Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#111

Post by DanBC »

speeder wrote: post #56
MDCore wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you fail at that, I will leave bad feedback, and if it causes you to go out of business, I couldn’t care less. Do your job better next time. Wow. One small mistake and they should go out of business. Are you treated that way in your job?

How you dare forget this ; and break the build? You are fired.

...and in this case it's not even the seller who forgot the semi-colon. The seller asked if a semi-colon was needed and was told it wasn't, only for the build to break on compile, leaving Bob to edit the source. But the seller offered to edit the source for Bob.

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#112

Post by lowboy »

Karunamon wrote: post #106
lowboy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you are actually doing when negging a seller is deciding "This seller made me so mad that I am going to cost them large amounts of reputation, raise their fees, restrict their ability to list, and possibly help drive them out of business" What you are actually doing is noting dissatisfaction with the buyer through the system eBay has set up. The consequences you describe are a result of the system, not the wil…

>The consequences you describe are a result of the system, not the willful action of the buyer. And if you take that action as a buyer, you are either ignorant of what that negative feedback entails (which is understandable, eBay doesn't go out of its way to post this except on seller only pages.. they DO however say that you are supposed to contact the seller, and in fact if you attempt to leave negative feedback, t…

Right, so a buyer who is unaware of the way that negative feedback can impact a low-volume seller is doing nothing wrong. They are using the system that they have at their disposal to leave feedback.

I think you're being a tad over-zealous with your talk of "ruining someone".

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#113

Post by joahua »

Karunamon wrote: post #62
joahua wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that negative feedback ought somehow only be posted in event of egregious misdescription is a bizarre, Ebay-centric one. It was a bad customer experience - of course her response is negative! eBay have designed it this way, but many users probably aren't aware of the consequences of leaving feedback. You'd write a complaint card in a hotel with nary a second thought and no ill consequences. To be sued for…

>The notion that negative feedback ought somehow only be posted in event of egregious misdescription is a bizarre, Ebay-centric one. When you keep in mind the effect bad feedback has on a seller, you really should stay your hand unless you feel they were really out to screw you (or you're just plain vindictive). It's a buck in shipping. I'd pay it, blast them an email asking WTF, maybe leave a neutral at worst. Bad f…

Totally agree, within Ebay-world.

My point was just that novice buyers have no conception that 'bad' doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world. Maybe eBay need another level -- "Vindictive", say? ;-)

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#114

Post by Karunamon »

lowboy wrote: post #112
Karunamon wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The consequences you describe are a result of the system, not the willful action of the buyer. And if you take that action as a buyer, you are either ignorant of what that negative feedback entails (which is understandable, eBay doesn't go out of its way to post this except on seller only pages.. they DO however say that you are supposed to contact the seller, and in fact if you attempt to leave negative feedback, t…

Right, so a buyer who is unaware of the way that negative feedback can impact a low-volume seller is doing nothing wrong. They are using the system that they have at their disposal to leave feedback. I think you're being a tad over-zealous with your talk of "ruining someone".

>Right, so a buyer who is unaware of the way that negative feedback can impact a low-volume seller is doing nothing wrong.

Correct.

>I think you're being a tad over-zealous with your talk of "ruining someone".

Hardly. Remember, eBay feedback is calculated over 12 months.

If you have a chain of good sales, don't sell for a while, sell again, and something happens that causes the buyer to leave a neg, you are in deep shit with eBay.

Your listing fees will be higher, your number of listings will be restricted, you have funds availability holds from PayPal.. it's a real mess. Lesser things can and have put people out of business.

If you are primarily an eBay seller this can completely ruin your business.

Now, obviously this is the absolute worst case scenario, but the point is the amount of negative feedback you need to start getting really nasty restrictions put on you is miniscule. Anything that drops you below 98 or 95% positive (haven't been a seller for long enough that I honestly forget the exact number) is enough.

Going back to the subject of the TFA, (and we're venturing deep into conjecture territory here, but bear with me) what if they ended up with a faulty scale that weighed everything a pound less than it should be, and as a result a cluster of buyers ended up with packages postage due?

