eBay Responds to ACCC Draft Notice

60 Permanent link to eBay Responds to ACCC Draft Notice eBay Responds to ACCC Draft Notice

FEATURED POSTRichard Brewer-Hay / Friday, June 13th, 2008

eBay Responds to ACCC Draft Notice

Earlier this week, the Australian Competition and Consumer commission (ACCC) issued a draft notice that proposed to revoke eBay’s Safer Payments Initiative in Australia.

“The ACCC acknowledges that having PayPal as the only payment provider has the potential to deliver some benefits to users, such as increased buyer protection insurance in certain circumstances. However, the ACCC believes that consumers are in the best position to decide which payment method is most suitable for them.” — ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel.

I wanted to wait until I received official word from eBay regarding the draft notice before posting here on Ink… the following statement was issued early this morning:

ACCC draft notice undermines online consumer protection

eBay will continue to fight for safety benefits for consumers

13 June 2008: eBay challenges yesterday’s Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) draft notice and is disappointed that the ACCC’s current view delays the opportunity to provide consumers a more secure way to shop on eBay.com.au with confidence.

eBay intends to work with the ACCC and hopes to achieve a final outcome which has the safety and security of eBay’s members as its paramount objective. eBay will delay the removal of other payment methods from the site until Tuesday 15 July.

PayPal offers consumers a range of payment choices, including bank transfer and credit cards. It’s a safer and easier online payment system that significantly enhances protection for eBay buyers and sellers.

eBay is pleased to confirm that PayPal buyer protection will jump to $20,000 on eBay.com.au for purchases paid for using PayPal from Tuesday 17 June.

eBay believes the consumer benefits of this initiative are worth fighting for on behalf of its buyers which will ultimately benefit sellers.

I’ll see if I can get more information regarding the current situation but wanted to share the latest with you now.

Cheers,
RBH
More

PAGE: 1 2 »

TW / June 13th, 2008 at 9:26 am

Always in the name of “safety benefits”. Seems the ACCC realizes this for what it is …. a grab for money pure and simple.

I don’t think eBay is fooling anybody here.

dimes / June 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am

eBay isn’t doing itself any favors by placing an announcement on its website accusing the ACCC of “undermining” consumer safety.

It will certainly limit its ability to “work with” that organization, unless what it meant to say was “work on”.

This must have been written by the same person who compared customers who demand payment choice with heroin addicts.

Unfortunately for eBay, there is no way it will be able to convince anyone that paypal is the safest payment option, because everyone knows that the primary beneficiary of that protection is invariably paypal.

TheBrewsNews / June 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am

What an appropriate post for Friday the 13th.

There are statistics that prove that Paraskevidekatriaphobics (people afflicted with a morbid, irrational fear of Friday the 13th)

also have Paypaltakeovertheworldaphobics (people afflicted with a very real and rational fear of PayPal world domination)

and so eBay’s response today (on Friday the 13th) to the ACCC has been credited with contributing to more than 2.1 million Australian workers calling in sick to work today and shopping on an Oz only auction service which offers Payment Choices.

These poor afflicted folks can’t leave their home today because they have a fear of Friday the 13th and they can’t shop on eBay because they have a fear of Paypal World Domination so they are forced to spend the day in front of their computer buying from Aussie sellers who don’t want to wait for the “ultimate” benefit of a PayPal only auction site.

Patricia1 / June 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am

LOL – “Go Aussies!!!” ;-)

Patricia1 / June 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am

“Ebay – still number one in burning bridges behind them!” ;-) I’m just full of one-liners today – perhaps they’ll be read?

Amber / June 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

that significantly enhances protection for eBay buyers and sellers

The fatal flaw in the entire argument rests above.

Paypal is not safe for sellers.

Paypal offers NO protection for buyers superior to other competitors–especially Aussie based Paymate.

Paypal and eBay’s rate of fraud is HIGHER than direct transfer.

I am delighted the ACCC saw eBay’s moves as the anti-competitive action it was. It has never been about safety. It’s been about forcing all transactions to be processed by Paypal to get the increased fees. No one was fooled into thinking otherwise.

