Ebay and restriction of trade

[Garry Beattie]

Hi guys.

Can anyone offer any advice on possible legal action against eBay for either
restriction of trade, freedom of information breach or both?

I will explain as short as I can the details.

I was running a very nice on-line business through eBay with sales around
$20,000 to $30,000 per month. All legitimate and every customer had
positive comments and feedback about their purchase.

Apparently one of my regular buyers was caught doing something wrong and was
terminated from eBay. They also terminated me and, I believe, a number of
other people who this person was dealing with.

I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks later they replied
with "Evidence we have indicates you were involved in activities with (the
other member) which violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
renewed.

I have emailed them a number of times since asking "What evidence?" and
explaining that I am not associated with the other person. I always get the
same reply as above. I guess it must be a standard response letter.

The last email from them was to say that unless I can come up with fresh
evidence contrary to what they have, then they will not respond to any more
of my emails. I replied with the question "how can I come up with fresh
evidence when you will not even tell me what the supposed evidence is that
you have?" This met with no response.
I then formerly asked them, under the Freedom Of Information act, to
disclose to me any and all information that they are holding on file about
me. Again I have had no response.

Where do I stand from a legal point of view. Is this a breach of the Freedom
Of Information act if they refuse to hand over to me information they have
on file about me?
Are their actions a form of restriction of trade?

Any advice would be great.

Thanks in advance

Garry

[Rod Speed]

"Garry Beattie" <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:419279ca$0$6545$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Hi guys.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice on possible legal action against eBay for either
> restriction of trade, freedom of information breach or both?
>
> I will explain as short as I can the details.
>
> I was running a very nice on-line business through eBay with sales around
> $20,000 to $30,000 per month. All legitimate and every customer had positive
> comments and feedback about their purchase.
>
> Apparently one of my regular buyers was caught doing something wrong and was
> terminated from eBay. They also terminated me and, I believe, a number of
> other people who this person was dealing with.
>
> I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks later they replied
> with "Evidence we have indicates you were involved in activities with (the
> other member) which violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
> renewed.
>
> I have emailed them a number of times since asking "What evidence?" and
> explaining that I am not associated with the other person. I always get the
> same reply as above. I guess it must be a standard response letter.
>
> The last email from them was to say that unless I can come up with fresh
> evidence contrary to what they have, then they will not respond to any more of
> my emails. I replied with the question "how can I come up with fresh evidence
> when you will not even tell me what the supposed evidence is that you have?"
> This met with no response.
> I then formerly asked them, under the Freedom Of Information act, to disclose
> to me any and all information that they are holding on file about me. Again I
> have had no response.

> Where do I stand from a legal point of view. Is this a breach of the Freedom
> Of Information act if they refuse to hand over to me information they have on
> file about me?

Nope, not generally.

> Are their actions a form of restriction of trade?

Nope, not if they consider that you are deliberately manipulating
the market in collusion with the other individual etc.

> Any advice would be great.

You could try putting a shot across their bows using the state DoFT
etc, but they arent likely to be too interested if it looks like you were
involved in deliberate market manipulation yourself.

A stinging legal document might work, just because it would
be easier to reinstate you than to slug it out with your lawyer.

ebay does try that stonewall approach quite a bit apparently.

[Sylvia Else]

Garry Beattie wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice on possible legal action against eBay for either
> restriction of trade, freedom of information breach or both?
>
> I will explain as short as I can the details.
>
> I was running a very nice on-line business through eBay with sales around
> $20,000 to $30,000 per month. All legitimate and every customer had
> positive comments and feedback about their purchase.
>
> Apparently one of my regular buyers was caught doing something wrong and was
> terminated from eBay. They also terminated me and, I believe, a number of
> other people who this person was dealing with.
>
> I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks later they replied
> with "Evidence we have indicates you were involved in activities with (the
> other member) which violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
> renewed.
>
> I have emailed them a number of times since asking "What evidence?" and
> explaining that I am not associated with the other person. I always get the
> same reply as above. I guess it must be a standard response letter.
>
> The last email from them was to say that unless I can come up with fresh
> evidence contrary to what they have, then they will not respond to any more
> of my emails. I replied with the question "how can I come up with fresh
> evidence when you will not even tell me what the supposed evidence is that
> you have?" This met with no response.
> I then formerly asked them, under the Freedom Of Information act, to
> disclose to me any and all information that they are holding on file about
> me. Again I have had no response.
>
> Where do I stand from a legal point of view. Is this a breach of the Freedom
> Of Information act if they refuse to hand over to me information they have
> on file about me?
> Are their actions a form of restriction of trade?
>
> Any advice would be great.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Garry
>

