Shill Bidding on eBay: Case Study #2

[bobbybigbear]

Exactly, I have long stated, it's even in the book, that the Internet is like Dodge City before Marshall Dillon came to town.

It is so open to every form of fraud that can be undetectable, especially when the Venue and The Seller have a vested interest in Shilling.

I have also stated far and wide that the only way to address the problems is for the Government to Legislate that every person who uses the internet must be licensed before they can purchase a service, and that the IP is recorded on the card.
If a secondary ISP is required then that can be coded onto the card as well.

Proxy servers who do not record IP's should be put out of business, but you would need worldwide co-operation for that, and I don't think Nigeria would be in on that

There would be a way of blocking overseas IP addresses if each country ha it own area code for numbers alloted, but that would need massive infrastructure, and that's what makes it difficult to Police, and why most, all bar extreme cases of stalking and fraud, go unpunished.

[bobbybigbear]

Isn't it amazing how people get so pi$$ed of over shill bidding, but some shill bid in order to expose suspected crooks, and bid them out of business.

Some people think that's OK, and that they are the good guys, but how on Gods earth, can you have it both ways, because when they become expert at it, they are going to do it for themselves, most end up doing it.

[**cupie**]

Hi Phil...as promised, I'm doing a bit of nosing around in the relevant legislations relative to auctions generally...and there is regulatory legislation but it looks like it goes state to state.....so bloody typical....Anyway...the following link deals with Auctions in WA, and includes recommendations for internet auction regulation on shill bidding and various other conduct......

In WA, it's called the Auction Sales Act 1973...and basically, they've done an update of that legislation in recent years at this link....http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:5rIRI3VH_6UJ:www.commerce.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/PDF/Reports/Auction_Sales.pdf+Shill+bidding+in+the+%22real+estate%22+industry&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Each State has it's own Auction Sales Act, so I'll go looking for the links to those too........I find if you want to argue something, you should start with what's already been done on the subject and if there are rules, and the breaching thereof, then that forms the baseline for official complaint...

In this instance, there appears to be a sound knowledge base of shill bidding and previous regulation of the auction industry, as I suspected.....anyway....the trick is to get these legislations to walk the way they talk......This paper deals with the following:

The auction process is an important method of conducting transactions in our market economy. In Western Australia auctions and auctioneers now play a significant role in balancing supply and demand within the economy to ascertain market price. Efficient regulation of the auction industry therefore impacts on the performance of the entire economy.
This industry is currently regulated by the Auction Sales Act 1973. Considering the WA industry was first regulated in 1839, and that the legislation has been through a number of previous significant amendments, it is important any proposed changes are fully considered.
In recent years there has been an on-going review of the auction sales industry and the proposed changes have been developed through considerable consultation with key stakeholders, including industry participants and associations, government agencies and the general public.
I am pleased to release the final report on the review of the Auction Sales Act 1973 and invite your comment. The proposed changes aim to increase consumer confidence in the auction system and protect buyers and sellers against unfair and anti-competitive conduct at auctions. The Government’s position on issues such as vendor and dummy bidding, disclosure by auctioneers, record keeping, trust accounts, internet auctions, and the licensing of auctioneers is clarified in this final report.
The State Government is committed to ensuring current regulation is brought into line with modern market practices and that it is as consistent as possible with other Australian states and territories. We believe the changes outlined in this report will streamline the administration of this important area of legislation and will result in improved practices and protection for buyers and sellers

1) Vendor bidding and dummy bidding
It is recommended that the Act be amended to prohibit dummy bidding
completely, and to prohibit vendor bidding except where the right to make
vendor bids is expressly stated in the conditions of the auction and each
and every vendor bid is disclosed as a vendor bid when it is made.
In order to facilitate enforcement it is recommended that all bidders be
required to be registered, and that auctioneers must only take bids from
registered bidders, with bidders to be identified by a number or paddle.
It is also recommended that significant penalties be imposed for breach of
the prohibition on vendor bidding and that a purchaser should be entitled to
claim compensation for loss or damage caused by any person breaching
the provisions.

This includes Internet Auctions:

10) Internet auctions
It is recommended that general provisions concerning the conduct of
auctions also apply to internet auctions conducted in Western Australia if
appropriate. It is recognised that jurisdictional issues could have an impact in relation to enforcement. It is therefore recommended that this issue be considered on a national basis

I haven't tracked whether the recommendations were adopted, but I'll do that next....I'd say there is a relevant Act for each State, and the trick would be in detailing each State's laws regarding Shill bidding and noting the similarities to each State Govt Minister responsible for that portfolio...more than likely it will be Fair Trading in each state.

[*CountessA*]

They used to have government inspectors in the meat works to make sure things were being done properly; why not at eBay to force them to stop aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers?

Yes, if only eBay would co-operate... I can't see them agreeing. It is almost certain that they don't want to stop certain sellers in this practice.

There's a case that eBay should not be policing itself with regard to shill-bidding; it should be simply the responsibility of eBay to collect the data and turn it over to the appropriate authorities.

The appropriate authorities would not be moved by considerations of not wanting to offend certain sellers.

They would be moved solely by considerations of the law.

Now, do we have clear legislation addressing the issue of shill-bidding with online auctions? We should quote it here so that it's visible and clear. EDIT: Cross-posting! Cupie, you beat me to it... So the task is now to see what happened with regard to those recommendations.

[**cupie**]

Read above....it's different from state to state....and no doubt each state will have addressed online auctions as part of the Federal Treasury's E-Commerce Guidelines or under the Auction Sales Act in each state.  It appears to be administered by F/trading or C/affairs but they don't seem to know how to articulate things very well when it comes to consumer complaints.  So the trick is to spell it out for them.

The E-Commerce Guideline forms the basis of Best Practice in internet commerce.....What we need to do is bring together the legislation from each state on the subject of shill bidding in Auctions generally, and then extrapolate that to the internet in line with E-Commerce Best Practice.

It's not new, but legislation is useless unless consumers know their rights and exercise them.