Here is a more thorough quote from the ACCC re: their draft notice. It clearly shows that the concerns of Australian BUYERS and sellers were heard loud and clear.

“The ACCC is concerned that the notified conduct will allow eBay to use its market power in the supply of online marketplaces to substantially lessen competition in the market in which PayPal operates,” ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said today.

“PayPal currently competes with a range of other providers to supply online payment services to users of online marketplaces. If the notified conduct is allowed to go ahead, there will be no competition for the supply of such services to buyers and sellers using eBay.

“Given eBay’s position as Australia’s leading online marketplace, the notified conduct will substantially reduce competition to supply online payment services to users of online marketplaces more generally.

“The ACCC acknowledges that having PayPal as the only payment provider has the potential to deliver some benefits to users, such as increased buyer protection insurance in certain circumstances. However, the ACCC believes that consumers are in the best position to decide which payment method is most suitable for them.

“The notified conduct denies them that choice. Accordingly, the ACCC considers that these benefits do not outweigh the anti-competitive effects of the conduct,” Mr Samuel said.

Amber / June 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

PayPal offers consumers a range of payment choices, including bank transfer and credit cards.

Wrong. It offers BUYERS the range of payment options. It does not offer SELLERS the range of payment services. Another BIG flaw. Buyers may be the end-all of policy now at eBay, but it’s clear that the ACCC sees both buyers AND sellers as important parts of the eBay economy.

Add to that, the fact that bank transfer takes 3 times longer to be processed via Paypal than when it is done the “traditional” way.

Sellers are able to receive payments for free with bank transfer–charge them for the same service and prices will rise. A direct negative result for BUYERS.

Not to mention the fact that glitches with Paypal have paralyzed some ecommerce sites for WEEKS without so much as an announcement by Paypal, let alone a solution.

You’d think with all of the money they’re now getting in fees from the UK and elsewhere, they’d be able to afford a lawyer with better arguments than these.

Amber / June 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Wow.

Just Wow.

Here’s what the announcement is telling the people of ebay au:

What does this mean for you?
PayPal Buyer Protection will still increase to $20,000 on 17 June 2008.
From 15 July 2008, the only payment methods sellers may offer on eBay.com.au will be PayPal and pay on pick up.

Selling on eBay.com.au
Current policies regarding accepted payment methods do still apply. This means PayPal is required on all listings on eBay.com.au. Other payment methods (i.e. bank deposit, cheque/money order) may also be offered until 15 July 2008.

As previously communicated any listings that do not comply with eBay’s Accepted Payments Policy will be removed.

So they’re still hoping to force sellers to make the change and are defying the ACCC. I guess they’ll force everyone to change their listings and wait to get prosecuted.

Patricia1 / June 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

And on their listing form – two announcements:

eBay and PayPal are making buying on eBay safer. Effective 21 May 2008, all sellers must offer PayPal as a payment method in their listings. Starting 17 June 2008, PayPal will be the only payment option sellers can offer in listings.

Attention!

All items listed for sale on eBay.com.au on or after 17 June 2008 will be subject to the following changes:

* You must offer PayPal on your listings.
* Pay on pick up (ie paid for when picking up the item) can be offered in conjunction with PayPal.

* No other payment methods can be added to your listing.

A small number of exclusions will apply to these changes.

I went thru the bother of checking to see what a 35 cent listing would cost there – $1.09! with a gallery pic. I thought they were hitting us hard :-(

Amber / June 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I list over there all of the time–but I sell books, so don’t bother w/ the gallery pic.

The AU$ is gaining strength against the US$ and there are still plenty of things that just aren’t available Down Under. Since their postage is pricey also, they don’t mind paying a premium in shipping to get items not normally available to them.

I think the rates need to be adjusted to reflect the weakness of the US $. A few years ago, the fees were pretty comparable considering the exchange rate.

TheBrewsNews / June 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

@Patricia

I’m not sure how you got the $1.09 insertion fee?

