23/4/2008 - Fuck Ebay --------- Yay the reserve bank..... (for once) Everyone Hates Ebay's Management.
This is just brilliant....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/
reserve-bank-could-scuttle-ebays-plans/
2008/04/22/1208742915911.html
(split address - or too wide for page)
Reserve Bank could scuttle eBay's plans
Asher Moses and Jacob Saulwick
April 22, 2008 - 2:00PM
eBay's plan to force all of its users on to PayPal faces opposition from the Reserve Bank, which is considering weighing in to the issue.
The Central Bank has long called for buyers and sellers to have as much choice as possible in what payment systems they use and strongly opposes any moves that reduce competition in the market.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is investigating whether eBay Australia's new policy of forcing all items to be paid for using PayPal, which eBay owns, or cash on delivery/pick-up, breaches trade practice and competition laws.
PayPal performs payment processing for online sellers, allowing them to accept credit card payments and money transfers without having their own merchant credit card accounts.
But the policy, to come into effect on June 17, will mean direct bank deposits, cheques and money orders will all be barred.
The move by the auction site is presently limited to Australia only and will hit sellers with extra fees because PayPal charges them a fee of between 1.1 and 2.4 per cent to accept payments - usually using credit cards - via the service.
Several groups have expressed concern that forcing eBay users on to PayPal, rather than giving them the choice of which payment method to use, would prevent the emergence of competitors to PayPal in the online payments market.
The ACCC is inviting submissions from the public on the issue until May 2. It is understood the Reserve Bank, which has in the past stated it would like more competition for payments over the internet rather than less, is now deciding whether to make a submission.
Strong opposition from the Central Bank would almost certainly scuttle eBay's plans. The auction site's global chief executive, John Donahoe, has said the PayPal policy will be rolled out in other countries if it is successful here.
The Professional eBay Sellers Alliance, which includes eBay's top sellers who generate hundreds of millions of dollars in sales on the site each year, strongly opposes the changes and plans to lead a worldwide revolt.
Alastair MacGibbon, eBay's trust and safety director, said the announcement was designed to protect users as one is four times less likely to have a problem on eBay if one pays using PayPal than with other methods.
The Reserve Bank has ruled out stepping back unconditionally from regulating the payments system, and remains concerned about the level of market power held by credit card companies.
The Reserve has expressed support for new methods of payment that could act as competition for international card schemes. New methods could give merchants and customers more choice about how they make and receive payments.
A 2006 speech by an Assistant Governor of the Central Bank, Philip Lowe, documented the growth of alternative payment schemes overseas that had not yet been adopted in Australia.
For example, a number of countries had adopted "online debit" schemes that allow customers to transfer money directly from their bank account to the merchant without needing to use a credit card or scheme debit card.
Research by the Reserve has found that credit card payments are more costly than EFTPOS and cash, due to the fees imposed, the higher risk of fraud. and the length of time it takes for shopkeepers to process the payments.
|
|
|
|
|
Permanent Link
|
19/4/2008 - Points to consider when opposing Ebays Application for Exclusive trading
It's a thoughtful read... and it could be helpful when formulating a response to the ACCC - opposing Ebay's application to an exemption to S47 of the Trade Practices act.
(included in the write up with interpretations of the act)
http://www.powersellersunite.com/viewtopic.php?p=162285#162285
I do a fair amount of legalese... and while I can't say I'd love burn Ebay to the ground, ahem....
The art of getting even -
What I am doing, is going to read through Ebay's submission or application to the ACCC, perhaps several times (I have only had a glance at it)
Each time I am going to take notes.
Then I am going to read through the ACCC's response to this matter - again, perhaps several times.
Each time I am going to take notes.
I am also then going to read up on S47 of the Trade Practices Act.
I am also going read up on the interpretations of "Exclusive Trading" - and the grounds for it's illegality.
Then I am going to blende in the my argument, the legal grounds for refusing Ebays application, with my own experience and my worldly observations about Ebays and Paypals conduct and good "community and precidentally based reasons why it ought to not succeed.
I have had to read and write enormous amounts of documents... big ones, like 2 or 300 pages..... and what I find to be the most valuble things is to stick to the point, and eliminate the "fluff and etherial conjecture or the endless sob stories.
I try to put myself into the position of the people who have to decide, based upon what they read, and all of the material that they have to read, what gets submitted to the Commission and what gets filed under B for Bullshit or I for Irrelevant.
So the submissions really need to be focussed and confined to the basis for the comission REJECTING ebays application for an exemption to S47 of the fair trading act, and the unlawfulness of EXCLUSIVE TRADING.
The article at the beginning of this topic has illustrated these points in a nutshell.
One day after announcing the policy, eBay filed an exclusive dealing notification with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which administers Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974 and other acts.
The ACCC is inviting comments on eBay's exclusive dealing notification. Submissions are due by May 2, 2008 and can be sent via postal mail, email (adjudication@accc.gov.au) or fax.
According to the ACCC's website, "Exclusive dealing involves one trader imposing restrictions on another trader's freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal.
Exclusive dealing is prohibited under the Act in certain circumstances. For example, the Act prohibits a common form of exclusive dealing known as third line forcing.
Third line forcing is the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser also acquires goods or services from a third party."
And the one thing, that several people have raised...
A) Find out exactly what the issues are.
In this case they appear to be restricted to Ebays making application for an exemption to the s47 of the Trade Practice act (Australian), so that thye can engage in exclusive dealing and third line forcing.
B) Find out what the exact grounds are for making arguments against Ebays applicaiton.