[*CountessA*]

Exactly. I was discussing this with my father this morning, in reference to another piece of legislation. I said that legislation is like the bars of a gaol cell, but bars aren't going to stop someone who's not been reported and found guilty and put behind the bars.

[**cupie**]

exactamundo !!!

This article is very very interesting, given that Deacons represented Ebay in their Exclusive Dealing attempt....it was even more interesting...not sure it's helpful, but it is relevant to the debate of accountability.  

Note some of the references they make?.

Internet auctions, consumer protection and the Trade Practices Act
 
Contact: Mathew Webster  and Andrew Sorenson  of  Deacons
 
Internet auctions have in recent years demonstrated themselves to be a popular forum for fraudulent activities. Sellers and Internet auction operators, including overseas based sellers and operators, need to be aware of their potential liability under the provisions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and/or equivalent State and Territory Fair Trading legislation (for example, the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)), where they sell or are involved in the sale of products to Australian consumers. Irrespective of the contractual arrangements between the parties, the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the TPA and/or equivalent Fair Trading legislation may well apply, provided a sufficient jurisdictional nexus is established in relation to the relevant conduct. This article considers the application of provisions of the TPA which may be relevant to Internet auctions, and some related commercial issues.

Internet auctions, like traditional auctions, offer a medium for consumers to buy and sell products using a bidding process. Some auction websites may also have a classifieds/trading section where consumers can purchase new or second hand products at specified prices.

For the purposes of this article, we will focus on two principal types of Internet auction activity, namely: business to consumer (“B2C”) or consumer to consumer (“C2C”) auctions. Significant auction activity also takes place at the business to business (“B2B”) level, in particular through the medium of B2B e-marketplaces.

However the focus of this article is on particular problems presented by B2C and C2C Internet auction transactions. In the case of a B2C auction the operator of the auction has control over the goods that are being auctioned. In the case of a C2C auction, the auction website acts more as a trading centre or venue where (depending upon the manner in which the auction is structured) the operator of the auction website is not a party to the actual sale and purchase of the auctioned goods. In this type of auction scenario the buyers pay the vendors directly for the goods.

One of the key benefits to sellers of an auction in cyberspace is the potential for attracting large numbers of buyers. This means that an offering is more likely to be picked up by an interested buyer, and can lead to greater competition amongst buyers for scarce goods and ultimately higher sale prices.

Of course these potential benefits to sellers may be offset by the fact that the pool of products available to consumers is also larger, with the result that consumers may be very particular about deciding to purchase a particular product, as they are likely to be able to source the same or alternative products at competitive prices elsewhere on the Internet. This aggregation of large numbers of buyers and sellers, and the low search and comparison costs characteristic of the Internet, mean that such transactions are inherently closer in nature to a hypothetical state of perfect competition than real world equivalents.

Unfortunately Internet auctions not only provide opportunities for consumers and businesses, but because of their anonymity they are also a vehicle that can be and often are taken advantage of by corporations and individuals with fraudulent intentions. According to research conducted in the United States of America, the most common complaints by consumers that have purchased goods in Internet auctions is that the seller failed to deliver the relevant goods as promised. In other cases the seller may fail to deliver the goods within a reasonable period of time or deliver goods that are materially different or less valuable than those that had been advertised.

Activities of a fraudulent nature may also occur during the auction itself. For example, a seller using a different name may lodge artificial bids in order to drive up the price. Also, a buyer may lodge an extremely low bid followed by an accomplice's extremely high bid. The buyer’s accomplice may then withdraw his bid and so that the item is sold to the buyer with the artificially low bid.

Section 58 of the TPA – failure to supply as ordered

Section 58 of the TPA (and its equivalents under State and Territory Fair Trading legislation) prohibit accepting payment where there is an intention not to supply goods or services, or to supply goods or services materially different from the goods or services for which payment (or other consideration) is accepted. The section also prohibits accepting payment where there are reasonable grounds of which the person is aware or ought to be aware, for believing that the person will not be able to supply the goods or services within the period specified by the person, or if no period is specified then in a reasonable period of time.

Operators of Internet auctions in Australia where the operator is in control of the goods to be purchased, and individuals selling goods via trading centres on the web who accept payment and:

    * do not deliver the relevant goods; or

    * fail to deliver the goods within a reasonable period of time; or

    * deliver goods that are materially different from the goods or services for which payment was accepted may potentially be caught under section 58 of the TPA.

In the case of individuals conducting private sales, a further question arises as to whether the conduct is “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of section 58. This issue is discussed further below.

Sections 52 and 53 of the TPA - misleading and deceptive conduct

Sellers who sell their products via Internet auctions and the operators of websites where Internet auctions take place need to be careful that the auction is not conducted in a manner that could constitute misleading and deceptive conduct under section 52 of the TPA (and/or its equivalents under State and Territory Fair Trading legislation). The types of seller and buyer bidding behaviour during an auction described earlier in this article may well constitute misleading or deceptive conduct by the seller or buyer (subject to determining whether such activities took place “in trade or commerce”, discussed further below).

Misleading and deceptive conduct will extend to the layout of the site itself. In this regard factors such as the size, type and colour of the font, the prominence and location of hyperlinks, visibility and location of key terms and conditions, whether any distracting graphics or technology are used as well as other relevant circumstances, may be relevant to whether the Internet based conduct is misleading or deceptive.

Most Internet auction sites are careful to describe themselves as merely a forum or venue for sellers and buyers to conduct auctions, and disclaim, in one form or another, responsibility for delivery by sellers or payment by buyers in relation to goods traded via their online auction platform. Nevertheless, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, scope may exist for a claim to be made against an Internet auction site for breach of section 52 in circumstances where a buyer or seller was defrauded.

Such a claim would depend, essentially, on whether the claimant could establish that they were led to believe that the auction site, through terms and conditions or through representations on the website, misled them as to the characteristics and security of the auction process. This could arguably occur through the mere failure of an auction site to adequately alert buyers or sellers to the fact that the site had no responsibility for, or control over, the transaction.