Insertion Fees for eBay Australia (note that amounts are in Australian dollars which I believe is about 1 U.S. dollar to 0.94 Australian dollar today)

Starting or Reserve Price
Insertion Fee

AU$0.01 – AU$0.99
Insertion Fee – AU$0.30

AU$1.00 – AU$19.99
Insertion Fee – AU$0.50

AU$20.00 – AU$49.99
Insertion Fee – AU$0.75

AU$50.00 – AU$99.99
Insertion Fee – AU$1.50

AU$100.00 – AU$399.99
Insertion Fee – AU$2.50

AU$400.00 and up
Insertion Fee – AU$3.50

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Richard, why are posts dissapearing? It’s weird, one minute they are there, next mnute they are gone. Is the site having technical issues?

Mechelle / June 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I find this portion of PayPal Buyer Protection particularly interesting in relation to the self prescribed safest payment option.

13.15 Relationship between PayPal Protection Programs and Chargeback Rights. The following information relates to reimbursement for losses from purchases where you used a credit card to fund a PayPal purchase:

Credit card chargeback rights, if they apply, are broader than PayPal Buyer Protection: among other things chargeback rights are not limited to $2,000.00 USD per transaction, can be filed more than 45 days after the transaction, and may cover unsatisfactory items even if they are not Significantly Not as Described.

CREDIT CARD CHARGEBACK RIGHTS ARE BROADER THAN PAYPAL PROTECTION:

WITH A CREDIT CARD YOU ARE COVERED WITH CHARGEBACK RIGHTS BEYOND PAYPAL’S MAX OF 2000.00

WITH CREDIT CARD CHARGEBACK RIGHTS YOU CAN FILE A COMPLAINT OUTSIDE OF 45 DAYS

CREDIT CARD CHARGEBACKS MAY ALSO COVER DISSATISFACTION OF THE PRODUCT EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY NOT AS DESCRIBED

You can choose to file a Dispute through our Online Dispute Resolution process and escalate the Dispute into a Claim or to exercise your Chargeback rights. However, you cannot pursue both at the same time or seek a double recovery. If you initiate a Dispute through the Online Dispute Resolution process and you then, while the Dispute or Claim is pending, file a Chargeback, PayPal will cancel your Dispute or Claim, and you will have to rely solely on your Chargeback rights.

OPTION OF FILING A PAYPAL DISPUTE OR EXCERCISE YOUR CHARGEBACK RIGHTS

If you close your Dispute or it is otherwise closed, or if you cancel a Claim or it is denied or results in no refund, you may still be able to pursue Chargeback rights.

IF YOUR PAYPAL DISPUTE IS CLOSED WITHOUT REFUND YOU STILL HAVE THE OPTION OF A CHARGEBACK

Well, I’m convinced- paypal provided a very persuasive arguement – a credit card will protect a buyer better than paypal.

They think it is so much more beneficial for the buyer they are practically telling the buyer they would be stupid to use paypal dispute over filing a chargeback.

Now why would paypal do such a thing??? oh, I almost forgot, because they get a fat fee from the seller every time a chargeback is filed.

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

They think it is so much more beneficial for the buyer they are practically telling the buyer they would be stupid to use paypal dispute over filing a chargeback.

Because they are legally required to. Paypal really is nothing more than a merchant account. They just happen to let others use it. My company has a merchant account, we sign a contract that states we will not limit in any way chargeback rights. Paypal signed the same thing.

Honestly if Paypal had a choice, they would say no chargebacks :-). Chargebacks cost paypal monies in multiple ways.

Now why would paypal do such a thing??? oh, I almost forgot, because they get a fat fee from the seller every time a chargeback is filed.

We all know what paypal charges us for the favor of using their merchant account. Paypal is also charged per transaction – one of the reasons why they push buyers to use checking accounts vs credit card is it is cheaper for paypal – although they do not pass the savings on to sellers.

Merchant accounts can be taken away. Buy.com actually almost lost theirs a couple of years ago, (it was in the news, and public record). Paypal’s rate is based on vol. and chargebacks. The volumne lowers the rate, chargeback’s raise the rates. Too many chargebacks could also cause Paypal to lose its merchant account.

To be fair regarding the fee Paypal charges, they only charge it in certain circumstances.

