re News Article "eBay buyers fleeced by teenage internet girl"

[*Yibida*]

.... must be the longest epic thread ever... I'm gunna submit it for the Guinness book of record's !

[Poddy]

Hi Ya Yibi

Who got the last word?

I was otherwise occupied  this evening

[RiffRaff]

Yes, poddy. That is from the policy however those discretionary payments are made. It would make no sense at all for PayPal to deny claims using their discretionary powers. Imagine the bad publicity.

[Poddy]

I see so they have included a redundant phrase in their policy.

Why would it be included if it was never going to be called on? 

That it is a major loophole that the entire PayPal organization can fit through.

Its like going to the bank and depositing an amount and the teller says to you 'we will give you back your money if we feel like it but we dont have to and can't be legaly held responsible to do so.

Would you feel comfortable with that ?

[llama]

Like Riff mentioned, I have also hit the limit on transactions on one of my Paypal accounts - it is a non-verified Personal one that I use for accepting non-CC payments on. That account doesn't have either a Bank Account OR a Credit Card attached to it.

What I used to do was transfer $ from my selling accounts, then use that other account to purchase stuff, just like Poddy described. My limit was $5K, which means that is the level of activity that Paypal will endure before locking the account down.

Whether Paypal requires verification or identification is pretty much irrelevant, because they are the ones accpting that risk. Whilst there are clauses in the Paypal  policies to allow them an "out" from paying, I have not seen documented evidence that a legitimate claim has been denied.

So, as Riff says, it doesn't really matter if Paypal chooses to verify sellers or not - the Buyer is protected.

And that works in reverse too - if a Buyer fraudulantly claims non-delivery against a seller, the seller is protected (providing that they have proof of shipment). It is irrelevant whether the buyer was verified or not, Paypal is the one who wears the loss if they cannot track the guilty party down.

----

Like Al Capone, I have some other "anonymous" PP accounts - all you need is a Gmail address to open one.

Note that you cannot become a seller on eBay without verifying yourself in some way or another. So, that means a Credit Card or Bank Account, or nominating a VERIFIED Paypal Account. All those methods require 100 point identification to open, so there is little point requiring the exact same verification again.

[llama]

Its like going to the bank and depositing an amount and the teller says to you 'we will give you back your money if we feel like it but we dont have to and can't be legaly held responsible to do so.

Would you feel comfortable with that ?

That is EXACTLY what is actually the case in banking. This came up when the Global Crisis first arose - and the way I understand it the banks DO NOT guarantee that you will get your money back if they fold.

[RiffRaff]

I'd say, simply because they can. It would be extremely foolish to use it unless they were in financial strife, which wouldn't appear to be the case. If you owned PayPal poddy and you were told that you could include a discretionary clause to be on the safe side, would you include it? I would.

Last post.

[*CountessA*]

Countess it is obviously cheaper in the long run for eBay/PayPal to process claims than to prevent some of the fraud. Either way though, it works in the buyers favour.

I can see your point of view. I can't really agree, though. I am still out by the cost of 2 games + the postage... or at the very least, I'd be out $70. (This of course isn't because of fraud... but it illustrates the problems that might occur when people HAVE been defrauded and are required to post back the item in question.)

There are others who have experienced worse situations. Think of the frustration of being defrauded - it can be an incredibly exhausting experience. The defrauded buyer sometimes has to jump through hoops to receive the refund. Not only that, but PayPal aren't exactly quick in processing claims. A month or more to be without one's funds could be disastrous. If one's laid out money for a purchase that has to be made, what is the buyer meant to do in the interim?

Much less hassle for the buyer if fraud is prevented initially.

It's also better for those who don't use PayPal.

It's better for buyers who don't want the stress.

I also worry that PayPal are not obliged to refund buyers in the cases we've been discussing. They have been doing so, but that isn't a guarantee they will continue to do so. The very fact that a get-out clause with no liability assumed is written into the agreement causes me concern. Why include this clause at all if they will always refund those who meet their guidelines?