Then state why it is unlawful and of a detriment to the market (sellers, buyers and the community at large) for their application to succeed
C) Confine ones argument to the relevant points.
D) Refrain from calling them names - like fuckwits and crooks - because this tends to make oneself look like an idiot and the focus if any on the relevant issues becomes diluted and possibly lost.
E) Then perhaps toss in some of ones personal and some broader expereinces of Ebay and Paypals disreputable and dishonest conduct, as reinforcement to ones argument that Ebays application for exemption to the principle for exclusive trading - being the monopilising and vertical integration of their own payment system, within their trading system, AND why it OUGHT NOT TO SUCCEED.
F) It's also been my expereince that no matter how much of an "arsehole or an idiot" some people are, or whether one likes them or not, or what ever, the only thing that really counts are FACTS, and GOOD REASONS.
So is ebays applicaiton a lawful application, and are there good reasons for upholding it.
This is what Ebay is trying to prove. This is what your opportunity to express yourself, gives you the chance to prove either materially (it's illegal) or on the basis of demonstrable GOOD REASONS, that if their application may be legal, but to allow it, is against the common interests of the consumers, the sellers and the market place, and the spirit of law in the principles invoked in S47 of the Fair Trading Act - in relation to Exclusive Trading.
Sort of like "It may be legal for someone of a certain predisposition to possess firearms, but it would be against the community's best interest that they not possess firearms"....
Assuming for a minute that Ebay's application was lawful and could succeed, would it be in the communities best interests for them to be allowed the exemption.
What impact would it have on the internet community, and what kind of effect would such a precident have on the global community.
I'd like to see MORE good arguments put forward in this forum....
And I am still going to really sink the boots into ebay - but with very shiny and well polished shoes.
Cheers.
Shane.
S47 of the Australian Trade Practices Act.
47 Exclusive dealing
(1) Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in the practice of exclusive dealing.
(2) A corporation engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation:
(a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services;
(b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or
(c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the corporation;
on the condition that the person to whom the corporation supplies, or offers or proposes to supply, the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate:
(d) will not, or will not except to a limited extent, acquire goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;
(e) will not, or will not except to a limited extent, re supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or
(f) in the case where the corporation supplies or would supply goods or services, will not re supply the goods or services to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, re supply the goods or services:
(i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
(ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places.
(3) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses:
(a) to supply goods or services to a person;
(b) to supply goods or services to a person at a particular price; or
(c) to give or allow a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services to a person;
for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate:
(d) has acquired, or has not agreed not to acquire, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;
(e) has re supplied, or has not agreed not to re supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or
(f) has re supplied, or has not agreed not to re supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation to any person, or has re supplied, or has not agreed not to re supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation:
(i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
(ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places.
(4) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation:
(a) acquires, or offers to acquire, goods or services; or
(b) acquires, or offers to acquire, goods or services at a particular price;
on the condition that the person from whom the corporation acquires or offers to acquire the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate will not supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description:
(c) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than
particular persons or classes of persons; or
(d) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places.
(5) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses:
(a) to acquire goods or services from a person; or
(b) to acquire goods or services at a particular price from a person;
for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate has supplied, or has not agreed not to supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description:
(c) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
(d) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places.
(6) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation:
(a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services;
(b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or
(c) gives or allows, or offers to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the corporation;
on the condition that the person to whom the corporation supplies or offers or proposes to supply the goods or services or, if that person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate will 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.
(7) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses:
(a) to supply goods or services to a person;
(b) to supply goods or services at a particular price to a person; or
(c) to give or allow a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply of goods or services to a person;
for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate 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.
8. A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation grants or renews, or makes it known that it will not exercise a power or right to terminate, a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building on the condition that another party to the lease or licence or, if that other party is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate:
(a) will not, or will not except to a limited extent:
(i) acquire goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or
(ii) re supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;
(b) will not supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, to any person, or will not, or will not except to a limited extent, supply goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description:
(i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
(ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places; or
(c) will 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.
(9) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses to grant or renew, or exercises a power or right to terminate, a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building for the reason that another party to the lease or licence or, if that other party is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate:
(a) has acquired, or has not agreed not to acquire, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;
(b) has re supplied, or has not agreed not to re supply, goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description, acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;
(c) has supplied goods or services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description:
(i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
(ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places; or
(d) 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.
(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to the practice of exclusive dealing constituted by a corporation engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) or paragraph (Cool(a) or (b) or (9)(a), (b) or (c) unless:
(a) the engaging by the corporation in that conduct has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or
(b) the engaging by the corporation in that conduct, and the engaging by the corporation, or by a body corporate related to the corporation, in other conduct of the same or a similar kind, together have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition.
(10A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a corporation engaging in conduct described in subsection (6) or (7) or paragraph (Cool(c) or (9)(d) if:
(a) the corporation has given the Commission a notice under subsection 93(1) describing the conduct; and
(b) the notice is in force under section 93.
(11) Subsections (Cool and (9) do not apply with respect to:
(a) conduct engaged in by, or by a trustee for, a religious, charitable or public benevolent institution, being conduct engaged in for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that institution; or
(b) conduct engaged in in pursuance of a legally enforceable requirement made by, or by a trustee for, a religious, charitable or public benevolent institution, being a requirement made for or in accordance with the purposes or objects of that institution.
(12) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to any conduct engaged in by a body corporate by way of restricting dealings by another body corporate if those bodies corporate are related to each other.