Mechelle / June 13th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

They are legally required to inform card users of their chargeback rights- ok

So your telling me that visa/mastercard told PayPal that not only must they inform the consumer of their right to chargeback, but they have to do it within paypal’s buyer protection service description? That just doesn’t fly with me

About chargeback fees

They only waive the fee if the chargeback is denied- I am instersted in paypal’s success in winning chargeback disputes? Yesterday someone mentioned they had gone through 12 chargeback disputes using paypal and lost all of them- on the flip side he has had 4 with Amazon and has won all of them.

When I read that portion of the agreement they will reimburse the fees if the chargeback dispute favors the seller. If you wouldn’t mind referring me to the section where paypal says in chargeback disputes fees are not always applied? does it specify which circumstances the fee applies and in which they do not?

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Yes, it is in the 400+ page policy manual you get with your merchant account. There are all sorts of things we have to do. The rule about not charging extra for taking credit cards isn’t really a Paypal rule, but the credit card rule. We can lose our merchant account if we charge a buyer extra for using a credit card.

While Paypal flies under legal parameters, credit card companies do not. The laws in place to protect consumers, apply to the credit card companies, and they in turn require those using their services to. Credit cards are heavily regulated.

I don’t know about Amazon, on our own business merchant account, we have never had a chargeback. We have had one “official chargeback” with Paypal. $200.00 chargeback with paypal. I have had one reversal, and paypal was no help, but reversals are different than chargebacks.

We had no expectation of winning, it was a service. We had no online method to prove we had delivered what they had paid for. To tell you the truth it was the weirdest experience we have ever had.

I responded it was a service, stated, I know we will lose, but in the future what can we do to protect ourselves. I did include the email we had used to contact buyer, etc. As normal, no response, one day our paypal account simply showed we had lost, monies had already been frozen, now it just showed dispute closed, we had lost.

We lost, 200.00 gone, paypal did not charge us 10 bucks, but they kept their fees as they took out the entire 200.00. 4 months later the 200.00 is back in and it said the buyer’s credit card company had found in our favor.

I have no idea to this day what happened.

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

does it specify which circumstances the fee applies and in which they do not?

It only applies if you have not followed the steps for seller protection.

11. Seller Protection Policy.
11.1 Benefits. The Seller Protection Policy, which applies only to Verified Business and Premier Accounts, reimburses sellers of certain types of goods who follow certain sound selling practices. If your transaction meets the qualification requirements for the Seller Protection Policy, PayPal will reimburse you for the amount of the Chargeback or Reversal and, if applicable, waive the Chargeback Fee.

taken from:

https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/policy_spp#spp-policy

I don’t sell on amazon, so I do not know exactly how it works. That said, you will almost always lose a chargeback on paypal because paypal is not requiring sellers to do everything credit card companies require. The more expensive items, paypal does require sellers follow the credit card companies requirements.

I am not going to list what step they are leaving out, but they have obviously decided it is worth it to them to provide the flimsy seller protection policy and pay out when they must (meaning refund the seller when they lose a chargeback).

Mechelle / June 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I understand there are many regulations concerning credit cards, but I question if visa/mastercard required the explanation of chargebacks in a compare and contrast format such as what paypal has done.

I just looked at both Amazon and Google Checkout and neither discuss chargeback rights as opposed to their service, compared to their service. It just is not detailed such as paypal has. Frankly I have faith that both Amazon and google follow the law- ….

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Mechelle, I do want to make it clear I in no way think paypal is the be all, end all. I prefer google checkout as a buyer and seller because it is plain just easier. I cheer the ACCU for their decision. ebay and paypal are treading very close to real legal issues, Microsoft could give them some tips.

Paypal is ebay’s true profit center. It is Paypal that provides all the bonuses. They are constantly looking for ways to increase that profit.

As a buyer, Paypal literally makes you jump through hoops to use your credit card vs bank account. They no longer let you set a default, they decide – they can not force me to use their default, but they certainly found a way to not make it easy.

Google just uses my credit card for payments, only question is which credit card I want to use.

I do not depend on Paypal or Google to protect me, I depend on my credit card company.

As a seller, I prefer google as well because they charge less fees. Their interface is easier to use as well. I know people moan about giving google your social security number, but Paypal also asks for alot of info. It’s a toss up of 2 evils, and I prefer the google evil over paypal/ebay evil.