This issue was considered in the case of Evagora v eBay Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited  [2001] VCAT 49, although, being a Tribunal decision, its precedent value is limited. In that case, Evagora successfully bid for a computer in an eBay hosted auction, which was paid for but never arrived. The seller of the computer was based overseas. Evagora claimed for his loss against eBay, arguing that he did not read eBay’s user agreement, and that eBay represented that the auction site was safe, which overrode the terms of the user agreement. eBay was held liable by the Tribunal for the loss suffered by Evagora.

Internet auction operators who also sell goods needs to also be careful not to breach the provisions of section 53 of the TPA. Section 53 prohibits a number of false or misleading representations including:
# falsely representing that goods are of a certain standard, quality and value;

# representing that goods have a certain sponsorship or approval which they do not have;

# making a false or misleading representation in relation to the price of goods; and

# making a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods.
Accordingly the facts about the products being sold need to be very clear and accurate. Section 53 may also apply to sellers of goods via auction sites, provided the seller’s activities are judged to be “in trade or commerce” (see further below).

It is important that the terms and conditions on which a consumer participates in Internet auctions website are clear, accurate, and accessible to avoid potential claims under sections 52 and 53. It is also important not to reduce or nullify the effectiveness of any terms and conditions by contrary or inconsistent representations or impressions given to users via the actual content of the website.

These considerations are of particular importance having regard to the fact that the website terms and conditions are necessarily of the “Click Wrap” variety. That is, the user has no ability to vary the terms and conditions, and at best, simply clicks an “I Agree” button to indicate their agreement. Where terms and conditions are not positioned in such a way as to ensure that the user reads and agrees to them before using the website, their effectiveness is likely to be reduced.

In similar fashion, sellers of products on Internet auctions should make sure that their terms of trade are accurate, accessible and clear. Matters such as whether bids will be accepted from other countries; the form of payment required; who is responsible for payment of delivery and handling costs; and return and refund policies, should specified in the terms of trade.

“In trade or commerce”

It is important to note that sections 52, 53 and 58 of the TPA depend for their application upon the relevant conduct being “in trade or commerce”. This will be of particular importance in relation to sellers conducting private sales via online auction platforms. Case law exists to the effect that private “person to person” sales are not “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of section 52. It follows that, where a seller is conducting a private sale via an auction site, that seller may not be subject to the requirements of sections 52, 53 or 58. This will depend however upon the characterisation of a seller’s activities. A “one off” sale may well escape regulation under those provisions. However a seller who derives income from regular selling activities may nevertheless be found to be acting “in trade or commerce” for the purposes of sections 52, 53 and 58.

Jurisdiction

Space does not permit a detailed consideration of this issue in this article. It should be noted however that disputes over Internet transactions often involve jurisdictional issues, due to the fact that the parties, the website, and the server hosting the website may all be in different jurisdictions. This is often likely to be the case in relation to Internet auctions, where the buyer, seller, the auction website and website operator may all be located in different countries.

In the context of the TPA, it must be determined whether that Act and the particular provisions being invoked have application to the activities in question. If those questions are answered in the affirmative, issues of the enforceability of any judgment overseas must also be taken into consideration by the Courts.

Generally speaking, where a claim is made under the law of a particular country, the jurisdiction of the courts of that country to hear the claim is usually confined to matters with a requisite territorial connection to that country, which can include matters involving a person or persons having a defined connection to the territory.

The question of whether the courts of that country are the appropriate forum for the matter must also be determined. In this respect in Australia, a case will generally be heard locally unless Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum.

Section 5 of the TPA expressly provides that the TPA can operate extraterritorially. It extends the application of (inter alia) Part V of the TPA to conduct engaged outside Australia by, amongst other things, an Australian citizen, a person ordinarily resident in Australia, an Australian corporation and a company which conducts business within Australia.

In Bray v F Hoffman- La Roche , Merkel J noted that there is no requirement for a foreign entity to have a place of business in the jurisdiction for it to be carrying on business in the jurisdiction for the purposes of section 5 of the TPA. That case did not involve the Internet, but it may prove to have application in finding jurisdiction over companies conducting business via the Internet from outside Australia.

It is also noteworthy that section 6 of the TPA operates to extend the application of the TPA in reliance on (inter alia) the trade and commerce constitutional head of power (section 6(2)), and the postal, telegraphic and telephonic constitutional head of power (section 6(3)). Thus the TPA may apply to Internet activities by virtue of the fact that the activities involve trade and commerce between Australia and places outside Australia, or that telecommunications facilities are utilised to send and receive information via the Internet.

There is very little Australian case law in relation to establishing jurisdiction over activities conducted from overseas via the Internet. The High Court case of Dow Jones Inc v Gutnick , a defamation case, provides some guidance in this respect. In that case the server hosting the web based material was in the United States, but subscribers in Victoria had downloaded the material. As the case involved a claim of defamation, the location of the publication of the material was a key issue. In summary, it was found that publication occurred in the place where the material was downloaded, and accordingly the Court had jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding that the Dow Jones Case is more directly relevant to the law of defamation, the decision indicates that the Courts are likely to apply the domestic law of Australia to the Internet generally, and that overseas based material available to Australians on the Internet may be caught by Australian law. The recent case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen  demonstrates that Australian Courts are willing to find that jurisdiction can be established under the TPA over overseas based Internet activity.

That case involved the operation of a bogus Sydney Opera House website. The ACCC alleged that several consumers tried to buy tickets through the site, and were either overcharged or did not receive tickets. Claims of breach of sections 52 and 53 of the TPA were made. The operator, the website and the server hosting the website were all based overseas. The Court found jurisdiction was established by virtue of the trade and commerce power and the postal, telegraphic and telephonic power pursuant to section 6 of the TPA, and injunctions were granted restraining the operation of the website.