(13) In this section:
(a) a reference to a condition shall be read as a reference to any condition, whether direct or indirect and whether having legal or equitable force or not, and includes a reference to a condition the existence or nature of which is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of persons or from other relevant circumstances;
(b) a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which a provision of this section other than subsection (Cool or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which:
(i) the corporation engaging in the conduct or any body corporate related to that corporation; or
(ii) any person whose business dealings are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct or, if that person is a body corporate, any body corporate related to that body corporate;
supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services; and
(c) a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which subsection (Cool or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which the corporation engaging in the conduct or any other corporation the business dealings of which are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct, or any body corporate related to either of those corporations, supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services.
Interpretations of the "Third Line Forcing"
http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2005/Nov/8201946w.htm
Five things you need to know . . . third line forcing
Third line forcing occurs when a supplier places a condition on the supply of its goods or services that the customer must acquire goods or services of a particular type from a third person nominated by the supplier. This practice is a form of exclusive dealing that is prohibited outright by section 47 of the TPA. This means that it will be illegal regardless of the supplier's purpose or its effect on competition.
In its review of the TPA, the Dawson Committee recommended that third line forcing be made subject to a “substantial lessening of competition” test in line with other forms of exclusive dealing.
This recommendation was initially incorporated in the Dawson Bill, however the Federal Government recently withdrew the proposed amendment and indicated that third line forcing will remain prohibited outright.
It is therefore timely to examine common types of third line forcing conduct and possible ways to avoid contravening the prohibition.
1. Typical third line forcing scenarios
The classic third line forcing scenario occurs where a supplier forces the purchase of a second product or service from a nominated supplier. For example, where a lender of finance insists that a borrower use a particular insurance company to insure a loan or where a car dealer selling a car requires the purchaser to obtain finance from a nominated finance company. Third line forcing also commonly arises where several suppliers of products or services participate in a co-promotion (for example, supermarket discounted petrol promotions) or a membership or loyalty program (for example, a credit card rewards program that offers reward points when members make purchases from nominated suppliers).
2. The element of compulsion and/or futurity
The courts have generally accepted that third line forcing conduct requires some element of compulsion and/or futurity. This means that it will not be third line forcing where a customer chooses (rather than undertakes) to acquire goods or services from another supplier, or where a supplier supplies goods or services to a customer as a benefit or reward for having already acquired goods or services from the third party supplier. In this way, it may be possible to restructure offers or supply arrangements to fall outside the third line forcing provisions.
3. Single supply of packaged product or service
The courts have also accepted that it will not be third line forcing where there is the supply of a single packaged product or service, rather than the supply of two distinct products or services. The most notable example of this approach is the High Court's decision in Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395. This case involved a brewery that was only prepared to sell beer to publicans on condition that the beer was delivered by a carrier engaged by the brewery. The High Court held that this was not third line forcing as the publicans were not obtaining two separate products from two separate suppliers. Rather, the brewery's arrangements for delivery of beer to the publicans amounted to the sale of one single composite product, namely “delivered beer”.
4. Utilising an agency relationship
Another way to avoid third line forcing is to use an agency relationship in supply arrangements. By entering into an agency agreement with the third party, a supplier can bundle together the products or services it supplies with those of the third party, as its agent. As the one supplier is providing both the first and second product or service, the third party is removed from the supply arrangements. This changes the conduct from “third line forcing” to another form of exclusive dealing known as full line forcing. The benefit of this structure is that full line forcing only breaches the TPA where it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a relevant market.
5. Notification of third line forcing conduct
If it is not possible to restructure the supply arrangements for practical or commercial reasons, it may be possible to gain statutory exemption from prosecution through the ACCC's notification procedure. Under this procedure, notifications are required to be in a prescribed form detailing the proposed conduct and the relevant participants. The cost of lodging a notification is $1000 for public companies and $100 for proprietary companies. The ACCC applies a "net public benefit" test to determine whether to allow immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is automatically granted 14 days from the date of lodgment unless, within the 14 day period, the ACCC notifies the parties otherwise. While the ACCC may remove the immunity at any time, it must provide notice to the parties and have a pre-decision conference before removing that immunity.
From the ACC Site:
(heaps in the site on it)
Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)
Exclusive dealing
Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers.
Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright, other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market.
When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.
As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected.
There are essentially two types of exclusive dealing: full line forcing and third line forcing.
Full line forcing
Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:
* buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
* resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
* resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.
However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market.
Third line forcing
Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act. It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test. It involves the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party, or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not agree to that condition.
|
|
Permanent Link
|
18/4/2008 - Whooaaa Ebay aint Freindly. Letter to the ACCC - Power Sellers United.
Whoaaaaaaa Heavy Duty Letter. Ebay - ain't nice.
http://www.powersellersunite.com/viewtopic.php?p=162071#162071
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission vs. Ebay.
I sent them this email. I have no idea whether it's something they can use, but I urge any interested party to send their own ideas and opinions. eBay gaining this sort of power in Australia will spread and impact everyone whether or not they currently use eBay itself.
____________________________________________________
Thank you for the Request for Submission. Please consider the following to be a submission from an interested party.
re: eBay International A.G. notification N93365.
Submission by an Interested Party
I urge the Commission to reject eBay's exclusive dealing notification. I am an American e-commerce merchant who does not currently utilize the eBay product. I do utilize PayPal and other payment processing services and having formerly been a top powerseller on eBay I am intimately familiar with eBay, PayPal, their history and policies. I respectfully present the following observations:
1) eBay has extraordinary power in the marketplace. Competitive alternative sources for electronic auction services are not available in the marketplace.