I never use our own merchant account with online purchases. We use that for our clients we know. We like the fees staying low and it is directly tied to my social security number (merchant accounts use credit score as one method to determine if you get a merchant account or not). Most corporate 100′s pay using a business credit card, I can not put that in jeopardy over a 250.00 painting sold on ebay for goodness sakes.

As far as all the disclosure Paypal does, you really do not think Paypal does anything they don’t have to do you? They came close a few years ago to having serious problems because they were punishing buyers who went straight to their credit card companies instead of filing a paypal dispute first. Paypal pushes the enevlope as far as they can for as long as they can. They just get caught more than ebay because it is people’s monies.

Sandi / June 13th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Mechelle, read my last paragraph. Paypal is doing what it is required to do. Call it a hand slapped.

Patricia1 / June 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Brews – I just realized my error and came back to correct it. It was a 10.50 auction which would have made it 55 cents here with free gallery pic. It was 1.09 there because gallery pic is like 59 cents.

Amber / June 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Yep, Patricia. The fees are higher than the US site because they are based on AU $. It used to be pretty close to what we used to pay for insertion + gallery…but with the decline of the dollar it is much more expensive.

One benefit for me, though, is higher ASPs. :)

A few side benefits to listing on ebay au:

ebay au listing appear in .com default search. They are the ONLY international listings besides Canada to do so without an extra fee.

Items listed on ebay au without a gallery pic will still show a gallery pic when viewed from the .com site :) They still have the little camera icon there that shows when viewed on au.

petewheat / June 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

eBay should pull a Gilda Radner’s SNL character that ranted and raved misinformed about a subject and when proven wrong sheepishly said “never mind”. Paypal can be offered sure, but why eliminate all other original payment sources. If Paypal is such a superior service people will figure that out… now won’t they?

dimes / June 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Paypal added the wording about chargeback rights to its user agreement in 2004 as a result of an investigation by the then-Attorney General (and now disgraced governor) Eliot Spitzer.

Click on the .pdf at the bottom of this link for the agreement reached between paypal and the state of NY.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/mar/mar08a_04.html

I think when paypal starts to get close to the chargeback limits over which they’d be fined or get hit with higher fees, it starts having glitches.

As a matter of fact, it’s been having one of these glitches for a month or so – customers are reporting that although they go through the hassle of clicking on the extra screens to confirm that they want to pay by credit card, the payments are mysteriously being debited from their bank accounts instead.

Mechelle / June 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

so you think they are made to go that far because of their previous terroristic actions upon buyers who filed a chargeback? This would make sense

Aside from all this – the comparison illustrates paypal is an inferior product relative to the protective benefits of a credit card. With this in mind regardless of why they have had to detail it this way- it makes them appear ridiculous in their push for paypal only anywhere on the globe

Henrietta / June 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Richard, I don’t get it.

This is a press release. Cut and paste. I got it off the wire about 10pm my time. Cut and paste, onto my blog with added comment. We know it is the official line. eBay’s PR department released it.

You had nothing to say about the ACCC draft notice, just boom into the canned rebuttal?

This is not even NEWS anymore, it has been chewed to death on every board between Brittany and Canberra. Going west!

I think we all understand that you can’t simply sit down and blog, it does not go with the corporate zeitgeist. However, personally, I would have been more interested in the offerings at the eBay canteen. That is something we couldn’t get anywhere else. Is there a canteen?

There must be little uncontroversial things you could blog about that would not require extensive legal review but would be of interest. Do you drive to work? How is the parking situation. Do people bicycle? What do they do with their bikes?

It is an extraordinary privilege to be able to read & post pretty much uncensored comments here and as one who has been on the boards at eBay over ten years I appreciate it.

Not sure if LiveWorld uses bots but posts here in the USA go POUF very rapidly these days & for the most part for incomprehensible reasons.

ex-ebay-seller / June 13th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Can someone provide an example of another selling venue (think Shopping Mall Landlord) that can dictate what payment methods a merchant (tenant) can accept from it’s customers? As a merchant if I want to accept wampum beads from MY customers that’s my choice and no landlord in the land can tell me otherwise. No checks? No money orders? Sorry but that’s retail suicide. eBay speak with forked tongue.