As I said earlier, it's not what PayPal's practice so far has been that worries me so much as what PayPal's policy allows them to do in future...

[llama]

Keep in mind that the complex 100 point ID check on Oztion hasn't stopped people from being ripped off.

Consider this... The fact that the site knows who ripped somebody off means little to stop fraud.

When you pay by DD and the person rips you off, you already KNOW where you sent the money and you already KNOW who ripped you off. That is because you know the Bank Account that you paid into.

However, that isn't worth a pinch of shite because the cops do nothing to actually persue the matter.

There is no point in requiring 100 point verification for a seller who accepts Bank Deposit. The Bank account is already verified by law, and the owner of that account is easily tracked down via the Financial Institutions, and by the Police.

There is no way in hell that Ebay or Paypal would be granted access to our private information in the same way that the Banks and Cops can. And we should thank the lord for that 

[Poddy]

OK I guess I have a challenge to spawn a PayPay account and an eBay account in the name of some outlandish no existant entity and to sell something on eBay, not to be fraudulent, but to prove a point.

If I can do that Riff and Llama will you concede the point that PayPal/eBay are not as secure as they would like everyone to believe?

[*CountessA*]

Poddy, you would be putting yourself in an invidious position.

[*CountessA*]

Keep in mind that the complex 100 point ID check on Oztion hasn't stopped people from being ripped off.

Llama, interesting - do you have some figures about how many fraudulent sellers there are on Oztion?

When you pay by DD and the person rips you off, you already KNOW where you sent the money and you already KNOW who ripped you off. That is because you know the Bank Account that you paid into.

However, that isn't worth a pinch of shite because the cops do nothing to actually persue the matter.

I agree that verification ought to go hand-in-hand with activity by police to pursue the offender in cases of fraud.

But at least with a correct address and a phone number attached to the seller, there's a degree of determent to would-be scammers who don't want to draw the attention of the police.

There is no way in hell that Ebay or Paypal would be granted access to our private information in the same way that the Banks and Cops can. And we should thank the lord for that 

Must agree with you there, Llama! The method mooted for verification has been focusing, I believe, on AP performing the verification. This should work well to establish identity. And PayPal or eBay have already been asking certain members for proof of identity to be faxed to them. It's not standard, but it does occur.

[llama]

Llama, interesting - do you have some figures about how many fraudulent sellers there are on Oztion?

I cannot find anything now, may have lost the links in last Hard Drive crash. So, my comment is unsubstantiated and may have to be ignored for the moment.

But at least with a correct address and a phone number attached to the seller, there's a degree of determent to would-be scammers who don't want to draw the attention of the police

Perhaps to a very minor degree, but I am not convinced that it'd make a scrap of difference. Do would-be scammers really think that the police could track them down through Oztion or Ebay, but not via the Bank Account?

[imperfect]

Poddy, you may be able to do this, open new accounts etc, but then take it one step further (not advisable) and rip the buyer off and I guess things would change, your ID would be looked at more closely and your experiment would end.

A criminal can open a bank account if they have the resources, they can change their identity, they can do almost anything, but use this for criminal activity and that's when things change, they will no longer be under the radar.

[Poddy]

Imp, I guess that eBay's 'Radar' was broken at the time of the EBS debarcle huh?

Not only was their 'Radar' broken but when other people with 'Radar' alerted them all their communication system was broken. EBS was a big 'BLIP' on many 'Radars' I think a petty Mr. Capone would not even register on eBay's 'Radar'

[RiffRaff]

Poddy, I seriously doubt that EBS were under the radar. I would think that numerous guarantees were made by EBS to eBay that the situation would be resolved and that shipments were on the way to fill those pre-paid orders. As with any business, when you have a good customer, you give them some measure of flexibility to adhere to your terms and conditions. When those conditions are not met, as with any other company, the agreement is terminated.