2) eBay's proposal is a third line forcing conduct. Contrary to the implications presented in their notification, all credit card processing mentioned therein would be required the use of eBay's PayPal service. Furthermore eBay's policy and PayPal's policy already allow PayPal to seize the consumer's funds in PayPal and to freeze the PayPal service and to shut down the consumer's ability to sell on eBay whenever eBay/PayPal deem that an offered alternative payment processing method (including cash) is not approved by them. eBay's proposed immunity will therefore allow eBay to force consumers to accept only PayPal regardless of any potential competitive alternative.
3) PayPal's User Agreement allows PayPal to "fine" consumers $2,500 USD for every "infraction" of selling any item "that might be construed as obscene" as determined solely by PayPal or for offering for sale product not fully under the control of the consumer offering it at the time of offer (again as determined solely by PayPal), and to seize the consumer's PayPal balance for 180 days. The consumer waives the right to redress in a legal system when accepting PayPal's User Agreement. eBay's proposed Exclusive Dealing conduct will only increase the public detriment from their already anti-competitive policies.
4) There is little or no public benefit to exclusively using PayPal. In contrast to traditional merchant credit card processors and banking institutions, PayPal is virtually unregulated in many legal venues. Consequently many of the public protections and regulations that consumers are entitled to are not only absent with that service, but are unknown to them. Further, PayPal is known throughout the e-commerce industry as providing weak security for transactions primarily due to the prevalence of "phishing" of account information and PayPal's lax investigations. Traditional credit card processing generally utilizes the same technical security measures as PayPal and provides additional security because verification and qualification of accounts is inherently more accurate and penetrating than PayPal. I have observed that incidents of fraudulent transactions increase when PayPal is the only option.
5) eBay already uses PayPal to bludgeon consumers who have an unrelated dispute with eBay, including consumer complaints and civil complaints against eBay. For example eBay has directed PayPal to seize consumer funds in PayPal accounts to enforce eBay policies. eBay also has used PayPal to force consumers to drop complaints against eBay, by overtly threatening a consumer's PayPal account in retaliation. Allowing eBay to enforce exclusive dealing with PayPal will only encourage and exacerbate this sort of misbehavior.
Best Regards,
Bill Hamilton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Help lube the ACCC's digit as it probes deeper into the shit - send your submissions to the ACCC
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/823668/fromItemId/776499
You must make your submissions to the ACCC BEFORE the 2nd of May 2008
|
|
Permanent Link
|
17/4/2008 - Help lube the ACCC's digit as it probes deeper into the shit - send your submissions to the ACCC
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/823668/fromItemId/776499
You must make your submissions to the ACCC BEFORE the 2nd of May 2008
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y08/m04/i16/s02
Are eBay Australia's New Payment Restrictions Fair Trade?
By Ina Steiner
AuctionBytes.com
April 16, 2008
 eBay Australia's decision to restrict payments for transactions to its own PayPal service has resulted in a hue and cry from buyers and sellers alike (http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y08/m04/i14/s03). One day after announcing the policy, eBay filed an exclusive dealing notification with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which administers Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974 and other acts.
The ACCC is inviting comments on eBay's exclusive dealing notification. Submissions are due by May 2, 2008 and can be sent via postal mail, email (adjudication@accc.gov.au) or fax.
According to the ACCC's website, "Exclusive dealing involves one trader imposing restrictions on another trader's freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal. Exclusive dealing is prohibited under the Act in certain circumstances. For example, the Act prohibits a common form of exclusive dealing known as third line forcing. Third line forcing is the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser also acquires goods or services from a third party."
eBay's notification and the ACCC's invitation for responses are found on the ACCC website. Interestingly, eBay sellers are not included on a list of "interested parties consulted" published on the ACCC website.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/823668/fromItemId/776499
|
|
Permanent Link
|
17/4/2008 - The ACCC is now probing the Anus of Ebay.
Probably the best story on this - includes very cynical ebay sellers too.
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23548903-15306,00.html
ONLINE auction house eBay Australia has applied for legal protection as it seeks to force members to use a payment gateway it owns for buying and selling goods.
eBay Australia buyers will no longer be able to use direct deposits, personal cheques or money orders to purchase items on the website from June 17
From June 17, eBay plans to institute new payment arrangements that would do away with direct deposits, personal cheques or money orders to purchase items - all in the name of enhanced security.
Instead, members will only be allowed to use the eBay-owned PayPal transaction system, or cash on delivery.
The move, first announced on April 10, has drawn the ire of its members and, to add salt to the wound, eBay is using the local market to test the new rules before imposing them globally.
One day after making the announcement, law firm Deacons, representing eBay, filed an "exclusive dealing" notification with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) requesting immunity from the Trade Practices Act.
Section 47 of the Act prohibits exclusive dealing which broadly involves one trader imposing restrictions on another’s freedom to choose with whom, in what or where it deals. In some cases, exclusive dealing is prohibited outright and, in other cases, only where it substantially lessens competition.
In the documents, Deacons partner Calum Henderson argued that the PayPal-only policy would not substantially lessen competition, and the mandatory procedures were for the sake of security and customer protection.
"In any event, any detriment to the public which may be caused by a lessening of competition as a result of the policy would be outweighed by the significant public benefits that would be likely to result from the move," Mr Henderson said.