Engage a solicitor to write them a letter advising that you intend to
take action against them for unconcionable conduct (ie, terminating the
contract for breach of their conditions, but not saying what the breach
was).

This may get their attention enough to cause them to look at the issues.

Failing that you may have to start a proceeding so that you can use
discovery to force them to reveal their side of the case. At this point
the costs can start to rise. How much is it worth?

Sylvia.

[S. O. Damocles]

Garry Beattie wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice on possible legal action
> against eBay for either restriction of trade, freedom of
> information breach or both?
> I will explain as short as I can the details.
>
> I was running a very nice

"very nice" ?

Wotta wanka!

> on-line business through eBay
> with sales around $20,000 to $30,000 per month. All
> legitimate and every customer had positive comments and
> feedback about their purchase.
> Apparently one of my regular buyers was caught doing
> something wrong and was terminated from eBay. They also
> terminated me and, I believe, a number of other people who
> this person was dealing with.

Shill bidding?

>
> I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks
> later they replied with "Evidence we have indicates you
> were involved in activities with (the other member) which
> violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
> renewed.

So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?

>
> I have emailed them a number of times since asking "What
> evidence?" and explaining that I am not associated with the
> other person. I always get the same reply as above. I guess
> it must be a standard response letter.

So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?

>
> The last email from them was to say that unless I can come
> up with fresh evidence contrary to what they have, then
> they will not respond to any more of my emails. I replied
> with the question "how can I come up with fresh evidence
> when you will not even tell me what the supposed evidence
> is that you have?" This met with no response.

So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?

> I then formerly asked them, under the Freedom Of
> Information act, to disclose to me any and all information
> that they are holding on file about me. Again I have had no
> response.
> Where do I stand from a legal point of view. Is this a
> breach of the Freedom Of Information act if they refuse to
> hand over to me information they have on file about me?

FOIA?
Wotta wanka. The FOIA applies to U$ Gov't agencies.

> Are their actions a form of restriction of trade?

No, they can do business with, or refuse to do business
with any damn one they please, so long as they don't do
so for one of the limited "protected classes" such as
"race, religion, national origin, etc"

>
> Any advice would be great.

You're fucked.

So what is it that you did, like exactly?

>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Garry

[Sylvia Else]

S. O. Damocles wrote:

> Garry Beattie wrote:

>>I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks
>>later they replied with "Evidence we have indicates you
>>were involved in activities with (the other member) which
>>violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
>>renewed.
>
>
> So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?

From his original post, I rather got the impression that Ebay won't
tell him what he's accused of doing.

Rather Pythonesq...

"Well, he said I'd transgressed the unwritten law. He didn't say what
I'd done, but he assured me it was the case, and that's good enough for
me wiv old Dinsdale."

Sylvia.

[jon]

you might want to call them.

also you might want to post your question at http://www.askxperts.com under
the legal category.