Andrew Sorensen and Mathew Webster are co-authors of the book “Trade Practices and the Internet” published by Thomson Lawbook Co (2003). The above issues are discussed in the book, which deals with the application of the provisions of Parts IV and V of the Trade Practices Act to the Internet]
January, 2004

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/11134.htm

[Philip.Cohen]

As a matter of interest I too investigated the law with regard to “fraud” on auctions and I here post a copy of the findings of my research that were originally included in my submission thereon to the ACCC on 17 February 2009; the ACCC were not at all impressed.

(Unfortunately the formatting of the text is disrupted by an apparent conflict between the “list” command and every other formatting code. Any formatting code will switch off the “list” code.)

The whole submission at: http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23585&highlight=&sid=f343b6ee38f0bb0e2d7b91efcf21e405

APPENDICES

THE AUSTRALIAN TRADE PRACTICES ACT

As far as the law in Australia is concerned, not being a lawyer, I can only quote the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) “SCAMwatch” website (my bolding):

“The ACCC administers the

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The purpose of the Trade Practices Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians by promoting competition and fair trading and providing for consumer protection. The Trade Practices Act applies to corporations as well as sole traders and partnerships whose activities cross state boundaries or take place within a territory. Part V of the Trade Practices Act (the consumer protection provisions) also applies to sole traders and partnerships whose activities are conducted by telephone or post, or use radio or television. …

“Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act is designed to stop corporations engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Generally, sellers are required to tell the truth or refrain from giving an untruthful impression. This provision is the one most likely to apply to scams in general. However there are some more specific sections of the Trade Practices Act which could apply. …

“Section 53 of the Act prohibits making false or misleading representations. This includes claims about the age, quality, sponsorship, approval, price or benefits of the good or service. …”

[/list]I particularly like the proscription of “conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive”. Yet, surprisingly, the ACCC advised me in 2008 that this blatant facilitating of the fraud of “shill bidding” was not an area in which they could be of any help: apparently the TPA only prohibits the making of a “false or misleading representation” but not the facilitating of the making thereof! The NSW Office of Fair Trading took the easy way out and simply parroted eBay’s nonsensical claim that “eBay is only a notice board provider and can place whatever conditions that they like on the use of their notice board”.

THE LAW ON SALE OF GOODS BY AUCTION AND ON FRAUD

The underlying U.K. and NSW Sale of Goods Acts with respect to “auction sales” are effectively identical:

Sale of Goods Act 1979 (U.K.)
Section 57: Auction sales
(1) Where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each lot is prima facie deemed to be the subject of a separate contract of sale.
(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner; and until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid.
(3) A sale by auction may be notified to be subject to a reserve or upset price, and a right to bid may also be reserved expressly by or on behalf of the seller.
(4) Where a sale by auction is not notified to be subject to a right to bid by or on behalf of the seller, it is not lawful for the seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid at the sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such person.
(5) A sale contravening subsection (4) above may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.
(6) Where, in respect of a sale by auction, a right to bid is expressly reserved (but not otherwise) the seller or any one person on his behalf may bid at the auction.

Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
Section 60: Auction sales
(1) where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each lot is prima facie deemed to be the subject of a separate contract of sale,
(2) a sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner: until such announcement is made any bidder may retract his or her bid,
(3) where a sale by auction is not notified in the conditions of sale to be subject to a right to bid on behalf of the seller, it shall not be lawful for the seller to bid or to employ any person to bid at the sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such person: any sale contravening this rule may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer,
(4) a sale by auction may be notified in the conditions of sale to be subject to a reserved price, and a right to bid may also be reserved expressly by or on behalf of the seller,
(5) where a right to bid is expressly reserved, but not otherwise, the seller, or any one person on the seller’s behalf, may bid at the auction.

[/list]It is incomprehensible to me that, in the circumstances where a vendor may lawfully bid on his own goods, both these Sale of Goods Acts are silent on whether or not such vendor bids should be disclosed as such at the time they are made, and so it has apparently been standard practice in the “live” auction industry in Australia and the U.K. to “milk” buyers by the practice of undisclosed vendor bidding, at least up to any “reserve” price. Surely, if such vendor bidding is not disclosed as such then the provisions of the local “Fraud” Acts should apply. And, surely eBay’s deliberate facilitating of any such undisclosed vendor bidding activity, notwithstanding the unlikelihood that it may be an unintended consequence of some other policy, should be required to cease.

In apparent contrast to the NSW Sale of Goods Act, in the case of auctions for residential property and rural land (Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002; Regulation 2003) it is made clear that the vendor is limited to one bid only and such bid must be declared as a ‘vendor bid’ at the moment it is made:

“Only one bid may be made on behalf of the seller by the auctioneer. The seller’s bid by the auctioneer cannot be used unless notice of the right to bid is notified in the conditions of sale, which must be clearly displayed and be available for inspection before the auction commences.

When the seller’s bid is made by the auctioneer, the auctioneer must state that it is a ‘vendor bid’.”
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Property_agents_and_managers/Rules_of_conduct/Real_estate_agents/Auction_laws.html (under “Auctioneers”)

“It is an offence against the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 for a person to do any of the following:
?(a) make a bid as the seller,
?(b) make a bid on behalf of the seller (unless the person is the auctioneer),
?(c) procure another person to make a bid on behalf of the seller.
Any bid made with the dominant purpose of benefiting the seller constitutes a bid made on behalf of the seller.
A bid may be found to be a bid made on behalf of the seller even though the seller did not:
?(a) request the bid, or
?(b) have any knowledge of the bid.”
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Property_agents_and_managers/Rules_of_conduct/Real_estate_agents/Auction_conditions.html (under “Other auction notices, Penalty for dummy bidding”)

[/list]There are, of course, the various Australian state Acts that cover “fraud” which, as state Acts, would appear to be somewhat redundant in this age of the internet and electronic commerce, eg:

CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW)
Section 178BB Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements
(1) Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

[/list]Regardless, it is interesting to note that in the U.K. the law appears to have moved to a definite recognition that undisclosed vendor bidding is a “false representation” and therefore a fraud on the buyer. The new U.K. Fraud Act 2006 is expressed in general terms and clause 2(5) is obviously aimed at today’s electronic commerce. Of course, getting unscrupulous auctioneers / vendors to observe the law is another matter: it will always be “buyer be very aware” at any attended live auction.

