Advertisement
The next time you decide to leave negative feedback for a seller on eBay, you might want to make real sure you’re willing to back up what you say – and that the seller on the other end isn’t, say, a lawyer. Otherwise you might end up in situation like that of Michael Steadman, who has already sunk more than $7,000 in legal bills into defending himself against a defamation lawsuit.
After Steadman bought a $44 time clock for his welding shop from eBay seller Elliot Miller, he said that what arrived was definitely not as advertised – and in fact, the clock was in three parts, which were of different models and didn’t even fit together. Miller refused to issue a refund and so Steadman used PayPal’s buyer protection to eventually get his $44 back. And then he expressed his displeasure with this feedback to Miller’s eBay profile, intending to warn other potential buyers: “Bad seller; he has the ethics of a used car salesman.”
Miller, who it turns out is a lawyer in Miami, subsequently filed a lawsuit against Steadman in February 2009. For ruining his 100 percent rating and “commercial reputation.” According to the suit, the product was “plainly offered for sale with the following language: ‘we can not give you any guarantees and must offer it on an as-is, where-is basis only.’” Therefore, apparently Steadman’s eleven-word eBay feedback amounted to defamation. Which is somehow worth $15,000.
Steadman originally tried to represent himself but ended up lost in the legal system with no idea what documents to file, and had to borrow from the second mortgage he’d taken out to start his business to hire a lawyer. But now the funds have run out, and last week his lawyer quit. Steadman’s advice to eBay users? Don’t leave feedback. Kind of puts a new twist on “buyer beware.”
[Via Floriday Today]
Perhaps if he had kept the feedback to the facts of the transaction, there would be no grounds for a lawsuit and the feedback comment would have had the same effect. Its all in how you say something.
There's no grounds for a suit, anyways. The statement is clearly one of opinion, and thus protected speech. I'm betting the lawyer thought he could make the guy settle out of court, and failed.
I also predict that this guy will now easily be able to get a lawyer to take his case pro bono.
"protected speech" does NOT include defamation! Where do people like you get your ideas from anyway? The false feedback caused damage to the seller's reputation on EBAY…THAT is what makes it defamation and NOT free speech!
Perhaps if he had kept the feedback to the facts of the transaction, there would be no grounds for a lawsuit and the feedback comment would have had the same effect. Its all in how you say something.
I think that eBay should do something to protect commenters, otherwise there won't be any honest feedback.
There is already a long-standing problem with eBay feedback. I've bought from several sellers who held *buyer* feedback for "ransom," saying that they will leave positive feedback once the buyer has left positive feedback. What if my experience as a buyer wasn't entirely positive? What if they shipped very late, i.e., not upholding a quick-ship promise as indicated in the ad? What if they never communicate with the buyer via email during/after the auction, even after repeated attempts? These are all things that prospective buyers need or want to know. But if the seller is going to threaten or intimidate buyers out of saying *anything* less than one-hundred percent glowing in their comments, then the "feedback" is already useless. eBay *must* step in, or "man up" at some point, or there'll just be no reason at all to risk buying from on-line sellers at all. At that point, one would be better served to buy face-to-face from Craigslist/Backpage sellers, in the U.S. at least. eBay must do something, or watch its business erode. If their sellers can't be trusted, people will shop elsewhere. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy or popular thing; but it's still the right thing.
I guess I'll keep any lawyer/barrister comments to myself… ;-)
"I’ve bought from several sellers who held *buyer* feedback for “ransom,” saying that they will leave positive feedback once the buyer has left positive feedback"
I've always thought this was a problem, too. And there's a very simple way to overcome this:
1) A clock is set from when something is bought.
2) Both the buyer and the seller have one month from this date to issue feedback, which will not be published to the other (or to other Ebayers) until a month has passed.
3) If the buyer or seller doesn't leave feedback within a month, it is simply a lost chance and the chance to do it later scrapped. If the other left feedback, it's still published.
4) If the buyer has not received the item within three weeks, they get an email prompt to leave a "item not received"-type feedback, which will still only be published after the full month is up.
5) If the seller has a problem with this, they may appeal to Ebay, but will have to provide proof they either told the buyer it will arrive later than a month or proof that they did indeed ship the item (in either case, Ebay reviews the buyer's feedback and decides whether it should stay).
Admittedly, step 5 would take a lot more man-power, but it'd be for the right reasons and not needless bureaucracy at all.