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am

@Mechelle, our user agreement has entire sections devoted to what can be done if you violate their rules.

It’s in Paypal’s user agreement because they have to do it.

In reality I don’t understand why Paypal isn’t more agressive in fighting chargebacks in most cases. The rate we are charged by our merchant account can go up if we have too many chargebacks. Paypal would have a higher profit.

Additionally, you can lose your entire merchant account if there are too many chargebacks.

Dakota / June 14th, 2008 at 1:05 am

As far as PayPal, I use Google Checkout on another venue and it seems that more buyers use it on that venue also. PayPal is also offered on this venue but it just seems that most buyers opt out of using it, which I am happy for.

I love it and it is far less expensive than PayPal. Less money to the money collectors means more money in my pocket.
;-)

Plus, PayPal does not offer anything close to the kind of seller protection that Google Checkout offers. They tell you when it is ok to send an item and if there is an issue, they stay right on it until it is resolved one way or the other. The best part of it is, this happens BEFORE the buyer has your product or BEFORE it has shipped. There seems to be no after the fact stuff like on PayPal.

I have never had a chargeback or any other adverse action when using Google Checkout but on PayPal, it seems like a fairly frequent issue. I think problem buyers have figured out that PayPal will side with them in almost every situation.

Even better than that, you don’t have to manually move your money. Google Checkout moves it for you in 2 days or less.

They seem to care more about their customers than PayPal by a long shot.

post pretty much uncensored comments here
Oh really? Since when?
I think there is something here that you are missing.

I wish that eBay would straighten up and take care of it’s sellers. I also wish that PayPal would look out for sellers better.

When will be getting some answers to the questions we have listed on the blog? I am hungry to know them. It would be nice to get back to selling and not have all of this hassle.

KD / June 14th, 2008 at 3:53 am

To ebay management: just let everyone make up their own minds about what is safe for them, as the ACCC said to do and stop pushing paypal only as the only safe and easy way there can possibly be to make online payments.

We all lose sometimes. So this time didn’t work out for you. Just cut your losses and regroup.

There was no proof using paypal as the only payment method made ebay the safest and easiest place to transact.
It was ludicrous to push that idea from the start.

There will be mountains of resistance from every angle if you keep fighting. You might make it through one obstacle then there’d be another.

ebay management sounds stupid and like a whining, bossy kid every time things don’t go their way. Then they make foolish statements. The current management somehow thinks they are very, very powerful and the way to do things is to just push everyone around. EVERYONE!
They have a “how dare you attitude” against anyone that resists what they do.

I think ebay management is acting crazy, yes, mentally ill. The majority of those that have been following this nightmare think ebay is ruined now. It’s getting tiring to think about and no one cares anymore. No one is paying as much attention and everyone can see through the bull, so why keep dumping it. It’s too late to act normal. Someone on the “change team” really led ebay astray. And everyone else was blind to see how it looked to the outside.

bonni / June 14th, 2008 at 3:54 am

“If Paypal is such a superior service people will figure that out… now won’t they?”

According to eBay, consumers aren’t really smart enough to know what’s good for them. They didn’t use those words, but that’s pretty much the claim they put in their application to the ACCC.

And by the way, eBay are actually applying for an exemption from Australian commerce law. What they propose to do is a violation of one law for sure and possibly a second. eBay know this, and are applying for the right to do it, anyway.

Happily, the ACCC saw through it, believes that consumers are the ones who should determine which payment system is best for them, and eBay is going to have to pull a rabbit out of one of Simon Smith’s hats in order to convince the ACCC that they should be allowed to break the law in this way.

(Note for those who wonder: Simon Smith is the head of eBay Australia. He’s been on a tour of Australia, meeting with people to explain to them why not offering PayPal is like selling heroin and why consumers aren’t bright enough to choose which payment method they want to use.)

