I retain my cynicism and in that regard, I offer this idea.
(Please note this is purely my own opinion and not based on anything more than already published articles and my own take on things.)
I perceive the ACCC's role as one of encouraging businesses to comply with legal requirements so that they can continue to contribute to the economy in a responsible manner and only pursue punitive measures as a last resort or in response to blatant breaches.
Since eBay and PayPal cheekily dance around the edge of legislative edict, they avoid the 'blatant breach' risk ... in terms of the letter of the law. But as for the 'spirit of the law', well that requires vigilance and ongoing efforts to ensure it is reflected in the 'letter of the law' - and that is where the 'letter of the law' has been brought closer to the spirit in the recent Fair Trading amendments.
I can well imagine the eBay and Paypal were in the forefront of the thinking of those who drafted the legislation - not for a direct attack on them, but as a case study and inspiration to deal with the elements that have caused complaint and address broader implications, so as to produce a robust and comprehensive result.
I am also of the opinion that, upon examination of the recent Fair Trading amendments, the legal eagles within eBay and PayPal recognised there were very clear implications on their 'dancing around the edge' practices and that there would be significant dangers if they were to push their luck. The 'PayPal only' defeat no doubt would have helped them realise that any such risks could easily become reality.
Whilst the ACCC has consumer interests at its heart, it cannot be heavy-handed against a business every time there is a problem. It is much more responsible to enter into a dialogue, so that issues can be resolved with minimal impact on a business. As I mentioned earlier, pursuit of 'Corrective Services' is preferable to 'Capital Punishment'. In the case of our interests, it is not because eBay or Paypal deserve leniency, but because the rules must be applied consistently - to any and all businesses. Principles must be upheld - even when the focus of our attention does not inspire such considerations.
I should also point out that, from what I understand, the ACCC do not use the term 'investigation' casually. If used, it means they are not just checking out a report, but actively involved in a matter identified as deserving the commitment of resources. The fact that eBay were even in discussion with the ACCC indicates there were issues and that there were things the ACCC would have liked eBay to address.
So, although there may not have been a gun pointed at eBay's head, there is little doubt in my mind that they observed the loading of cartridges with caliber, powder, primers and bullets that matched them as a target - and that this would have inspired their 'pro-active' move.
The point that categorically proves this to me is that Paymate and merchant facilities weren't just added as alternative options - but that PayPal was placed in a position where it could be dropped. I would like to hear the arguments from anyone who would try to convince me otherwise. EBay would never do this voluntarily.
As one further impetus to have done this sooner than later, it would be far easier to spin it as a positive move by eBay - who are in desperately need of something to polish up their corroding image, rather than take it down to the wire and have the regulators rumbling after them. That would just make it too obvious they were forced - better to do it now.
I would like to think it is no small coincidence that Sellers will derive the greater benefit from these moves, as a recognition by eBay of their true customers. However, the cynic in me says that is just a by-product of circumstances and that there are likely elements within eBay that would consider them unfortunate by-products. Encouragement for all sellers - including the smaller ones - "Drats!" I hear them say.
But, as I stated above, this is just my humble opinion.