[Poddy]

And in the meantime allowing EBS to rip off even more customers.

Bit like many people hearing and reporting screams coming from a house and the authorities saying 'It's OK the occupant is a model citizen and a member of the council'

Acceptable behavior?

[RiffRaff]

Poddy, up until the time that EBS was declared insolvent, no-one had actually been ripped-off. The delivery of the goods they had paid for was delayed.

I think eBay should have stopped them trading sooner aswell but you will probably find that EBS pleaded that they needed the turnover to complete the orders. In hindsight, we can say that wasn't the best way to handle that situation but at the time, eBay had to make a decision. Shut them down in the knowledge that nobody would receive their goods or let them try to trade out of the problem.

[Poddy]

Riff,
You said:-

I think eBay should have stopped them trading sooner aswell but you will probably find that EBS pleaded that they needed the turnover to complete the orders. In hindsight, we can say that wasn't the best way to handle that situation but at the time, eBay had to make a decision. Shut them down in the knowledge that nobody would receive their goods or let them try to trade out of the problem.

Riff are you privy to what communication transpired betweem EBS and eBay?

Or is the above pure conjecture on your part, a guess, a fabrication?

[*r3830*]

Notably - they (EBS) had previous form under similar circumstances. They did trade themselves out of the problem. Perhaps that was the reason for the perceived inaction.

And yes - they did offer guarantees...... of goods being delayed, stuck on the docks, refunds (by cheque and within 14 days..... that didn't eventuate)

[llama]

Allowing buyers a 45 day period to claim on PP for non-delivery means that there will definitely be a lag between when the problem starts and when Ebay/Paypal closes down the offender.

Until Paypal claims started rolling in, I doubt that there was strong financial reasons for eBay to close down EBS. But as soon as PP had to start paying out, then the alarm bells went off.

However, didn't everyone who'd paid EBS by Paypal get refunded? Or did I miss something?

And I can't see how ID verification (of any form whatsoever) could have made the slightest bit of difference to what happened with EBS?

[RiffRaff]

Or is the above pure conjecture on your part, a guess, a fabrication?

Poddy, have I said something to offend you?

Not a fabrication Poddy, just what happens in business.

[Poddy]

Llama,
I guess that the mountains of negative feedback, all the alerts by a lot of people were just over looked huh?

Riff,

No you have not offended me.

That question was so that I could establish if your statement held any water.

If what you said was any of those then it certainly would not.

If you were indeed privy to the communcations between EBS and eBay then your statement would be more credible

[imperfect]

Poddy,

You obviously do not use Paypal or eBay, I do and have not had any issues.

I like it, you don't...simple, when someone does not like something they will find fault in everything about it.

Arguing for the sake of an argument …

[tellomon]

[Poddy]

Imp,

You said:- You obviously do not use Paypal or eBay

You are very much mistaken I have used both for a number of years, I have a feedback score of 737 with 100% on one account and a feedback score of 365 with 100% on another.

With what I sell and buy it is advantagous to use PayPal because I sell worldwide and buy worldwide.

So I am at a loss why you say what you have said.

But let's not get personal and discuss the subject of the topic shall we?

[*r3830*]

Until Paypal claims started rolling in, I doubt that there was strong financial reasons for eBay to close down EBS. But as soon as PP had to start paying out, then the alarm bells went off.

Initially, everybody, with the possible exclusion of those who came into the problem quite late... were outside PayPals terms and conditions - and no refund was payable. They then established what they believed to be a reasonable cut-off date for refunds.... which excluded some (self included) from being able to claim, due to being prior to this date.

The MD of PayPal then stated that all who had used paypal would be refunded.  (now eligible for a claim again!) But then he too and fro'd on that statement - and tried to avoid honouring the obligation made.


However, didn't everyone who'd paid EBS by Paypal get refunded? Or did I miss something?