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
??(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
??(b) intends, by making the representation—
????(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
????(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
??(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
??(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
??(a) the person making the representation, or
??(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

[/list]The following interpretation of this “Fraud by false representation” section of the Fraud Act by the U.K. OFT (who probably had a hand in its drafting) prescribes the making of a “shill” bid, ie, an undisclosed vendor bid to be a “false representation” and therefore a criminal fraud (and therefore surely eBay’s deliberate facilitating of such activity also should be unlawful). And I quote page 146 of the U.K. OFT publication Internet shopping: An OFT market study, at:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft921.pdf):

“10.56. As discussed at para 10.28, shill bidding was the main form of deceptive practice suspected in our online survey (13.6 per cent). This is where a seller makes strategic bids, for example from an additional anonymous account or by an associate. Undisclosed shill bidding is illegal[309] and most auction sites expressly prohibit it.
…
“309 The Fraud Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007, makes it an offence for a person to commit fraud by false representation where the representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for himself or another. Under section 57(4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, it is not lawful for a seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid on his behalf at a sale by auction unless the auction is notified to be subject to such a right. A sale contravening this section may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.”

A PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY OF THE NEW FRAUD OFFENCES IN THE U.K. FRAUD ACT 2006
(Source: http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2458&parent_id=2439)

The UK Fraud Act 2006 came into force 15 January 2007. It has radically changed the law of criminal fraud.

The old law

Before the Fraud Act came into force, the statutory fraud offences were based on deception. They included:

•?Obtaining property by deception.
•?Obtaining a money transfer by deception.
•?Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
•?Obtaining services by deception.

Each offence would only apply in specific circumstances.

In addition there was (and remains) a non statutory offence of conspiracy to defraud which is defined very widely. There is no need to intend deception or financial loss but there must be more than one participant in the fraud.

Defects in the old law

The deception offences had become a bit of a mess. It was often confusing to work out which offence applied, and they frequently overlapped.

The excessive intricacy of the deception offences contributed to the length and complexity of trials. Moreover, the whole area was riddled with technical loopholes. For example, the court held that a machine (for example an ATM) cannot be “deceived” because it does not think.

The new law

The Fraud Act swept all of the old statutory deception offences away. Instead a new offence of fraud has been defined as follows:

•?The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another.
•?In addition, the defendant must carry out one of these acts:
??Making a false or misleading representation.
??…

The new offence of fraud is intended to be wide and also flexible, particularly as technology changes.

There is no reliance on the concept of “deception”. It does not matter whether the false information actually deceives anyone, it is the misleading intention which counts.

The offence of conspiracy to defraud has not been abolished, but the government’s objective is that reliance on it by prosecutors should be very much less.

The impact of the change

What will be the impact on business of the new act? This will probably not be very profound outside the criminal law enforcement field, but several areas should be highlighted:

•?The Fraud Act could be used to criminalise conduct which may previously only have amounted to a breach of contract or other civil law or moral obligation. Examples may include:
??…
??”Shill bidding” on online auction sites. This is where sellers bid up the price of their own items using a second identity.
??…
•?The Fraud Act significantly limits the right of defendant to claim privilege against self-incrimination (the right to refuse to disclose documents or give evidence if doing so would expose him to the risk of a criminal prosecution) where he is being charged with a fraud offence.
?…

My further comment thereon

The Australian national consumer legislation, the Trade Practices Act (TPA), appears to suffer from the same deficiencies as the old UK law based on “deception”: too many “specific” circumstances, and “riddled with technical loopholes”. One can only hope that the ACCC will instigate changes to the TPA, similar to that in the UK Fraud Act, to cover these same modern technological circumstances; in particular, to bring to heel such unscrupulous organizations as eBay who are now, by the masking of bidder IDs, facilitating the perpetration of fraud by false representation on consumers.

A comment on Section 47(7) of the Australian Trade Practices Act (TPA)

Expressed in simplified narrative terms that I can comprehend:

“A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses … to supply goods or services to a person … for the reason that the person … has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from another person

not being a body corporate related to the corporation.”

[/list]What is the point of the word “not” in the above clause; should it not read:

“A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses … to supply goods or services to a person … for the reason that the person … has not acquired, or has not agreed to acquire, goods or services of a particular kind or description directly or indirectly from

the corporation or another person whether or not being a body corporate related to the corporation.”

[/list]That would appear to put a stop to eBay mandating that users offer PayPal.

A comment on the Section 53 of the TPA: False or misleading representations

I don’t think that there is any doubt that an undisclosed vendor bid (a “shill” bid) is a “false representation” and the below underlined additional wording would appear to make eBay’s facilitating of such activity by “absolute anonymity of bidding” (effectively the ‘aiding and abetting’ of shill bidding) unlawful.

“A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services

make a false representation where the representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for the corporation or another or aid and abet or otherwise facilitate the obscuring of the making of such a false representation including (but not limited to):
(a) falsely represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; …”
[/list]

[some_other_bozo]

I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.

Huh?

What I miss?

For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!

BOZO

[*barny*]

I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.

Huh?

What I miss?

For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!

BOZO

Carm orf it Bozo.... I'm the thick one around here..

 

[some_other_bozo]

I saw it , was only here for a brief moment.

Huh?

What I miss?

For crying out loud people....ya gotta remember Im slow!!!

BOZO

Carm orf it Bozo.... I'm the thick one around here..

 

Barny. The question here is: is your brick thicker than my two short planks....and if both of them fell in the forest and no one was around to hear would they still be picked up by a passing spider monkey and hurled at the Donahoe Dude?

I mean Im just saying...

BOZO

[**cupie**]

Says who Barny? - Jethro Tull?...lol

Phil...It's interesting, because in NSW, instead of the Auction Sales Act, which WA relies upon (and which is quite specific to the auction industry), we have NSW Sale of Goods Acts, which is completely ambiguous when it comes to auctions.  