"In order to address the issue of problematic or fraudulent transactions and the associated customer churn due to bad buyer experiences, eBay proposes to take advantage of the enhanced security features of PayPal by mandating the use of PayPal for almost all transactions on the eBay site.
"EBay will continue to permit sellers to offer to accept 'pay on pickup', as this payment method is not likely to give rise to bad buyer experiences."
It is the ACCC's policy to grant immediate immunity from the date the notification is validly lodged.
The regulator is expected to post a notice on its public register this week and interested parties can make submissions, an ACCC spokesman said.
The public will have until May 2 to provide submissions.
Meanwhile, an online petition against eBay's new policy has been established by Brisbane small business operator Daniel Gibney.
Over 3500 signatures have been collected and Mr Gibney hopes to exceed five figures.
"I will definitely be forwarding the petition to eBay, although I doubt whether they will do anything about it," he said.
Based in Brisbane, Mr Gibney has been buying and selling on eBay for seven years.
He joins a chorus of fellow members outraged at the double-dipping nature of the new policy.
"If eBay's motives really are pure, why don't they offer to lower fees for sellers, to keep things competitive?" he said. "The new policy is a blatant grab for profits, disguised as a security upgrade."
|
|
Permanent Link
|
11/4/2008 - He hates Ebay and Pay Pal too - www.screw-paypal.com - Aussie's fight back:
I don't want to take credit for the work of others... and I also don't want to "use" large portions of other peoples websites.....
So in respect to all buyers and sellers now being forced to use Paypal exclusively in Australia - I want you to have a taste of things to come - and how to fuck them back over - when you do get burnt.
Welcome to Screw-PayPal.com...
WARNING: PayPal is great until they screw you. PayPal unjustly denied me access to my funds for almost FOUR YEARS. Then I built this website and PayPal finally gave me my money back. I fought back and now I am here to help ALL OF US fight back!
Paypal is a monopoly and will screw you because THEY CAN. PayPal makes money off your PayPal problems. PayPal manages over 143 MILLION user accounts with 7,000 employees. Of that number, only about 3,000 have anything to do with account management. That is almost 48,000 user accounts for each Paypal employee. Thousands of accounts per employee experience problems that must be personally and swiftly dealt with by a PayPal employee. How can so few employees manage so many accounts? They can't and they don't. It's part of the overall problem with PayPal: PayPal will not pay the price for great customer service.
Many employees the general public deals with are poorly trained, poorly educated, poorly paid and poorly motivated. Computers make all the decisions at PayPal. Humans do virtually nothing. The brains behind PayPal's operation are Igor and Ilya. Who are they? Programs that make up PayPal's Nazi like fraud detection system. They are part of the reason as to why you are here! PayPal's executives are aware of the problems that millions of users are having, but choose to ignore them. Doing nothing, costs nothing; fixing the problems eats into profits. Chances are you are here because of:
- LIMITED OR FROZEN ACCOUNT
- RUDE CUSTOMER SUPPORT BLAMING YOU FOR YOUR PROBLEM
- FORCED TO SEND PRIVATE INFORMATION TO PAYPAL AND STILL LOST YOUR APPEAL
- BEEN ACCUSED BY PAYPAL OF OUTRAGEOUS CHARGES WITHOUT EVIDENCE
- VICTIMIZED BY FRAUD AND PAYPAL BLAMED YOU
- BEEN SCAMMED AND PAYPAL SIDED WITH THE SCAMMER
- DENIED ACCESS TO YOUR MONEY...EVEN FUNDS NOT IN DISPUTE
- MONEY TAKEN OUT OF YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT, CREDIT CARD OR BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION
The list can go on-and-on. You know why you are here: You are one of the MILLIONS that PayPal has screwed and thrown away. And why not? PayPal knows there are millions more yet to screw. P.T. Barnum said it best: "There's a sucker born every minute." And PayPal knows it! Use this site, support this site, READ THIS SITE. This site is here for YOU. We are YOUR Forum to Fight Back!
An enemy of my enemy is my friend:
Check out the full site:
http://www.screw-paypal.com/home.html
|
|
Permanent Link
|
11/4/2008 - Ebay now forces all sellers to ONLY use paypal.
I got 3 emails all at once today, all about just how fucking scummy ebay has become.
"Tragic! How Tragic" I said... : )
"Looks like the maggots are imploding, are you the guy who was on today
tonight recently?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23516608-5005962,00.html
and
Finally after 6 years they do this to me.
http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes.html
I hate them.
and
Great site.
Are you now aware that those bastards are making Paypal COMPULSORY? They can put their site well and truly where it belongs on that basis
Regards,
A similarly pissed-off ex-Ebay customer
This is the kind of stuff they - Ebay are now coming out with:
First a word from Ebays Lawyers.... In Straya. (Australia)
http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/fees.html
A message from our lawyers
eBay is not providing financial advice to you. The PayPal service is provided by PayPal Australia Pty Limited (ABN 93 111 195 389) which holds an Australian Financial Services Licence, number 304962. eBay is an authorised representative of PayPal for the purpose of promoting PayPal and is not acting as your agent. You should consider the Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement before deciding to sign-up for or use the PayPal online payment service at https://www.paypal.com.au.
PayPal Buyer Protection and PayPal Seller Protection are also subject to the terms and conditions in PayPal's User Agreement, incorporating the Buyer Protection policy and Seller Protection policy which include details on eligibility criteria and the discretionary nature of the Policies.