As I recall, there were two of us left. The other person had bought a quad bike for a child. Eventually, we both were refunded, the matter handled by our Australian staff here - and very well I might add.

[cueperkins]

I've just tracked down the ABC transcript that deals with various aspects of the EBS and DDD frauds.....(DDD was a recidivist fraud) EBS in fact owed Ebay $184,000 in fees, so obviously Ebay knew something was wrong...by comparison...just try not paying your ebay account for say $20.00...you'll be shut down in a heartbeat......   http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2380759.htm  BTW...Elizabeth Beal was involved in the Going Going Gone study...and she's quoting from the executive summary...so her comments are in fact qualified.

Cyber crime on the rise

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 02/10/2008

Reporter: Kerry Brewster

Buying goods or services on the internet has become common practice for many Australians, but some cyber consumers have become victims to rogue sellers who fail to deliver. How common is online fraud and what are Australian authorities doing about it?

Transcript
ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: Cars, whitegoods, furniture, the Internet has it all; people are these days buying it online. It's convenient but is it safe.

There's a growing list of cyber consumers claiming to be victims of rogue sellers who fail to deliver the goods.

Police regard online fraud as a new growth industry, and popular auction sites, such as eBay are obvious targets.

How safe is it to buy online? And are services like eBay doing enough to protect buyers and sellers?

Kerry Brewster reports.

KERRY BREWSTER, REPORTER: Each day distressed eBay buyers add their voices to hundreds of complaints against a single trader.

ROBERT VANDERMEER: And I'm just looking at a screen full of it here, did not receive item, have not received item, worst eBayer ever, don't buy from this fraudster.

We've rogue sellers on there who ought not be on there and eBay are not doing enough to keep those sorts of sellers out.

DAN FEILER, EBAY SPOKESMAN: EBay takes online fraud extremely seriously. We’ve over 2,000 trust and safety personnel; they're employees who work around the clock, 24/7, trying to minimise any issue.

KERRY BREWSTER: Former BP executive Robert Vandermeer bought and sold for years on eBay without a problem.

But when a broken arm forced him inside to convalesce, his browsing led to the discovery that many others weren't so lucky.

What he's seeing here is the wreckage left by a New South Wales based iPod seller 'Daily Depot Deals', who has failed to deliver hundreds of iPods and is not responding to buyer’s complaints.

ROBERT VANDERMEER: Looks very much to me to be fraud.

KERRY BREWSTER: Of even more concern to Vandermeer is eBay's silence.

ROBERT VANDERMEER: eBay has gone to ground; they're not saying anything. So we have 200 victims, and counting, totally in the dark; they really don't know where they stand, where to go.

DAN FEILER: It's very easy from people who are looking at these things from outside without the full information, which unfortunately I am not at liberty to go into, because we do have a privacy agreement in place with all of our members.

But I can assure you we address these matters extremely proactively.

KERRY BREWSTER: While eBay maintains it's doing everything it can to prevent criminals operating on its site police have no doubt online fraud is a growth industry.

DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT BRIAN HAY, FRAUD & CORPORATE CRIME, QLD POLICE: Online fraud is a massive problem. It's very pervasive, it's out there, it's global.

KERRY BREWSTER: Brian Crooks is a victim of what may turn out to be the largest fraud committed on eBay in Australia. He lost more than $3,000.

BRIAN CROOKS, FRAUD VICTIM: I was looking for a quad for Brad's birthday because he really, really wanted one. And we browsed the through the Internet and we found one that fitted the bill exactly.

KERRY BREWSTER: Brisbane based ebusiness supplies, or EBS, was eBay's seventh largest seller in Australia.

To pay for the bike Brian Crooks used eBay's online payment system PayPal believing it protected him from fraud.

BRIAN CROOKS: PayPal is the only payment method that offers up to $20,000 in buyer protection.

KERRY BREWSTER: But six weeks later despite emailed assurances were EBS, there was still no bike.