If it weren't for eBay this would be no problem. You make it right with your customers, refund them, maybe give them a future discount for their trouble, hopefully most of them are happy and you continue on your merry way.

Instead, the buyers are encouraged to vent on the feedback system, which is tied directly into how the platform treats you. Even if you make it right, there's nothing stopping a buyer from trashing on you, and your recourse is precisely jack and shit.

There are three very important things to remember here:

1. eBay is enough of a jerk to sellers that you should really think twice before submitting bad feedback, especially if they fixed their screwup. This is what neutral is for. The seller got you your item but did so in such a way that you don't want to increase their reputation.

2. Enough bad feedback (and "enough" is a very, very small number) most definitely can ruin an eBay seller's business.

3. eBay is a terrible company ripe for replacement.

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#115

Post by btilly »

MDCore wrote: post #108
btilly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be unacquainted with the realities of capitalism. In a retail business, your customers want to be served by you and are willing to pay for that privilege. They don't particularly care what it takes for you to provide them with the service, or what the consequences to you are if they express displeasure over the value not received for the money spent. You are not a charity that deserves to exist on princip…

There is a great gap between saying "I will not shop with you" and "I wish nobody ever shops with you". I wasn't bothered by GP's desire for accurate feedback, or for consequences for mistakes; I was appalled by their callous attitude.

The attitude was not "I wish nobody ever shops with you", it was, "I don't care if nobody ever shops with you".

This seems quite reasonable. If you're trying to run a store, the details of what is required matter to you, not your customers. If the consequence of negative feedback is that you're replaced by a more competent store, most customers are quite happy with that.

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#116

Post by photorized »

sdfjkl wrote: post #49

I stopped using eBay when they canceled my auction because I had included a link to the PDF manual (on the manufacturer's site) of the phone I was selling. This was around 2006 and I assumed their idiotic policies would quickly see them replaced by a better platform, but for some reason this has never happened.

Depending on where they are in their fiscal year, eBay seems to alternate between favoring buyers, or favoring sellers. I've used them through several pro-buyer and pro-seller cycles, and their actions were often unexpected, much like your PDF example.

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#117

Post by lowboy »

Karunamon wrote: post #114
lowboy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so a buyer who is unaware of the way that negative feedback can impact a low-volume seller is doing nothing wrong. They are using the system that they have at their disposal to leave feedback. I think you're being a tad over-zealous with your talk of "ruining someone".

>Right, so a buyer who is unaware of the way that negative feedback can impact a low-volume seller is doing nothing wrong. Correct. >I think you're being a tad over-zealous with your talk of "ruining someone". Hardly. Remember, eBay feedback is calculated over 12 months. If you have a chain of good sales, don't sell for a while, sell again, and something happens that causes the buyer to leave a neg, you are in deep s…

Yeah, eBay seems like a piece of shit to sell on. But that's eBay's fault, not the person who leaves bad feedback. And if you're an eBay seller, then you should know the risks of dealing with them to sell your stuff.

Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay

#118

Post by anonymous »

will_brown wrote: post #78
downandout wrote: post #71

The case is clearly without merit. They almost certainly sued her hoping that she doesn't have the resources to respond to it, which would result in a default judgment against her. If she is able to get an attorney, she will wind up being awarded her legal expenses and potentially other damages since the case was pretty clearly filed in bad faith. The choice to include eBay as a defendant in the suit, however, is cle…

Agreed, unless eBay's terms of service includes a grace period for sellers to cure these kinds of breaches of the sale terms. Otherwise it does not bode well that the plaintiff's attorney admitted the review was truthful(as truth is a defense to defamation/libel claims). I tend to agree Defendant should not only win but recover her attorney's fees and costs for Plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief…

He admitted that the words in the review are true, but is the "negative" flag on the review true or deserved? From what I understand, just a few negative reviews can ruin someone's business on ebay and posting a negative review over 1.44$ and threatening their business sounds like a rather severe over-reaction.
Post reply on HN