"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message
news:u%xkd.33$3O6.4601@news.uswest.net...
> Garry Beattie wrote:
>> Hi guys.
>>
>> Can anyone offer any advice on possible legal action
>> against eBay for either restriction of trade, freedom of
>> information breach or both?
>> I will explain as short as I can the details.
>>
>> I was running a very nice
>
> "very nice" ?
>
> Wotta wanka!
>
>> on-line business through eBay
>> with sales around $20,000 to $30,000 per month. All
>> legitimate and every customer had positive comments and
>> feedback about their purchase.
>> Apparently one of my regular buyers was caught doing
>> something wrong and was terminated from eBay. They also
>> terminated me and, I believe, a number of other people who
>> this person was dealing with.
>
> Shill bidding?
>
>>
>> I emailed eBay (as you can not phone them) and, 2 weeks
>> later they replied with "Evidence we have indicates you
>> were involved in activities with (the other member) which
>> violates eBay's policies. Your membership will not be
>> renewed.
>
> So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?
>
>>
>> I have emailed them a number of times since asking "What
>> evidence?" and explaining that I am not associated with the
>> other person. I always get the same reply as above. I guess
>> it must be a standard response letter.
>
> So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?
>
>>
>> The last email from them was to say that unless I can come
>> up with fresh evidence contrary to what they have, then
>> they will not respond to any more of my emails. I replied
>> with the question "how can I come up with fresh evidence
>> when you will not even tell me what the supposed evidence
>> is that you have?" This met with no response.
>
> So what is it EXACTLY they accused you of doing?
>
>> I then formerly asked them, under the Freedom Of
>> Information act, to disclose to me any and all information
>> that they are holding on file about me. Again I have had no
>> response.
>> Where do I stand from a legal point of view. Is this a
>> breach of the Freedom Of Information act if they refuse to
>> hand over to me information they have on file about me?
>
> FOIA?
> Wotta wanka. The FOIA applies to U$ Gov't agencies.
>
>> Are their actions a form of restriction of trade?
>
> No, they can do business with, or refuse to do business
> with any damn one they please, so long as they don't do
> so for one of the limited "protected classes" such as
> "race, religion, national origin, etc"
>
>>
>> Any advice would be great.
>
> You're fucked.
>
> So what is it that you did, like exactly?
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Garry
>
>

[Gonz]

I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty Ltd
an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to either
change the name or face legal action.

Big business pushing the little boys out.

[Sylvia Else]

Gonz wrote:

> I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty Ltd
> an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to either
> change the name or face legal action.
>
> Big business pushing the little boys out.
>
>
Ebay Pty Ltd could have told them to go and play in the traffic. There's
simply no way that legal action could have succeeded.

Sylvia.

[Rachel Cohen]

"Garry Beattie" <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:419279ca$0$6545$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> Any advice would be great.
>

Happened to me.
Just open new account and continue to trade.
I did it - works perfect for me.

[Garry Beattie]

"Gonz" <abuse@abuse.com> wrote in message
news:cmusa2$1i4e$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty Ltd
>an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to either
>change the name or face legal action.
>
> Big business pushing the little boys out.

That's just disgraceful, but I agree with Sylvia in that I don't know how
they would have gone in court.

Perhaps intimidation was a major factor in it.

[Garry Beattie]

"Rachel Cohen" <rcohen@israelrocks.org.et> wrote in message
news:2vgm57F2kc8i7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Garry Beattie" <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:419279ca$0$6545$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> Any advice would be great.
>>
>
> Happened to me.
> Just open new account and continue to trade.
> I did it - works perfect for me.

Good idea Rachel and I have already done that.
Trouble is you have to start again from scratch building up buyer confidence
and always looking over your shoulder to see if eBay are onto you.

Thanks.

[Warren]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:28:21 -0000, "Rachel Cohen"
<rcohen@israelrocks.org.et> wrote:

>
>"Garry Beattie" <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:419279ca$0$6545$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> Any advice would be great.
>>
>
>Happened to me.
>Just open new account and continue to trade.
>I did it - works perfect for me.

Do you run a rival spiritual radio program?

[Ozboc]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:419283b5$0$24376$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>
> Failing that you may have to start a proceeding so that you can use
> discovery to force them to reveal their side of the case. At this point
> the costs can start to rise. How much is it worth?
>
> Sylvia.
>

Apparently $30, 000 a MONTH!

I personally would try to get in contact with the original person who was
the offender that got the 'collaborator's kicked off the site and ask that
person what he/she had done, if they would volenteer the info that is

Boc

[Ozboc]

"Garry Beattie" <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41934a7f$0$6554$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Gonz" <abuse@abuse.com> wrote in message
> news:cmusa2$1i4e$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> >I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty
Ltd
> >an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to
either
> >change the name or face legal action.
> >
> > Big business pushing the little boys out.
>
> That's just disgraceful, but I agree with Sylvia in that I don't know how
> they would have gone in court.
>
> Perhaps intimidation was a major factor in it.