This bit gets up my nose - this kind of "ultimatum" dressed as a "choice" style of shit always does:
You should consider the Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement before deciding to sign-up for or use the PayPal online payment service
The lard arse legalese speak means if you don't use paypal, then you can't buy or sell on Ebay - so therefore the Ebay arm twisting is not really leaving one in a position to make a decision based on choices - much like much like the option of going sky diving with THIER parachute or going sky diving WITHOUT any parachute.
It's either you accept Ebays bullying, and use their own inhouse - and very disreputable, dishonest and piss poor customer service - from the vertically intergrated Ebay company called Paypal (=$$$$$), or you don't get no sell or no buy on Ebay.
All I can say is,
"Dog terds frosted with icing sugar, are still dog terds."
This is the some of the shit from the ebay website.
* FREE eBay and web payment tools
* FREE anti-fraud systems
* NO monthly fee
* NO setup fee
* NO gateway fee
PayPal is FREE to use if you are sending payments or making purchases within Australia.
If you are selling items or receiving money with PayPal there is a fee. But these fees are affordable, making PayPal a cost-effective way to manage your sales and save you time.
If you are selling a lot of items you may be eligible for a fee discount.
Fees for receiving payments in Australia:
Monthly transaction volume Price per transaction
AU $0.00 - $5,000 2.4% + AU $0.30
AU $5,000.01 - $15,000 2.0% + AU $0.30
AU $15,000.01 - $150,000 1.5% + AU $0.30
AU > $150,000 1.1% + AU $0.30
Note: A monthly transaction volume equals total transactions generated from both eBay.com.au sales and your own website to the same PayPal account. There is also a fee of $1 for withdrawing funds of less than $150 to your bank account.
Find out more about PayPal fees in Australia
Find out more about international PayPal fees.
I'd be really interested in some other owners of other online auctions doing a PRICE / PAY COMPARISON as to the cost of making a $100 sale on their wbsites, vs. the crap that ebay is spouting on their website.
I have chosen $100 as a nice round simple to work with figure.... instead of abstract item specific prices - you know $100 so therefore $10 is 10% of that...
I'd like you to supply me with a simple 3 or 4 column table with 1/2 a dozen rows in it... (or similar)
Please contact me to get this up, and I'd really like to challenge ebay pricing policies over this. Why? Cause I don't believe them.
I don't believe anything they have to say, about any of what they force you to use, that belongs to them, and is specifically designed to divert money from everyone else (banks and postal services etc.), into their pockets, via their payment service.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23516608-5005962,00.html
PayPal only option for eBay trading
By Andrew Ramadge, Technology Reporter
April 10, 2008 01:01pm
- eBay Australia users to be forced into company's PayPal tool
- Buyer protection plan limit to be raised from $3000 to $20,000
- Technology: Read more news and reviews in our tech section »
EBAY Australia users will be forced to use the company's online commerce website PayPal under new security measures prohibiting direct deposit and money orders as payment methods.
From June, all items on eBay Australia will have to be paid for online using a PayPal account or a Visa or Mastercard transaction through PayPal. Buyers will still be able to pay for an item with cash if they are picking it up in person.
PayPal, which is owned by eBay, charges a fee of between 1.1 and 2.4 per cent per credit card payment, which will be collected on top of existing charges to list and sell items through the auction website.
eBay trust and safety director Alastair MacGibbon said forcing PayPal to "stand in between buyers and sellers" would reduce the likelihood of conflict and increase consumer confidence.
"eBay is no longer willing to stand aside and allow payment methods on the site that are proven to be less safe for consumers," he said.
"You're four times less likely to have a problem on eBay if you pay with PayPal than, say, if you used internet banking."
Mr MacGibbon said he expected a "small but vocal minority" of users to oppose the changes, which will force all eBay Australia sellers to use a PayPal account.
"There are always some people who take a while to accept change," he said.
"Most sellers already have a PayPal account. If you've been a new seller for the last year and a half you've had to be offering PayPal anyway in your listings."
But boosting buyer confidence would stimulate activity and ultimately benefit sellers, and eBay, Mr MacGibbon said.
"By reducing the likelihood of things going wrong and by increasing buyer confidence there will be a stimulus to the five or so million eBay users in Australia," he said.
"If it's good for buyers, it's good for sellers and therefore good for eBay."
The changes also include an increase to the PayPal Buyer Protection scheme claim limit for Australian users, from $3000 to $20,000.
Mr MacGibbon said figures for how many people had accessed the protection fund in Australia were not available.
"Clearly it's discretionary... (but) you don't have a buyer protection program in place that you don't intend to pay out," he said.
International eBay sites would monitor the changes made in Australia and decide whether to follow suit, Mr MacGibbon said.
All items listed on eBay Australia must offer PayPal as a payment method by May 21, while payment methods such as direct deposit and money orders will be banned from
Links
eBay Australia – http://www.ebay.com.au/
PayPal – http://www.paypal.com.au/
Ebay - on Today tonight - Ebay's PR man, Alistar McGibbon talks out his arse - blows smoke rings too.
A Dr Susan Forward - in her book Toxic Parents, wrote this test to discern the crazy making parents from the useful and sane parents.
"Do their words and their actions match?".
Paypal in any sense of the word is totally shit.
Ebays customer service - fuck off.
I like my parables.... I can understand some one driving over to pick me up and having a delay, say if an aircraft falls out of the sky and crashs on their car, leaving only a huge 50 meter wide crater in the ground.....
So they call me to say they are running late...
But Ebay and Paypal - it's like having a sleazy person taking 5 weeks 77 phone calls that are never answered and I get nothing but excuses from the answering machine - trying to explain their absenteeism and all they have to do is drive all of ONE block down the street.