I'm going to print down your submission and give it some thought....just because we reside in NSW, doesn't mean to say the argument has to be based on NSW legislation or the lack thereof.  I think there's a case for auction sales specifically to be focused upon (as WA has done via a specific act).  You know it's amazing....whenever you do a review of NSW's consumer protection laws against other states, NSW is ALWAYS drowning in ambiguity and mostly lacking.  

Victoria for instance has had unfair consumer contract laws since 2003, and yet even today, NSW is yet to implement the same consumer protection standards, although they must do so under Fed. E-Commerce Guidelines along with every other State who hasn't bothered to implement them.

As I've said, I'll take a look at other states and see if they specifically look at Auction Sales.  The argument can then be focused nationally, given that Ebay is a National Platform within our borders.  We can also highlight how the NSW legislation is sadly lacking.

Take a look at the WA Auction Sales Act.....I think it's a good baseline for comparison in this argument, and as I said, Ebay is National

Also....did ACCC reply to your submission?

[*barny*]

Bozo,  mate,

I've got a franchise on the planks too.

[**cupie**]

And Phil's gonna hit ya's over the head with em if you don't stop hijacking this thread....lmao...*wink*

[*barny*]

Fair comment Cupie...

I apologise Phil.

 

[Poddy]

Barny, Bozo,

Let me enlighten you what you missed was an all too explicit email received by a poster and should not have been posted here in any thread.

We all know that crap exists but I dont think we want to see it displayed in the spotlight.

[some_other_bozo]

Well that dont ease my curiosity none now does it

BOZO

[*CountessA*]

One aspect to auctions of particular items on eBay is when those items all sell for approximately the same price. Now, we could assume the market is driving the price. But for it to happen when the seller has pages and pages of items listed, some of which have no bid and some of which have varying bid amounts, and then look at the seller's completed listings by having a substantial number of those items on your watch list - and notice that all of them have the same "winning" bid of the same amount - it is perhaps a little coincidental. In days gone by, one could see the identities of those winning bidders, and one could see that some of them had been unsuccessful bidders on others of those items, as well as "winners" on other identical items by the seller. One could see the pattern of bidding (no bidding on any similar items by another seller, even if the other seller (with good feedback) had the same item listed for around the same price); one could see the lack of feedback to the "buyer" although the buyer might leave positive feedback within hours of the auction ending.

It's a little harder now, but the same patterns of behaviour can be seen.

That isn't definitive proof of shill-bidding, but it's certainly strong evidence and would be enough to warrant an investigation into the possibility of a shill-bidding ring.

No such investigation has to my knowledge been launched. The evidence is there strongly enough to make genuine bidders aware of what is happening, but it's not enough for eBay's so-called sophisticated tools to pick it up. Oh, eBay, eBay... you're welcome to hire a few of us to be the shill-bidding detectors. We can add real edge to your sophisticated methods! We can even add sophisticated methods to your sophisticated methods! And - just by the way - we will actually find shill-bidders.

Oops.

I think that's the snag.

We'd find shill-bidders.

It is just possible that shill-bidding is not something eBay WANT to know about...

[Philip.Cohen]

It seems to me that the TPA has sufficient teeth to force eBay to stop aiding and abetting unscrupulous sellers to defraud buyers; we just have to convince the ACCC that eBay is in fact knowingly doing nothing proactive to stop this defrauding of consumers; that all eBay's talk about "sophisticated" systems to detect and stop shill bidding is all BS, and get the ACCC to act on what I see as eBay's obvious breaking of our TPA law. And it's not just Australian law; these sorts or laws against such fraud and deceptive trading practices exist in all civilised countries.

[RiffRaff]

Isn't it great when conspiracy theorists find each other 

[tellomon]

The view is great from the balcony!

[Poddy]

"Back" in the land of Oz Riff?

[Philip.Cohen]

I think what Riff is trying to tell us is that everything at eBay is "kosher", that everything eBay says is "fair dinkum", that eBay actually does have a proactive and very sophisticated system for the detection of shill bidding and so there is actually no real problem with shill bidding on eBay, that the eBay auction system really is perfectly secure and buyers can early-on lodge maximum value proxy bids with no fear that an unscrupulous seller can ascertain what they have bid, ...

At the least he may be a naive eBay apologist; I would not be surprised if he was an eBay employee.

[**cupie**]

Isn't it great when conspiracy theorists find each other

And isn't it great, when unconscionable conduct is uncovered by those who engage intellect instead of sarcasm ?.  

Riff, if you don't agree with the debate, then at least have the character and intellect to present a reasoned alternative argument......just saying that people are conspiracy theorists has no credibility in this debate...and frankly, unless you're prepared to actually do some level of research to back up such condescending comments, then I doubt your point of view can be taken very seriously anyway.  Of course, you can always do the same level of reading and contemplation that phil has obviously done, and then reply to this debate with some level of credibility.  It's not too late.

At least Phil has taken the time to review each legislation pertaining to NSW laws, and quite frankly I find his analysis, far more convincing than someone who indulges in name calling as a counter argument.  JMO.

[Philip.Cohen]

I would have thought that even an eBay employee, when presented with the facts, would have second thoughts about the at least unethical, if not criminal, behaviour of their employer; just goes to show that profit invariably comes before principle in our free enterprise system; if the boss condones such unprincipled/crimunal behaviour, then I guess we can't blame robots on the lower rungs for closing their eyes to it.

[*CountessA*]

It should be borne in mind that differences of opinion will play out. Sometimes sincere people can truly have completely different perspectives; I can't tell you how many times the same experiments of bombarding particles with other particles has resulted in a lack of phenomena - and that result has been perceived as meaning completely different things, even by individuals with the same physics background, the same intelligence, etc.

In a case like shill-bidding, where so much of the evidence is a matter of putting scattered bits of information together, there are people who honestly don't consider that the percentage likelihood of connections between those pieces of information leads to a solid conclusion. There are also those who are not good at seeing connections at all, as well as those who see meaningful connections everywhere (even where such connections do not exist). The best kind of intelligence is open to the possibilities of connections, but also able to step back and gauge the possibility of meaning being created by the viewer rather than the data. It's tricky.