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am

I don’t think its a matter of ebay feeling paypal is a superior payment method. I think bottom line is they need the extra revenue Paypal can bring in because their core auctions are pretty upsidedown now – their main business is upsidedown while they pull it apart and try to remake it into a cheesy Amazon clone. That’s what I think is the real reason behind this push to Paypal only. They’re in that mad dance every quarter to make the company look successful and paypal is clumped right in with the rest of their businesses. I also think this is exactly the type of reactions they expected in their auctions and in the resistance to Paypal only. Its part of their “disruptive innovation” plan – kill the goose laying the golden eggs because they think they can breed one that lays platinum eggs. Of course, I’m hoping it all falls flat – but that’s just my personal opinion. ;-)

Permacrisis / June 14th, 2008 at 10:10 am

@Pat

They need to keep burning bridges. That’s how they light their way.

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am

@ Perma – I hope it leads them all right to the unemployment line! :-)

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am

OMG – I have my radio on – KFI 640AM, Los Angeles and their computer guru, Leo LaPorte just went thru about 10 minutes on Ebay/Paypal and how he lost $2,000 because of paypal. He said he’ll never use it again and will only use his credit card. Wow! talk about timely LOL

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

LOL – Leo LaPorte is on the subject again – saying he lost $2,000 due to a ruling on Paypal and said if he had used his credit card he would have got his money back. Said he’s not shopping on ebay anymore…can it be ebay/paypal are responsible for losing buyers just a much as bad sellers are? Interesting! Lots of people listen to these computer shows on the weekend…lots of people learning about Mr. LaPorte’s problem and his decision not to shop on ebay anymore.

Peanut / June 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

What’s all the fuss about? Don’t all companies do something similar?

Here’s an extract from Visa’s olympic website…

“As a Worldwide Partner, Visa is the only card accepted at any Olympic venue throughout China and for Olympic merchandise purchased online, in Olympic retail stores and by catalog.”

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

@Henrietta

Unforunately there is more and more censoring. I have been seeing posts completely disappear or never show up the last few days. At first I considered it a system glitch, but reading other blogs I have seen the persons impacted state they can not even get their posts to show up.

I read a post yesterday right when it was posted, 5 minutes later it was gone and that poster (a regular) has not posted since. It was odd because they post itself wasn’t anything “bad”, just comments on ebay’s response to the ACCU ruling.

Kevin_T / June 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

The arguments for “protecting Ebay members” would have more credibility if Ebay would actually address payment issues that affect member security.

There is a particularly glaring exposure of PayPal security that has been obvious for 18 months or more, that is now being “forced” up Ebayer sellers in both the UK and Australia. Sellers of pick-up-only items must offer PayPal for these items, and have been expressly forbidden from discouraging buyers from paying with PayPal (Richard Ambrose, head of Trust and Safety in the UK this week is the latest). The problem though, is that PayPal’s seller protection is removed from “pick-up-only” sales. Because a seller can not provide a suitable “proof-of-shipping” or trackable shipping, depending on their country, if an item is picked up and then the buyer claims they did not receive the item, payment is automatically refunded from the sellers account – meaning that any seller selling pick-up-only items is actually playing Russian Roulette with their money. Yes, the vast majority of Ebayers are honest, but this has actually opened the door to any intentional scammers, and often pick-up-only items are both large and valuable, making it more attractive to some scammers.

The reports of the first Melbourne (Australia) meeting in early May to promote these “safety” measures, saw Simon Smith, the managing director and vice president of Ebay Australia pointed out that “We’re not allowing people to offer unsafe choices” before going on to make his infamous heroin user comparison. In the same meeting it was acknowledged that there were serious flaws in offering PayPal on Pick-up-only items that leave sellers very vulnerable, PayPal Australia Managing Director Andrew Pipolo is quoted as saying “It is something we are looking at — I agree, it’s an anomaly.” Contrary to these sentiments, Ebay is still allowing people to offer unsafe choices through PayPal.

On this very blog, on the 24th of April, Colin Rule, PayPal’s Director of Online Dispute Resolution, addressed this issue after I had raised it twice, saying that my “point about local pick up is also an important observation. Let me pass it along to the Safe Payments team – I bet they’ve thought about this,” … more than 7 weeks later this still has not been addressed.

