New Strategy for Sellers Suing eBay

[robertaross]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I have been an eBay seller for ten years. In the last few years I have been a Gold PowerSeller. In the last year I was a Platinum Powerseller for awhile. The Powerseller category on eBay was around since the beginning and was instrumental for many sellers.

In the last batch of unilateral changes to the eBay policies, eBay did away with Powersellers visibility and made several other substantial changes (October 09). They have often done this before, radically impacting sellers who rely on them, usually negatively. In the past in the past I recovered from the changes but not this time - they have almost put me out of business. The credibility my Powerseller status gave me is no longer visible to the public, instead a questionable new program called the Top Rated Seller at set the bar so high it is hard to get in or stay in. This new program also makes it impossible for me to successfully use the marketing strategy I have been using on eBay. I used to rely heavily on featured listings, which now you have to be a top rated seller to buy. Trying to find a way around it hasn't worked, and inflated my eBay fees so that I couldn't make any profit. The TRS program gives such an incredible competitive advantage to whomever gets that status that it is unfair to everyone else.

So I have been thinking about suing eBay. Now I know the theory that it is their game and they make the rules - but I also believe there is another way to look at it. eBay has become so large it has spawned a new industry - and millions of sellers now rely on eBay for all or part of their income. So I believe they have a responsibility to sellers above and beyond their stated policies due to their undue influence in the marketplace they created. They now have a sort of invisible social contract in addition to the written policies you agree to when you sign up.

They now have the ability to put a small business out of business, like they are now doing to me, by their reckless disregard for the impact and influence of their policy changes on sellers. Its a bit like the concept of a warranty of habitability in real estate law, where the landlord has responsibilities that are not stated in black and white on the lease. Ebay has a responsibility to its sellers since they now have an undue influence. Anyway, that is my theory. Any thoughts would be appreciated. If this pans out I would like to consider either suing them myself or a class action lawsuit - millions of sellers would join! Ebay needs to be forced to take responsibility for the effect its action have on sellers that rely on them! They can't just decide unilaterally one day to change something that has been the same for over a decade, that people have come to trust and rely upon, in order to meet some undisclosed business objective that completely changes the landscape overnight putting people like me out of business. It is not just unfair it is unethical. I am not saying they cannot grow and expand or adapt to changing economic times, they just have to give it more consideration, allow seller to have input, test carefully and make sure they are not doing something that has negative impacts. You can't even sneeze on a wetlands without considering the impact on the environment - so there has to be some legal concepts about responsibility, negligence, undue influence, reckless disregard, etc. that can be used to force them to understand and accept their responsibilities and prevent them from making unilateral changes just because they think it will give them a few cents more profit somewhere. What do you think?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[FlyingRon]

Good luck to you. The latest round of changes are specifically designed to annoy and drive away the smaller sellers, and by small I include "gold power sellers." If you're not buy.com or one of the commercial wholesale listers, you don't matter to them anymore.

However, the policies you agreed to pretty much let them change the rules at any time without any recourse on your part other than not letting the door hit you in the rear on the way out. More promising is the fact that Paypal, although held up as in independent subsidiary, is rapidly being shown to NOT be in the recent policy changes. I know at least one state is planning action on the pretext that Paypal is violating the "We're not a bank, so we don't need to comply with the banking regs" rules.

 

[racer72]

I think the OP is whining over nothing. As a long time seller though never a power seller, I have been affected by the changes to eBay over the years and have adapted my selling strategy. In my opinion, the increase in rates by the USPS has had a much bigger negative impact to my sales than any Ebay policy changes. As a buyer of too much stuff on EBay, over 600 purchases, the fact that the seller was a power seller or not has made zero difference in my purchasing decisions. OP, if you want to sue Ebay, sue them over the seller's dashboard, this has created a one way street for buyers to screw sellers and the sellers have no way to respond.

 

[FlyingRon]

I guess you haven't been hit with the mandatory 21 day paypal hold yet.
They've been phasing it in over the past month for everybody. It makes it very difficult to operate when you have to ship way before constructive funds are available.

 

[JustAPal00]

I agree some of eBay's new policies are very seller unfriendly. I used to be a power seller, now I sell the occasional item. I no longer am trying to supliment my income but just sell to pick up a few bucks. I don't see a law suit being sucessful. This is their business and their only "obligation" is to their shareholders.

 

[ariastar]

May be time to move your business off of ebay. It's their territory, they can do what they want, and you agree to the changes by continuing to use them. Do I like it? No. But it is what it is.

FlyingRon, that 21-day hold thing is crap and makes it impossible to sell things that are fabricated after selling, custom items and such if they can't be made and delivered in that time frame. Worse though I think it the inabiliy for sellers to leae negative, or even neutral, feedback, so that there is no way anyone can now know a buyer doesn't follow through.

Heh, and to think, ther old CEO, Meg Whitman, is running for governor of California against Gavin Newsom. People actually like Gavin, whereas Meg has sworn to undo some environmental policies regarding caps on output for large businesses her first day in office, which will be never (in the ads on the radio, she credits herself with "creating thousands of small businesses around the world.")

 

[robertaross]

Thanks for all your replies - but as I said, I do not buy into that attitude that is is their game - especially since ebay isn't just changing the rules any more, they're actually changing the nature of the game itself. So those justifications are just an excuse for letting them get away with abusing the privilege of the social contract that society has given them. Once a company becomes so big that is has an udue influence over that society, it is no longer simply "their game" or playing field. I agreed to play by their rules 15 years ago, but they keep changing the rules. Of course, many companies get away with that because people say it is their game, their rules, or that they have a fiduciary responsibility. I don't accept that. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but a corporation is obligated by an unwritten social contract I believe. eBay isn't just a large corporation - they spawned an industry which has created millions of small businesses which rely on them to feed their families. If a corporation makes a product that everyone loves, then changes the product recklessly and it now makes people sick, you can bet they will be held responsible. So where is the difference with eBay?

If they do indeed have a social contract then they have an obligation to society, and all the small businesses they created, to give consideration to the impact their policy changes may have on the community that gave them their success, their very existence. It is negligent and reckless for them to make changes that can hurt so many people without consideration of the impact. Sure, you can use the law to hide from that in a sense, but also, somewhere buried in the law, I believe, is a deeper more meaningful principle - that is if the law truly at some level, beyond administrative procedure and precedents financed by armies of corporate attorneys -- a principle of fairness and justice, of responsibility to the greater society that allowed it to exist and prosper. I am trying to find those deeper principles if I can.

 

[racer72]

Social contracts are worth the paper they are written on. I have a couple rolls of social contracts in my bathroom, you can have them if you want them.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Many prefer to legislate through the courts. You have fewer people to persuade to your opinion. However, courts have many layers to prevent doing so.

Good luck with your theory. A better chance for success would come from convincing your legislator to pass a law codifying what you believe the social contract should be.