BRIAN CROOKS: There's another one telling me they're going to close it. The second delivery date on the 10th of July when it didn't turn up, that's when the alarm bells to ring for me.

KERRY BREWSTER: EBS was days from liquidation. Its owner had reportedly fled to China, leaving behind around 2,000 buyers waiting in vain for performers worth more than $1 million. But was it fraud?

DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT BRIAN HAY: We're not experts in financial audits; we're not experts in going through companies records, it's perfectly normal that a liquidator would go in, they would wind up the assets of the company, they would look at the books, the balance sheets, if they find a problem, they then refer it to us, and that is normal business.

KERRY BREWSTER: Although PayPal set up a special compensation fund, promising refunds for all, Brian Crooks says months of frustrating correspondence with eBay and PayPal has left him feeling ripped off again.

BRIAN CROOKS: When you speak to them by the phone you're told that it'll be referred to another department, and then they keep asking you for details which you have already sent.

And then they keep asking you to file a dispute, which you've already filed, and then arbitrarily they just sent me an email to say "your dispute is now closed".

DAN FEILER: My understanding is that the vast majority of buyers were paid by PayPal. And that if buyers still haven't been paid they can still contact PayPal.

KERRY BREWSTER: So does PayPal guarantee buyer protection? The head of the ACCC has already warned eBay and its subsidiary PayPal that he's watching how they promote their buyer protection policy.

GRAEME SAMUEL, ACCC: If those terms and conditions are, for example, set out in small print, which people don't read or can't read or can't understand, then there's a prospect of consumers being confused to the point of being misled or deceived.

KERRY BREWSTER: In the EBS wash up it emerged eBay was in fact its largest creditor, owed a massive $184,000 in listing fees.

(To Dan Feiler) The 184,000 from EBS would have rung a few alarms?

DAN FEILER: We acted very, very promptly on this. We followed our due process, which I outlined earlier. And I think this... the amount we are owed really speaks more to the volume of listings that the seller had rather than the time frame.

KERRY BREWSTER: But Robert Vandermeer argues eBay must have known EBS was in financial trouble for months while continuing to extend credit to the ailing company

ROBERT VANDERMEER: EBS is their seventh largest seller, with sales of $2, 3, $4 million a year perhaps, then eBay profits quite well from the commissions on those sales.

So it's in their interest to prop up a seller and keep them selling, both from a reputation perspective and from a purely financial perspective.

KERRY BREWSTER: Whether the EBS debacle is revealed as fraud or not, the scandal led to calls for tougher regulations of the online marketplace.

ELIZABETH BEAL, FORMER DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS LAW CENTRE: I don't think there's any real motivation for eBay to stop fraud. They still benefit from fraudulent sellers because they still collect the fees.

KERRY BREWSTER: Elizabeth Beal oversaw a report into the rights of online consumers. Almost half of the eBay users she surveyed had experienced a bad purchase, with most buyers unable to find the seller or get a response from eBay.

ELIZABETH BEAL: eBay have an obligation to provide a safe system and operate in a way that prevents negligence, if they are benefitting from the transactions taking place. So in our view there are legal obligations on eBay that have not been fully tested.

KERRY BREWSTER: And what about that iPod seller Robert Vandermeer has been tracking. The same seller traded on eBay before; different name, but same story.

In the 60 days before he was deregistered in 2007, the complaints flooded in.

ROBERT VANDERMEER: This person hasn't changed their ways, and eBay has allowed them to re-establish and repeat the exercise.

DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT BRIAN HAY: Within minutes of getting that skimmed data they can clean out the accounts.

KERRY BREWSTER: According to police most online fraudsters are repeat offenders.

ELIZABETH BEAL: If eBay made it more difficult for persons to sell goods online without providing proper verification of who they were, then there would be less likely that rogues would enter the space.

KERRY BREWSTER: Why don't you conduct something like 100 point ID check?