They have a car, it works and they can drive - they just ain't arriving.
What the management of Ebay and Paypal promise and what they deliver - doesn't match.
Alastair Mcgibbon - feel free to call me - come over and entertain me some by blowing smoke rings out your arse.
I'd pay a dollar - but only through paypal of course, because you tell me I have too - where this $1 will get lost and stolen, my account frozen and the money never recovered - even after 500 dead air emails.....
Yeah I'd pay a dollar to see Alastair blow smoke rings out his arse - but honestly - boxes of rotten vegetables are cheaper and easier to get hold of.
See the crux of this, from my position and experience, is that McGibbon - is denying HIS OWN and EBAYS and PAYPALS own responsibility for dealing with problems, and for NOT providing any customer service and for their seriously fucking lots of people around REALLY REALLY BADLY - including stealing their money, freezing their paypal accounts, not delivering on some cleverly worded promise of buyer protection..... and all the lying, buck passing and running around - this clown is bullshitting his way out of everything, and he is putting all their responsibility for their fuckups and bad management and pure dishonesty - back on to the consumer.
Alistair McGibbon is lying his way out of the whole situation.
He is making THE PROBLEMS that they create for you, into being both YOUR FAULT and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
This is just typical of the fucking bullshit that comes from the people who manage ebay, and they won't take responsibility for any of it.
Then they turn around and say, "Oh by forcing you to use ONLY our financial payment service, that has NO banking regulations and legal protections, that will increase the amount that we can rip you off by, then you will be SAFER and HAPPIER..."
Fucking horse shit.
Paypal is not financially regulated like the banks are, they fuck up and steal / seize peoples money regularly, all the profits from the transaction are now tripple dipping into their pockets, and when things do go wrong - you don't have a fucking leg to stand on..
And they will do nothing except fuck you around, by not doing anything and abdicating all responsibility for their actions.
Alastair McGibbon and his "Oh bullshit, bullshit, bullshit " spiel - is an example of this.....
"Oh if you only follow the online rules" - the rules they created on their own websites, with their own transactions via ebay and paypal, through their own payment system - which immediately cease to get any effect or any response when Ebay and Paypal fuck it all up.
Like I said:
Fuck Ebay.
|
|
Permanent Link
|
11/4/2008 - Ebay Australia? Your kidding right.....
Ebay made Today Tonight in Australia.....
The report was fair and balanced....
The PR guy in Ebay - He is just so full of shit - a bit like Telstra.
"Hi I am calling from my neghbors house, cause our house got hit by lightening, and the phone exploded and all the wires to it are burnt to a crisp - and I want to get it repaired and replaced"
Reply: "Are you calling from this phone now?"
Ahhh yes.....
Today Tonight Ebay Report on Youtube
And the Today Tonight crew raised some interesting points.
But you know... I could write, copy and paste tonnes of stuff on the BAD side of dealing with Ebay....
But fuck.... I kind of have read tons of bad and typically non existant service from Ebay... and there is only so much you can read before it all becomes a giant mountain of sameness....
Ebay - the company is just awful.
PC Authority feedback
Oztion.com - feedback about Ebay too...
Whirl Pool Forums - ebay = bad
|
|
Permanent Link
|
27/2/2008 - Jason goes Gunning for PayPal
THE TRUTH ABOUT PAYPAL!
by Jason Houston, eBay abuse victim since 1999
18 Reasons to Avoid the “Pitfalls of PayPal”!
THE TRUTH ABOUT PAYPAL!
eBay encourages everybody to sign up for PayPal. But is PAYPAL really as safe and secure as eBay wants you to believe? Every page insists it is “convenient”, “protected”, and a lot of other worthless promises. They claim 90% of eBay users accept PayPal. Yet, look through any category on eBay and you’ll see user after user emphatically stating they do not and will not accept PayPal as a legitimate form of payment for goods and services.
Why?
1. PayPal will not disclose their costs without first signing up.
2. PayPal’s convoluted costs are ambiguously buried under legalese, impossible to
reconcile.
3. PayPal does not stand behind their worthless promises and warranties.
4. PayPal’s Customer Service is limited to generic, empty form replies.
5. PayPal’s hidden seller’s costs are astronomical.
6. PayPal blocks access to an account once a dispute has been filed.
7. PayPal uses phony email addresses that do not respond.
8. PayPal does not publish toll-free telephone lines for fraud victims.
9. PayPal does not publish email support for problems.
10. PayPal does not admit responsibility for their errors and omissions.
11. PayPal’s flimsy security systems are easily invaded by hackers.
12. PayPal leaves credit card holders vulnerable to fraudulent use of their cards.
13. PayPal offers only 3 chargebacks per year to defrauded customers.
14. PayPal sellers rarely understand the true dynamics behind PayPal.
15. PayPal purports to offer a claim form for victims, but does not make it
publicly accessible.
16. Paypal’s hollow warranties have so many hidden qualifications, exclusions,
limitations and deductibles that virtually nothing is protected.
17. PayPal is nothing more than another form of Internet-based consumer fraud.
18. PayPal is a tax on people who never learned math.
If the above sounds eerily familiar, it should: Paypal is wholly owned by eBay, Inc. Like everything eBay claims is some kind of user “protection”, Paypal is as worthless as eBay’s own customer support. Clicking on Contact PayPal Customer Service on their website only returns “Page Not Found”.