I know without question of certain individuals who do shill-bid on their own items, and who have been reported, and who continue to trade on eBay and to use shill-bids to drive up the prices of their items. When I say "without question", I mean without question. It's not assumption or a preponderance of evidence; it's unambiguous knowledge. However, I didn't need that unambiguous knowledge to convince me that the connections in cross-matching data of certain patterns of bidding behaviour correspond to a strong likelihood of shill-bidding - in everyday terms, let's call it certainty.

[Philip.Cohen]

I apologise for the poor formatting of that previous summary of some law on fraud. I have dumped the same summary into another auctionbytes.com thread, correctly formatted, for anyone interested ...

http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502474#6502474

Moderators: Your SMF bulletin board does have a problem with its "list" (indent) formatting command in that any other formatting command will cancel the list command. Maybe SMF should be asked to fix?

[*CountessA*]

I know - that list function has enraged me more than once. The next update may see an improvement.

[RiffRaff]

"Back" in the land of Oz Riff?

Why would you ask a question if you know the answer? Best double check that IP.

Riff, if you don't agree with the debate, then at least have the character and intellect to present a reasoned alternative argument......

Cue, when I see a reasoned arguement, I'll respond. We ain't there yet.

Let me just say this. I've seen many theories thrown around by many of the posters on this thread. Not just here but elsewhere and in private. It takes courage to admit you were wrong. But, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

Phil, you would like to think I'm an eBay employee........wrong. You label me an eBay apologist because I disagree with your theory about eBays' encouragement of 'shill bidding' and furthermore you claim I think shill bidding does not exist on eBay......wrong.

Bobby, you once claimed that I was one of your trolls using another ID to bait you here........wrong.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously. Why would anyone bother to debate with you when the statements and accusations you make are false and ridiculous. Nobody is listening. Say something positive that will make a difference and people will listen.

Like I said before: It's great when conspiracy theorists find each other...............it's laughable.

Prove something.............then make the accusation.

You're doing it backwards.

[Poddy]

Riff, can you not see just how silly what you have said sounds?

Not only do you not offer an alternative view but you offer no view at all.

Most of all of your responses consist of
'It's great when conspiracy theorists find each other'
........wrong.
Why would anyone bother to debate with you when the statements and accusations you make are false and ridiculous.
something that was shown to be false........wrong.

None of the above have been backed up with even one shred of supporting dialogue.

Are we to take your word as unshakable truth without question? I don't think so.

Riff how can you be so certain that none of the theories that you are dead against are not real?
Do you claim to have some sort of inside information to be so convinced?
But I guess if you did then you would put it forward as a valid argument so that can't be it.
The only motive I can see in your actions is that you want to cause disruption to any thread that involves criticism of eBay or PayPal.
Do you even look or try to digest any of the information contained in the arguments or do you have a closed mind where eBay and Paypal are concerned?


Cast your mind back Riff to a previous time when you leveled groundless accusations, I am sure that you know what I am saying.

I can remind you if you wish

[*Yibida*]

[*smee*]

according to Tello you get a better view from the balcony level

[*Yibida*]

Plenty of room on the couch with me smee...sit down and put ya feet up... It's a repeat but still entertaining ....LOLOL

[*smee*]

I'm with ya Yibs .... do ya want me to bring anything?

[*Yibida*]

Just the coke I've got the pop corn....

[*smee*]

I cant get coke any more..... Ben has moved to Richmond

[Philip.Cohen]

Without wishing to offend anyone in particular, but just about every comment that I can recall made by RiffRaff leads me to conclude that, unless he has at some time suffered a serious brain injury, he has to be in the employ of eBay, and I iNtend to tReat any of his nOnsensical rEsponses as bEing sImply aNother of the tYpe of dIsingenuous nOnsenses we have cOme to eXpect from eBay and iGnore tHem from now on. ...

Riff, you are undoubtedly one of those people who can accept eBay's absurd statement that "hidden bidders" does not make it any easier for unscrupulous sellers to shill bid.

But seriously, Riff, I have my alarm clock set to wake me up again on 21 October, for the third quarter financial results: I don't want to miss "Noise" Donut spinning his latest excuses for the further reduction in revenue from the eBay marketplaces and the consequential further devastating effect that will have on eBay profits. "Noise" is going to be again looking around for more staff to "pink slip" (or ship to the Philippines) to try to lessen that effect on profits; I hope that you can convince him that your pro-eBay efforts on the forums are worth the money. ...

I predict "Noise" claiming a further increase in users (now that every unscrupulous sellers has at least 10 shill bidding IDs); what a shame none of these many new IDs are ever going to buy anything nor generate any FVFs. ...

Frankly, it would be better for the good order of the forum if Riff's nonsensical, non constructive comments were simply ignored, which is what I intend do do from now on.

[tellomon]

Frankly, it would be better for the good order of the forum if Riff's nonsensical, non constructive comments were simply ignored, which is what I intend to do from now on.


"Bummer"

[shyer]

Do I think shill bidding occurs on Ebay YES

Do I think ebay cares NO

Does ebay only care about next quarters profit YES.

Do I know shill Bidders YES.

Has ebay done anything (sometimes a please be better at it lesson given) NO

Could ebay reduce shill biding YES

However their will always be "hard to detect" shill bidders and that I believe is past what ebay can be reasonably expected to do. Consumers must realise ALL auctions are open to shill bids and must know their price BEFORE bidding. And ignore the theatre of the auction.

We are I believe on the cusp of more shill bidding but even hidden deeper. If you look at the metrics of how the new Best Mis"MATCH" ebay default search works, with personal surveys I have done I estimate 95% of buyers are unaware of misMatch's existence or uneducated how to change to their preferred sort order.

eg. Ebay is now trying to favor BINs , so if I put 9 items up for sale over 10 days. I shill buy one on day 2 and shill buy another on day 4 . That bin will shoot to the front page of a best match search. Even if my DSRs and feedback are below average. All sellers know traffic means sales, sales attract sales and my BIN is on the front page with traffic and thus real sales.