DAN FEILER: Well, once again, in this day and age, when people can create all sorts of identities, that's not going to help. It's the activity that people do online that is the best indication.

KERRY BREWSTER: Watch this online space. If the US experience is anything to go buy, online fraud will grow as e commerce expands.

Brian Crooks bought a second quad bike for his beloved grandson; this time around he paid on pick up.

[llama]

Ahhh HAAA - that's right, I remember you now r3830.

I wonder if the EBS things is why there is now an automatic warning message on all items in the ebay "Items Won" list that are more than about 30 days old. It says something like "Don't miss the opoortunity to make a claim on Paypal within 45 days" or some such.

Bloody presale is a minefield at the best of times - I kind-of understand why PP has the clauses that they do, but it doesn't help the consumers who trust that the vendor is telling the truth. I assume that in the case of EBS, that PP refunds would have been instant for those who claimed within 45 days of payment?

[*r3830*]

Cupie,

It's sad to read this again. Reminds me of the efforts of "Wobbit the Bwuce", who went to sooo much trouble on behalf of all of us. Ebay barred him from the site shortly after this matter had resolved itself.

[*r3830*]

Saint_Llama.... have a problem with the 'Saint' part of this name. Not the same Llama that I too remember? Wasn't sure whether I should ask or not. 

This matter remains - like PTSD, when you see it again. We all learned much from the exercise..... and your efforts, along with so many others were priceless in the outcome. Haven't forgotten that!!!

Bloody presale is a minefield at the best of times


That is absolutely correct - but didn't know of the pitfalls at the time. I believed that we would be protected - as the adds on TV said regarding $20K buyer protection. Fortunately, in the end, we were.

[tellomon]

Hey you Posters!

I ain't got nuddin to do widdit...but I gotta tell ya:

Ain't none of yous-is posting in color, ah, heh-hehhhh....

Kudos to Bo Diddley/Signifying Blues

http://www.last.fm/music/Bo+Diddley/Signifying+Blues/Signifying+Blues

[*r3830*]

John Stewart (RIP) Wuz da man! Go the folk singers!

[Poddy]

 r3830,

Fortunately, in the end, we were.

Do you think that would have been the case without the mamoth effort but in by so called 'Paypal Antagonists', you know those people who gave of their time, effort, resources and yes money freely, just to see justice done.

[cueperkins]

Yes r3830...there were a number of casualties picked off for being altruistic.

And no Llama, the victims of the EBS debacle were still waiting right up until a few days before the ABC story in October, and as if by magic, they were contacted by Paypal and offered refunds...even though they'd been declined previously...I can find the news stories on that too...it wasn't instant, because Paypal had already determined that they wouldn't be reimbursing consumers frm the outset...everything past that was aimed at forcing them to reconsider.....so the answer was no from the beginning....As I said, many were refunded within days of the ABC feature going to air.....spooky eh?

That's why DAnny boy was so confident when he said' oh, I thought they'd all been reimbursed.....lol....maybe so by then, but they didn't make it easy by any stretch of the imagination...and...if a class action had been taken out against Paypal/Ebay...they would have lost in the real world....no doubt the Ombudsman provided valuable insight to Paypal in this regard by overturning many of their declinations  

The actual administrators  SV Partners I think, were inundated with claims from consumers out of pocket....I'm just having a look to see if any resolution came out of it....If I find something I'll post it...

[Poddy]

Tello,

I am disapointed you didnt mention Warren Zevon ( also RIP ) shame on you dude

[tellomon]

Tello,

I am disapointed you didnt mention Warren Zevon shame on you dude

Oh, shame on me.

That's Rich!

High 4. Something's broken.

[Poddy]

In fact Warren was true to his words in the song 'I'll sleep when I'm dead'

I hope he is haveing a peaceful sleep

[imperfect]

 

If it's so evil and so easy to missuse, so easy to hack into, so bad etc, why use it?

ahhh..got me miffed..