The biggest problem with PayPal is that it acts like a bank, but it isn't regulated like one. PayPal offers none of the protections that even the worst of legitimate banks offer, and it isn't required to maintain any of the security, customer service or dispute resolution options that are required of honest banks. At the same time, while PayPal holds large amounts of their customers' money, they make millions off daily financial transactions, and even offers credit and debit cards.
So why isn't it considered a bank? As far as the federal government is concerned, PayPal isn't a bank because it doesn't call itself a bank.
What can be done? Until the federal government becomes genuinely serious about Internet fraud, NOTHING can be done. Like eBay itself, PayPal is a private company and is not subject to usury laws, rules of disclosure, the use of plain language or any of the other afore-mentioned protections that currently regulate financial institutions.
For more information on the negligible value of using PayPal, to go Google and enter ‘Problems with Paypal’, ‘Paypal sucks’, and/or ‘Complaints against Paypal’ and check the returns.
c. 2007 BNP Media
|
|
Permanent Link
|
27/2/2008 - Ebay Customer Service Solutions by Jason
eBay Customer Service Solutions
by Jason Houston, eBay abuse victim since 1999
How to make a system work that was designed not to work!
eBay Customer Service Solutions
Tired of wasting time sending emails to eBay, trying to get help? Tired of being ignored when you need a credit because their forms don’t work, or a listing showed up cobbled? Frustrated talking to eBay’s ‘live chat’ and being told it’s your own fault? Or your browser/computer/settings/software’s fault? Tired of spending hours ‘drilling down’ looking for a promised answer, only to end up being baited and switched into an unrelated subject? Irritated by getting empty replies from email addresses identified as ‘support’ that eBay admits aren’t ever seen by anyone who can read? Tired of getting the same canned answer to questions you never asked? Tired of having time-critical concerns ignored? Tired of wondering when eBay will start assuming some responsibility when things go wrong? Many users rightly believe the most over-used button on eBay’s computers is the one marked ‘delete’.
And with good reason.
With 193 million users, there’s a reason eBay has no customer support. With some 13,000 employees between San Jose, California and Salt lake City, Utah, eBay has no room – and stubbornly refuses to provide budget – for training of any serious customer support staff. Even at these figures (May, 2006), that translates out to something like 14,850 customers per employee at any given time of any given day. And that figure includes employees who don’t ever interact with customers. Even eBay admits they get “thousand of angry emails every day” which they callously ignore.
My research using eBay’s phony support since 1999 shows that on average one complaint out of every 135 sent ever gets read. And the ratio of those that get a resolving answer averages out to one in 300. How they decide what and whom to respond to depends on the whims of the hourly wage-earners sitting at their computers when the endless waterfall of questions comes cascading across their screens. A few new-hires will regard a serious complaint professionally – until their supervisor tells them they’re spending too much time on each question, ignore it, and go on to the next.
Here are some tips:
First, don’t bother using offensive language. Vulgar words are screened by eBay’s software to spit out form replies that say they don’t respond to emails containing vulgar words. It’s not a personal values criteria among employees who might get their tender feelings offended. It’s just another excuse to dispose of more inquiries without having to read them. The software does it for them automatically. If it is necessary to use vulgar words in a constructive way, find creative ways to disguise them. (‘son of a bitch’ would become ‘sun of a bytch’, etc.)
Next, know that the second most common reason for hitting ‘delete’ to a question is the implied excuse that the answer can be found by drilling down through eBay pages. The problem is, the users already know what is contained there and what isn’t, but eBay support staff (sic) haven’t a clue. They are assured by their bosses that “all questions are answered” in the drill-down pages, therefore there is no need to take time generating a reply.
If by now you are still determined to get an answer, try to be explicitly brief with your complaint. Put as few words in the subject line as you can, yet still leave the meaning clear and easy for simple high schoolers to understand. The correct use of English grammar and punctuation helps, despite the fact most of the replies will clearly demonstrate a lack of such literacy basics. Remember, too, that many of these complaints are read by twenty-somethings living in foreign countries and their use of English is worse than limited. And if it doesn’t make sense to them at a quick read, it goes ‘delete’.
Follow these criteria and you might increase your batting average to one in fifty.
But the all-time method that works with nearly 100% efficiency is repetition. If a complaint is received 50 to 75 times within a few minutes, they must stop and sift through them slowly to make sure they don’t delete something that might be important. This takes time they don’t like to spend. And if they get such a barrage every hour or two over a single day, someone above minimum wage will decide to read it and give a cognizant response to the writer. That’s the only way for them to “turn off the nuisance”.
This formula has been shown to be most effective until such time as eBay decides to invest in customer support – one that goes beyond hollow, rude responses, arrogant form replies and incoherent levels of literacy. eBay has both the capital and technology to incorporate an efficient, workable customer complaint department. They just don’t want to spend the money. People like Meg Whitman and Bill Cobb have been publicly saying for years, “Yes, we have a lot of work to do in that area. Thanks for the suggestion!” Yet they prefer, instead, to play the coward and hide behind the anonymity of email that goes unanswered.
Some eBay email addresses that have not been disabled yet due to overuse by complainants: rswebhelp@ebay.com; fraudrpt@ebay.com; billcobb@ebay.com; ended@ebay.com; suspension@ebay.com. Look for these to disappear once they get too much traffic; remember, eBay doesn’t want to deal with problems.
c. 2007 BNP Media.
|
|
Permanent Link
|
|
About Me
Oh Ebay, thou art a pack of cunts.
An enemy doth make of thy friends.
Lies to cover lies to cover even more lies.
When will it ever ende?
Friends
|