I am happy, I get genuine sales after I while I can even stop paying for featured plus listings my self generated sales do that for me. I can even claim my final value fees back on my own "buys" with a mix of unpaid and agree to cancel. AND still keep ALL ! the self made points, to keep the BIN on the front page. There are a few twists in that useage but I do not want to put it on public display.

Similar with watchers and early bids  on an auction

[**cupie**]

Interesting observations shyer....I think Ebay like to complicate things to such a degree, that it's a brain melt down just trying to figure out the many twists and turns for consumers.  

I had heard that the best match feature is designed to put certain high volume sellers on top....I couldn't believe the many OS listings I kept getting, and those that were least like my search request.... and unless you set your preferences to Australia Only, Ending Soonest, etc etc etc...you are instantly bombarded with Ebay's idea of what you're looking for...it's manipulation at its finest in my view....but then aren't they just a venue?....isnt the buyer seller relationship none of their business?.......yeah right...lol....It's almost like herding cattle isn't it?

I STILL go straight to the old category titles, and instantly press Australia only and Newly listed, but if you don't set the preferences, it reverts back to Best Match every single time......*shakes head*.

Phil...I agree, the quarterly figures should say it all.  Has anyone noticed the shop listings being included in searches now?  Well, I think that was to bolster the numbers of listings they display in otherwise flagging categories.  e.g. I search one category daily as a collector, and I've noticed since the listing numbers were combined with Shop listings, that the overall category numbers are going down daily....i.e. one sub category went from 315 items to 557.....and now it's back down to 389, even with shop listings?  mmmhhhh!!!!  that's only one particular category and all of it's subcategories.....so I wonder whats happening in other categories..

[Philip.Cohen]

"I can even claim my final value fees back on my own "buys" with a mix of unpaid and agree to cancel. AND still keep ALL!"

I wonder if eBay will ever tell us how much the incidences of such FVF avoidance has been increasing since "hidden bidders" was introduced and shill bidding by professiomal dealers became even more rampant than it previously was.

It's going down the toilet baby; look at just about any category: 0 bids, 0 bids, 0 bids; and many of those items that have more than one bid, are just as likely to be the seller's own bids.

And for this mess, unscrupulous, disingenuous, eBay has no one but themselves to blame.

[tellomon]

eBay has no one but themselves to blame.

We know that.


It will never happen.

You know that.

[*Yibida*]

[**cupie**]

Philip....please be sure to post Ebay's quarterlies....that will be interesting....I'm predicting a mass exodus of funds from Paypal with this latest debacle...stand by....liquidity about to crash worldwide...lmao.

BTW, if you retain a balance in your Paypal accounts....I wouldn't !!!...get it out of there....before Paypal 'Launder' you.

[Liisa-Sx]

Anyone else find this Oxymoron sadly amusing...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Great-Big-Ebay-Con-Book-|-Stephen-Mycoe-NEW-ING_W0QQitemZ390087888651QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090830?IMSfp=TL0908301410002r22532

the seller has quite a few negs themselves lol

PS. Cupie Irony is probably more fitting indeed, or perhaps both "Trusted seller, selling non trust" lol

[**cupie**]

Ironic even....lmao

[Philip.Cohen]

On my travels around eBay I recently came across an interesting auction (280395235257) which I suspect is a classic example of a shill placing a ridiculously high bid to ascertain the maximum of the current high bidder and then retracting that bid, and another then upping the bid towards the genuine bidder's maximum. No doubt at least one reader will think that this is all perfectly "kosher" and could not possibly be untoward. What do the rest of you think?

http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502502#6502502

[**cupie**]

This might seem like a silly question but how do you find out what each party has bid?  I was bidding on an item recently and got outbid, and so I checked the bidding history page of my opponent, which only really told me that the other bidder had only 2% history out of 241 bids overall...so I figured I wasn't being shilled...but I do check these days before bidding again.  I won the item in question at the last minute anyway...I don't do bidding wars...you just end up paying too much.  

[*CountessA*]

Philip, in this case (looking at the history of the winning bidders) it may well have a simple explanation of art lovers who want to see whether they should persist in trying to bid for a particular painting. Some bidders do this; they will place a ridiculously high bid to see whether there's a very high proxy bid already placed on the painting, and then decide - on that basis - whether it's worth placing a genuine bid on the item. Of course they will retract their outrageously high bid, which is why you'll so frequently see such high bids in even increments such as $40,000 as was the case here - so that they have a genuine-sounding excuse for retracting their bid.

I may be wrong - but that's what this looks like to me. It seems to me that a bidder was interested, placed a high bid, saw that there was already a proxy bid that was higher than the amount he wanted to pay, and retracted his bid.

It MAY be that this 0-feedback account was a shill-bidding ID used by the seller to push up the price, but I think it's impossible to tell in this instance. You might want to keep an eye on the pattern occurring with further auctions by that particular eBay seller, to see whether it happens again - and if it does, it would seem a little more likely that your suspicions were correct.

[Philip.Cohen]

Hi countessa,

I was never concerned about the winning bidder, it was the "history" of the underbidder and the retracting bidder that worried me. And, why then did the underbidder then pointlessly increase his bid knowing that the high bidder's bid was $4700? Of course, we simple peasants can never be sure about anything on eBay but, on the balance of probability, this is, to me, as clear a case of fraud as you could possibly find.

Then, what about my question regarding the high bidder who has had his maximum exposed by such shenanigans; is such a bidder positively notified so that they too have the opportunity to retract their bid? And what about the fact that it was a "mutually agreed" retraction (therefore not noted on the retracting bidder's Bid History Details page, and why not so noted?)?

This eBay auction system is about as "clunky" as any mechanism could possibly be. No wonder "Noise" Donahoe would prefer all listings to be "fixed price"; problem is, by the time he achieves that, eBay will be with the undertaker.