saying that some of the fore mentioned may have been guilty or not ... but you cant jump to conclusions Phil   it will be your down fall .... now any danger you could answer my questions or are you electing to plead the fifth ????

[Philip.Cohen]

Smee, I can only refer you to my penultimate post; but by all means you can have the last say. I can only ask again, are you sure you don't agree with Bazza's views? And not wishing to offend you but would you mind if I ignored your red-herring posts in future?—that's a rhetorical question, no need to waste your time answering it unless you really want to.

[*smee*]

Phil I have clearly told you I dont agree with Bazza posts on Shilling being acceptable behaviour .... I have been up front about that ... Phil if the other 2 questions are too hard for you can you at least answer this one ...
1. In your opinion have you ever been outbid on an item fairly .... ever ... ?

I shouldnt think that should'nt  be too hard to answer honestly  ... also how do you respond to the fact that the original winning bidder on the book in question has now paid ???

I know you weren't to know that at the time but it has now apparently happened , so have you falsely accussed someone again ???

[Bazza]

Philip. Please do not align other members here with my remarks. I stand by what I write and I don't seek to influence anyone.

[cueperkins]

the proof of shill bidding is only ever likely to be circumstantial, but even then that amount of proof may be all that is needed in a civil case for the recovery of defrauded funds because the level of proof required is, “is it more probable than not” that shill bidding took place (it does not have to be “beyond reasonable doubt” as is the level of proof required for a criminal matter). Many of the sellers analyzed in my spreadsheet have such patterns of bidding that I think it is beyond any doubt that shill bidding has taken place.

Frankly, unless cash has changed hands, and it's a substantial amount of cash recovery is being sought for....most people DON'T bother, and it would be absolutely stupid to take the issue of a consumer dispute to a civil claims court...it's just not viable.

Let's say the amount is a few hundred dollars.....Why would anyone part with several thousand dollars to fight it in a civil court?...it's ridiculous. 

People need to learn as consumers that they have a right to redress against allegedly dodgy traders.  Here's an example of making Ebay accountable...only a minor amount of money, but it's the principle. 

A few weeks ago, I bought several items from several sellers.  I paid all the sellers except one, because of course, he didn't have his bank deposit details in checkout where a buyer might expect to find them.  So he didn't get paid as quickly and when he finally contacted me it was with an NPB case.  I informed him that he had failed to include his b/deposit details and after being sarcastic and overbearing in a return email, he informed me that it was really his brother's account and that he was looking after it while the brother was OS....?...huh?.   By this stage, I'm starting to think that this seller might be dodgy and although it's only a small amount, I contact ebay and send them a copy of the email he sent me, pointing out that the person threatening me for payment was not the owner of the account.  Bearing in mind that I am a B/deposit customer and that ebay refuse to provide one iota of redress or safety for b/deposit consumers, so in paying this jerk, I'd more than likely be taking a risk....bit like E-Commerce Russian Roulette.

Ebay failed to respond to two emails, and the next thing you know there's an NPB strike - no investigation of my concerns, and no reply from feeblebay......so...I'm bidding on something last night and I get an error message telling me I can't bid on that item because I had two NPB's in one year.    The other NPB was a seller who tried to extort me for quadruple the postage....I WON'T pay shonks....and the law says that the minute they breach the contract of sale, I DON'T have to.

On both occasions I believe that the sellers breached the COS with their conduct and devious behaviour but ebay imposed a strike on my account in both instances with no reply to my concerns AT ALL.  So.....I have compiled a Fair Trade complaint against the seller,  and one against Ebay, demanding that the NPB be removed and that the seller be dealt with for using someone elses account to sell items in breach of Ebay's UA and for attempting to initimidate a consumer into payment.  See how that works?  Now what's going to happen is that fair trading will investigate, find out that Ebay didn't provide dispute resolution, and instead, aided and abetted an unconscionable seller trying to extort me when he was clearly breaching the UA.  I WON'T put up with Ebay's mediocrity when it comes to b/deposit customers....clearly they couldn't give a ratsarse if we get ripped off with no redress, so I'll be damned if I'm going to be extorted into paying anyone under such circumstances..

I recommend to anyone to take the time to fill out the F/Trading complaint form online..., each and every time Ebay or a seller does anything even remotely similar, or in breach of fair trading guidelines.  It's the only way Ebay and it's anonymous cowboy sellers are going to be forced to do the right thing and stop screwing with consumers.

We have laws in this country that DO deal with unconscionable traders and frauds, but as I've said many times, if  people don't exercise their rights, those laws are useless.  If F/trading received thousands of complaints per year, consumers might get a fair shake.

Bazza, don't worry mate, you haven't changed my views....Shilling is fraud = profit by deception, and if you can somehow justify that as being OK, then no offense, I hope I never bid on one of your items or a seller with similarly low ethics.   In fact, you might wanna hope I never do bid on one of your items because if you rip me off mate, I'd put you into fair trading so quick it would make your head spin.  Then we'd really see just how harmless profit by deception is viewed by the law....wouldn't we?