Richard Ambrose, head of Trust and Safety on Ebay UK, this week suggests indeed, that it has not even been thought about. He is quoted in the last couple of days as posting on the UK boards “The position on collection only is the same – PayPal has to be offered on all listings, and sellers can’t discourage buyers from accepting it. We’re aware that this creates a risk of sellers not being protected from chargebacks after in-person collections. We are considering how to protect sellers there, though it may require some major changes to the PayPal seller protection programme that wouldn’t be quick to bring in.”

Certainly after such a long drawn out process, it is 18 months since all new Ebay sellers had to offer PayPal on all listings and found themselves vulnerable, he is not wrong that it will not quick to bring in.

How, just with this aspect of leaving Ebayer sellers vulnerable to false chargebacks, let alone the numerous other flaws with PayPal’s multiple user agreements, can Ebay honestly say that they are introducing these measures to protect users, or that it is about “not allowing people to offer unsafe choices”?

Simon Smith also made the comment that “The issue is people don’t make an informed choice.” – when it comes to using PayPal, Ebay really doesn’t want users making informed decisions – it is a badly flawed product that should have been fixed long before these policies were introduced.

Kevin

ocdgirl2000 / June 14th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

(Clapping hands for the ACCC for protecting their business owners from being bullied by an auction site into using the owned and affiliated payment method EXCLUSIVELY)

If this was the case in the USA, ebay would lose at least 75% of their sellers. Unles, of course, that’s what they really want!

ocdgirl2000 / June 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

(Clapping hands for the ACCC for protecting their business owners from being bullied by an auction site into using the owned and affiliated payment method EXCLUSIVELY)

If this was the case in the USA, ebay would lose at least 75% of their sellers. Unless, of course, that’s what they really want!

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

@ Sandi – I just tested that theory on feature plus listings. It doesn’t hold water in the arts categories. They are still what we call front and back loading – which means every feature plus listing from starting immediately to ending in 9 days 23 hours are in front of new regular auctions – all feature plus listings from ending immediately to ending in 9 days 23 hours are in front of all regular auctions that are ending. (The seller’s reputation didn’t seem to make any difference). In the “direct from artist” category that amounted to 27 1/2 pages of FP’s before any regular listings showed.

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

@Patricia, how do you know every item on the 27 pages is featured?

I looked at artist and saw almost a 1/4 million listings, so I went to books Antiquarian & Collectible.

I found Featured on the top on the first dozen pages, but within those pages were live auctions, as well as buy nows for less than 10 bucks – I don’t understand anyone paying for featured for an item less than the featured listing. Even some 99 cent ones with no reserve.

There is nothing to distinguish any feature listing other than the first listing on the page that I could tell.

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

@patricia, I used the ebay default best match so the times were not in order.

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Geez, I guess I haven’t been on ebay much lately, today I noticed just how cluttered it was. Banners at the top, banners on the left, and 3 lousy ads to skim over to get to the menu to look at the next page.

Ebay obviously was not serious when they say they are improving the buyer experience. This buyer found it all so clumbersome.

The real flaw with all the tacky banners is it slows the site down. The buyer has to wait for all those other sites to deliver their information before the page finally loads.

ick, ick, ick

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Sandi – says Featured Auctions right at the top of the listings. When the fp’s end, then it doesn’t say Featured Auctions on the top of the listing.

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Sandi – I used the default Best Match too.

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

@Patricia,

Ok, using my book one, this item 230261091296 is on page 6 (with featured items going through to page 12).

I can’t see anywhere it is listed as featured. Am I just missing it?

Patricia1 / June 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Yep – look under

Listing and payment details: HideShow

Starting time: Jun-11-08 18:20:00 PDT
Starting bid: US $3.00
Duration: 7-day listing
This is a Featured Plus! listing (its an FP)

Sandi / June 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Had to share, look at the ads that just popped up for me on ebay:

Abebooks.com – Find Antiquarian Books
Find the book you’re looking for at Abebooks.com. Compare bookstore selections. Over 100 million used, rare and out-of-print books offered by 13,000 bookstores.
http://www.abebooks.com
Unique Collectible Gift Store
Exstensive inventory of collectible. Sale up to 50% off.
http://www.UniqueCollectibleGiftStore.com
Online Auctions at Ebid
At last, an alternative is available. Why pay to list your auctions?
http://www.ebid.net