[*r3830*]

Fortunately, in the end, we were.

Do you think that would have been the case without the mamoth effort but in by so called 'Paypal Antagonists', you know those people who gave of their time, effort, resources and yes money freely, just to see justice done.

G'day Poddy

I was gearing up to fight my own battle when this occurred. A search on google identified another poster on Ebay who was talking about EBS, and hence, I discovered the forums.... specifically, the RT. There, I discovered many others who were in the same boat.... didn't know really what to do.... didn't know that many others were affected. But the help provided, the empathy from these people, the advice from people who I'd never met which was offered freely.... I couldn't believe it!

In answer to your question...... the positive outcome would have been far more difficult - would in all probability have not occurred and we would probably have walked away with nothing. Brian Crooks is a nice fellow - he would have lost $3000 if not for the people on RT.  Strangely, the first PayPal intervention occurred from a young lady, PayPal_Amanda, who contacted me directly on the forum.

[RiffRaff]

The actual administrators  SV Partners I think, were inundated with claims from consumers out of pocket....I'm just having a look to see if any resolution came out of it....If I find something I'll post it...

No wonder. Didn't a lot of people pay via Bank deposit?

[tellomon]

Brian Crooks is a nice fellow

This has got me thinking.

It's a Stunner, or an OxyMoron Alert.

My money is on "Both"!!

sorry, I couldn't resist.

It'll never happen again. Except on my thread.

Or not.

[*r3830*]

My money is on "Both"!!

Tello - You're a shocker!!!

Crooks by name - not by nature

[*CountessA*]

There was a strong community effort to try to help those involved in the EBS debâcle. It was terrific to see.

r3830, you might remember the unsainted Llama - same person. (Llama, post your Groucho Marx image here to prove it!)

There were a number of problems involved in the EBS situation. First of all - and this boggles the mind, really - no one was eligible to be refunded under PayPal's terms. At all.

But the reason for this is a very misleading discrepancy between eBay's and PayPal's policy with regard to pre-sale items. I have to agree with Llama that "presale is a minefield at the best of times". The discrepancy is that eBay's policy stated 30 day supply had to be a term of sale in order for consumers to be protected, and PayPal's policy stated 20 day supply. Even though some people had started submitting complaints within the 45 day period, they were informed they were not eligible for a refund.

This seemed at the time (and continues to seem) unconscionable to me. eBay allowed a very misleading thing to happen. Consumers were deceived by contradictory information. I also feel that eBay facilitated the EBS debâcle. Several of you have mentioned very valid points about businesses allowing suppliers to continue trading - but I think the application of it to EBS is only partially justified. Unless eBay were willing to step into the gap and take the full fall of EBS's failure to supply to the consumers who had already fully paid EBS, I find myself asking what right eBay had to put those consumers into the position of fall guy. By giving EBS that leeway, knowing the HUGE debt EBS owed eBay, eBay acted poorly.

That's my perception - that it was eBay who should have born the responsibility. Instead, eBay denied responsibility and shoved it off onto PayPal, thus shifting the focus away from eBay's failure to act and onto "who paid by PayPal and opened a claim within 45 days?" I think it's a different situation; I think it needed to focus on eBay's actions. Ah well, it's largely done with, although I believe some consumers are still awaiting resolution.

Thank goodness that some were refunded.

But I see a pattern emerging of lack of verification and lack of checking. Remember that EBS changed ownership? The account changeover is against eBay's own policies, but eBay either didn't notice or didn't care. I'm not satisfied by either explanation; I find that once again, it makes me think eBay was culpable in failure to act.

Oh, we were talking earlier about ID verification. A great many scammers on eBay feel more enabled to commit fraud in the knowledge that they can give a false address, a false name and a false phone number. To prove that they can do this, I need go no further than to mention the many IDs which NARPed and NARUed members have created. To prove that these fake IDs can buy and sell on eBay with no one checking on them, I need go no further than to mention the many recorded instances of people who tried to get in touch with their buyers or sellers, only to find that it's a wrong number and that the address given leads nowhere.