There is already a long-standing problem with eBay feedback. I’ve bought from several sellers who held *buyer* feedback for “ransom,” saying that they will leave positive feedback once the buyer has left positive feedback. What if my experience as a buyer wasn’t entirely positive? What if they shipped very late, i.e., not upholding a quick-ship promise as indicated in the ad? What if they never communicate with the buyer via email during/after the auction, even after repeated attempts? These are all things that prospective buyers need or want to know. But if the seller is going to threaten or intimidate buyers out of saying *anything* less than one-hundred percent glowing in their comments, then the “feedback” is already useless. eBay *must* step in, or “man up” at some point, or there’ll just be no reason at all to risk buying from on-line sellers at all. At that point, one would be better served to buy face-to-face from Craigslist/Backpage sellers, in the U.S. at least. eBay must do something, or watch its business erode. If their sellers can’t be trusted, people will shop elsewhere. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy or popular thing; but it’s still the right thing.
I guess I’ll keep any lawyer/barrister comments to myself… ;-)
“I’ve bought from several sellers who held *buyer* feedback for “ransom,” saying that they will leave positive feedback once the buyer has left positive feedback”
I’ve always thought this was a problem, too. And there’s a very simple way to overcome this:
1) A clock is set from when something is bought.
2) Both the buyer and the seller have one month from this date to issue feedback, which will not be published to the other (or to other Ebayers) until a month has passed.
3) If the buyer or seller doesn’t leave feedback within a month, it is simply a lost chance and the chance to do it later scrapped. If the other left feedback, it’s still published.
4) If the buyer has not received the item within three weeks, they get an email prompt to leave a “item not received”-type feedback, which will still only be published after the full month is up.
5) If the seller has a problem with this, they may appeal to Ebay, but will have to provide proof they either told the buyer it will arrive later than a month or proof that they did indeed ship the item (in either case, Ebay reviews the buyer’s feedback and decides whether it should stay).
Admittedly, step 5 would take a lot more man-power, but it’d be for the right reasons and not needless bureaucracy at all.
This is so ridiculous. It's no wonder eBay is more or less in the toilet.
They aren't in the toilet. Their stock prices are as high as they've ever been and much higher than they were back in 2008.
All eBay needs to do is add a bit of language in the contract that says you can't sue over this.
And, anyways, this guy's ethics don't look to great if he sues over eBay feedback. He doesn't even sound like a good lawyer: A statement evaluating one's ethics is clearly an opinion statement, and thus falls short of "defamation of character." Even paralegals know that.
So if it were YOU getting the negative feedback and it was unwarranted you would just be OKAY with it…right? Buyer's often attempt to bully private sellers into accepting returns even when the ad states "no returns accepted" by threatening to leave negative feedback. Well that is OKAY as long as you stick to the facts and don't go out on a limb like this guy did. Dumb stunt that he will be paying dearly for!
This is so ridiculous. It’s no wonder eBay is more or less in the toilet.
They aren’t in the toilet. Their stock prices are as high as they’ve ever been and much higher than they were back in 2008.
All eBay needs to do is add a bit of language in the contract that says you can’t sue over this.
And, anyways, this guy’s ethics don’t look to great if he sues over eBay feedback. He doesn’t even sound like a good lawyer: A statement evaluating one’s ethics is clearly an opinion statement, and thus falls short of “defamation of character.” Even paralegals know that.
There’s no grounds for a suit, anyways. The statement is clearly one of opinion, and thus protected speech. I’m betting the lawyer thought he could make the guy settle out of court, and failed.
I also predict that this guy will now easily be able to get a lawyer to take his case pro bono.
I recently sold a multifunction printer to an individual on Ebay. They asked for things not in the add that I didnt have like driver CDs, Were worried about a cooling fan that ran while on standby as designed by the manufacturer and wanted the ring delay on fax answer adjusted which is in the manual sent with the machine. I rang them back informing them of these things but still got negative ruining my 100% rateing and this comment: " printer does not work as described, will not call back, waste of money". They left 6 negatives in one day including 5 for a guy they bought business phones off that required a PBX unit that he offered for sale in a seperate listing. As the phones were useless without the PBX this ignorant buy left 5 negatives wasted $200 and through them in the bin.
Anyway I spoke to my uncle, a solicitor with some 20 years experience and he said as I can prove with phone records that I called the buyer back and as a statement provided by Toshiba proves the fan running is normal on standby for this model I have an excellent case to take this to court. I sent a feedback revision to give them the opportunity to retract feedback but if that fails I will take up my uncles offer, after all it will cost me nothing and $15,000 in my pocket also sounds good, right : )
absolutely the correct thing to do. I wish you well. A friend just sold an item on EBAY the buyer didn't fit into. He demanded a return and when reminded it was a no return item he left totally false feedback stating the item was counterfeit and she sold counterfeit items made in China. All these items are made in China and it was purchased at a big box store that does NOT sell counterfeit items. She is giving him a chance to rethink his feedback or she WILL sue him. There are a lot of hungry attorneys out there just looking for some "filler" cases to pay the bills and she knows two of them personally!
I think more people should be sued for leaving negative feedback. Buyers have gone buck wild with negative feedback and they need to start being held responsible for their actions.