eBay Feedback = Libel? WTF?

[Johan]

What the HELL? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5009293.ece)

A man is facing legal action for libel after leaving negative feedback for an item he bought on auction website eBay.

When Chris Read received the £155 mobile phone he had purchased from Joel Jones on eBay, he found it was the wrong model and was not in good condition, as advertised.

The 42-year-old mechanic from Kent returned the phone, and, on October 3, used the feedback facility on the website, designed to warn other buyers of potentially untrustworthy sellers. He wrote: "Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised on Mr Jones's eBay account."

The seller is suing.

What is the purpose of a feedback system, if the only feedback a seller expects or tolerates is positive? The customer stated the truth regarding the purchase.

I don't understand the basis for a lawsuit here, which means the seller will win. :D

[Generation ABXY]

I don't understand the basis for a lawsuit here, which means the seller will win. :D

The sad thing is, it wouldn't surprise me if you were right. :(

[Raen]

Even if he wins the seller is going to get an awful reputation in the community, even if it doesn't show up on his page. Anyone who digs a little deeper through Google is gonna find this story instantly. And claiming that his business could go under because he's rated a little lower is crazy. Almost every seller has a little negative feedback.

[DoctorFinger]

IN the US that suit wouldn't stand a chance. But, the UK has a much lower standard for Libel and slander than we do. From what I understand in this case truth may not be a defense, all the seller has to do is prove that the comment damaged his business and he can be compensated. That's why so many people file libel suits in the UK. It's called Libel Tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism).

[Generation ABXY]

IN the US that suit wouldn't stand a chance. But, the UK has a much lower standard for Libel and slander than we do. From what I understand in this case truth may not be a defense, all the seller has to do is prove that the comment damaged his business and he can be compensated. That's why so many people file libel suits in the UK. It's called Libel Tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism).

You're kidding - things are actually worse than in the United States? We seem so sue-happy over here, hiring a lawyer is almost like a national pastime. Now I'm not sure if I'm comforted to know we actually show a little restraint, or worried that we have something to aspire to. :p

[ShivaX]

You're kidding - things are actually worse than in the United States? We seem so sue-happy over here, hiring a lawyer is almost like a national pastime. Now I'm not sure if I'm comforted to know we actually show a little restraint, or worried that we have something to aspire to. :p

When it comes to libel and slander the UK is fucking insane.

[boratika]

For a little context for why libel laws are the way they are in the UK, you just need to keep in mind the tabloids they have over there.

[Raen]

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

So you can defend yourself against libel with the truth, but the pressure is on the defendant to prove the statement to be true. Unless the guy took detailed pictures of the phone then I doubt he can prove it's true. Also do you think the seller can prove negligence in this case? I don't see it.

[Camel]

What is the purpose of a feedback system, if the only feedback a seller expects or tolerates is positive? The customer stated the truth regarding the purchase.

This stuff actually bugs the crap out of me. One time on ebay, I bought a textbook. The guy who was selling it sent me an email saying that he no longer had the item, and immediately refunded my money. I was irked because I lost out on a great deal, and also kind of pissed that the guy no longer had the item because he sold it on another site (I checked...he was selling the same thing on Amazon, ebay, Barnes and Noble, etc.). If you can't keep track of your inventory, don't list it on multiple sites!

Anyways, I gave the guy NEUTRAL feedback. I said he gave a refund very quickly but no longer had the item I bought. He responded with NEGATIVE feedback! His comment was along the lines of "Gave me neutral feedback even though I refunded the money." I know this isn't a very interesting story, but the whole thing really made me mad at the time. People get REALLY upset with bad feedback (and apparently neutral feedback!).

[KingGorilla]

The problem with Ebay is that it has become a monster of its own design. It is 1 too big for anyone to police properly. Fraud, scams, lies are all too common place. The only way they will police is if a larger entity with legal thrust like say Blizzard gets up in arms about how their products are re-sold (Telcos as well before the Library of Congress added a DMCA exception to cell phone unlocks). 2. They are trying to occupy the same space as a small garage seller while still catering to their "power users" who are businesses set up to sell items on Ebay. Any sort of negative feedback can be libelous to someone's business.

[Johan]

I no longer use eBay. I only used it a few times, but there's too much crap going on behind the scenes.

* Sellers who disguise what you're actually buying behind confusing terminology or deceptive pictures
* Sellers who, through others or through false accounts, bid up the price of their products fraudulently.
* Sellers getting pissy about feedback.

I just don't care for it at all. I like Amazon's marketplace much more.