Yep, it is a laugh, because it has already been demonstrated via a consumer affairs case in Melbourne that Ebay is in fact a 'Service Provider'....and that no money has to change hands for that relationship to exist.....so as much as they might like to kid themselves that they are nothing more than a venue, if that concept is tested in the real world, it will more than likely fail. They are a service provider, plain and simple.
And in the future, it's going to get even more clear cut.......Unfair Consumer Contract laws will soon be implemented nationally, (although some states have had them for years) in line with E-Commerce guidelines. This means that if successful cases are mounted against E-Commerce service providers, it won't take long before all User Agreements will have to fall into line with Best Practice as set out by the Australian Treasury's E-commerce Guidelines. It's not just Ebay...many E-Commerce providers attempt to contract themselves out of responsibility, but not for much longer. (By the way.....Telco's are amongst the most notorious for unfair consumer contracts)
Just think about it.....in real life, would you EVER sign a contract wherein you indemnify someone else for all imaginable risk?....well no....so why do we constantly do it online and why do these entities get away with stitching consumers for all the risk? Because the laws have taken years to catch up with E-Commerce but it's coming.
Imagine walking into a shopping centre and getting mugged...of course, the centre management would be held responsible if they failed to mitigate, so what's different online? Even a 'venue' has legal duty of care.