Same thing happened with Virgin in the last few years --- from memory
there was a Hair dressing salon called Virgin that Richard bransons company
forced to change names here in Oz...... ( story was on aca a few years back)

[Sylvia Else]

Ozboc wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:419283b5$0$24376$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>
>>Failing that you may have to start a proceeding so that you can use
>>discovery to force them to reveal their side of the case. At this point
>>the costs can start to rise. How much is it worth?
>>
>>Sylvia.
>>
>
>
> Apparently $30, 000 a MONTH!

Well, no, because the person has alternative ways of acquiring an
income, including, but not limited to, getting another account on Ebay.
So the worth is NPV of all the future incomes that could be accrued on
the existing account if it was reinstated, compared with the NPV of all
future income from alternatives.

Essentially, its the good-will value of the existing account.

Sylvia.

[Seppo Renfors]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Gonz wrote:
>
> > I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty Ltd
> > an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to either
> > change the name or face legal action.
> >
> > Big business pushing the little boys out.
> >
> >
> Ebay Pty Ltd could have told them to go and play in the traffic. There's
> simply no way that legal action could have succeeded.

That is not right, and it isn't the first instance of this happening
either. A registered trade mark carries more weight than a registered
business name. A 'Sergeant Pepper-steak House' was forced by the
Beetles to change its name.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Sylvia Else]

Seppo Renfors wrote:

>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>Gonz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know for a fact that there was a company in Australia called Ebay Pty Ltd
>>>an had been registered since 1980, Ebay came along and told them to either
>>>change the name or face legal action.
>>>
>>>Big business pushing the little boys out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ebay Pty Ltd could have told them to go and play in the traffic. There's
>>simply no way that legal action could have succeeded.
>
>
> That is not right, and it isn't the first instance of this happening
> either. A registered trade mark carries more weight than a registered
> business name. A 'Sergeant Pepper-steak House' was forced by the
> Beetles to change its name.

The ordering of events is significant. In the mentioned case, it is
stated that Ebay Pty Ltd had been registered since 1980 (I'm assuming
here that the poster intended the sense that the company's name had
already been Ebay back then). Clearly, there could have been no intent
to infringe on the Ebay trademark, given that the latter did not exist,
and could not even have been forseen, when the pty was registered.

Sylvia.

[Peter]

In article <121120041143074058%spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.n et>,
Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote:

> It's about your only choice. Thing is Ebay are contractually entitled
> to cancel your account if they feel like it.
>
> I'd contact the regulars and let them know I'm trading under a new name.

Although I'm wondering how well an unconsionability arguement would go
here.

Run along the lines of it would be unconsionable for ebay to kill his
account without full investigation killing all possible income
generated from a large amount of sales. Further more to back this up is
that in Aust Ebay is a monopoly now.

[Galimatias]

Peter wrote:
> In article <121120041143074058%spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.n et>,
> Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote:
>
>> It's about your only choice. Thing is Ebay are contractually entitled
>> to cancel your account if they feel like it.
>>
>> I'd contact the regulars and let them know I'm trading under a new
>> name.
>
> Although I'm wondering how well an unconsionability arguement would go
> here.
>
> Run along the lines of it would be unconsionable for ebay to kill his
> account without full investigation killing all possible income
> generated from a large amount of sales. Further more to back this up
> is that in Aust Ebay is a monopoly now.

It might work better if you could spell it.

[Peter]

In article
<41934b0f$0$6540$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Garry
Beattie <gjbeattie@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Good idea Rachel and I have already done that.
> Trouble is you have to start again from scratch building up buyer confidence
> and always looking over your shoulder to see if eBay are onto you.

It's about your only choice. Thing is Ebay are contractually entitled
to cancel your account if they feel like it.

I'd contact the regulars and let them know I'm trading under a new name.