Of course ID verification won't stop all scammers. But it will undoubtedly stop some.

The teenage girl who was the subject of the opening post here is an example of someone found by the bank account into which money was deposited. I wonder whether she simply didn't realise that she could be found through that. I wish I could talk to her... find out what was going on in her mind...

[*r3830*]

Good afternoon Countess, 


Remember that EBS changed ownership? The account changeover is against eBay's own policies, but eBay either didn't notice or didn't care.

That part was intriguing. As I recall, one partner passed his share over for the princely sum of $1. I remember a thread questioning whether 'powerseller' status could be purchased, resulting from this change. The rules as I recall stated as you mention above - and had to be earned. Obviously not the case with EBS, as trading continued on from the point of change until the failure occurred. Perhaps Ebay didn't care - EBS was, at the time, the sixth biggest PS in the country.

I also had a problem with Paypal being clobbered with this problem. ie: Ebay accepted the EBS adds that compromised Paypal's rules - (the disparity between 20 & 45 days) and yet, Paypal was expected to cover the loss. But then - Ebay owns PayPal.

[cueperkins]

I also feel that eBay facilitated the EBS debâcle. Several of you have mentioned very valid points about businesses allowing suppliers to continue trading - but I think the application of it to EBS is only partially justified. Unless eBay were willing to step into the gap and take the full fall of EBS's failure to supply to the consumers who had already fully paid EBS, I find myself asking what right eBay had to put those consumers into the position of fall guy. By giving EBS that leeway, knowing the HUGE debt EBS owed eBay, eBay acted poorly.

Hi Countess....my enquiries with ASIC at the time, confirmed that it is in fact illegal to trade whilst apparently insolvent......So, if Ebay did in fact allow EBS the opportunity to trade with suspicions of insolvency, then it's not entirely responsible is it? But they'd know, as I now know that as a third party, they can't be implicated or held responsible in this type of scenario because the Corporations Act just doesn't cover third party facilitation of insolvent trading.... (which is not to say they shouldn't be made accountable)    After all, EBS owed them $185,000 as well, and obviously they wanted their money back...too bad if consumers were placed at risk and ripped off whilst they had a bet each way and let EBS trade on.

I think ASIC will have had a very good look into this issue, given that it seems to have been a very sophisticated sting operation, set up to look bonafide, and yet, with devious intentions, and fully facilitated by Ebay in its reach and impact on a Nation Wide pool of victims...how else could EBS have defrauded so many without having access to such a platform?  Of course Ebay is complicit but our laws are inadequate at this stage and as I said, Ebay know that.  The DPP , can only really go after the Directors of the Company, not the venue that turned a blind eye.

When you consider this scenario, and the fact that Feiler runs around saying that Ebay is a 'Good Corporate Citizen'?  well, what can you say...lol

[*Yibida*]

In my opinion, this country is at least 10 years if not more behind the times... we have had the internet for so long now and seen every scam and fraud imaginable... yet our laws are so antiquated... the decision / law makers need to sit down and rewrite the book regarding the internet and protection for Australian users... it's been long over due... but I guess someone in government would actually have to work...we couldn't have that could we?... just a bunch of fat cows fleecing our our taxes with nothing to show for it...politicians disgust me.

[Poddy]

WOW Yibi,

The pollys on Earth are exactly the same as where you come from!!!!!

Maybe Pollys are supetbeings that are plotting Universal Supremacy

[cueperkins]

No...Poddy...not the vogons....quick grab your towel.

[*Yibida*]

WOW Yibi,

The pollys on Earth are exactly the same as where you come from!!!!!

Maybe Pollys are supetbeings that are plotting Universal Supremacy

Yes Poddy.....through rectile probing trying to get back to where they come from....

Oh look !... there's one now look over his house...