A seller on the online marketplace eBay has threatened to sue a customer in a row over negative feedback.

Seller Joel Jones says the feedback posted on his eBay profile page by Chris Read, from Kent, is damaging his business, and he wants it removed.

Mr Read says the mobile phone he bought from Mr Jones was damaged, and he will not retract his “honest opinion”.

eBay says honest feedback is the “lynchpin” of its site – but it has promised a better dispute procedure.

Mr Read, of Herne Bay, says the £155 Samsung phone he bought from Mr Jones in an eBay sale was not the model he had ordered, and arrived in a damaged condition.

Even though Mr Jones refunded his money promptly, Mr Read still posted “negative” feedback on his eBay profile.

In doing so he says was only acting in line with eBay guidelines, which encourage all buyers to publically rate their sellers so that “informed decisions” can be made.

“Customers should have the right to leave negative feedback if what they have received isn’t what they paid for” eBay buyer Chris Read

He wrote: “Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised.”

He said: “I was just doing what I was supposed to do – give my honest opinion.

“The seller refunded my money and I had no problem with his service.

“But it’s a fact the phone wasn’t the one I paid for, and that’s what I wrote.”

A few days later Mr Read received a letter from lawyers acting for Mr Jones – who trades under the name Onsalexuk – threatening to take him to court unless he retracted the feedback.

The letter read: “The negative feedback you left on October 3 regarding Samsung F700 was unfair and is damaging to my business’s reputation and ability to trade.

“He had no right to post negative feedback which will show up on my profile and put off other customers” eBay seller Joel Jones

“We require a signed statement accepting that the feedback is unfair.”

Mr Read said: “I won’t back down – I told the truth, and this seller is just trying to intimidate me.”

He said he had received “hundreds” of supportive emails from eBay customers worldwide backing his stand.

“Customers should have the right to leave negative feedback if what they have received isn’t what they paid for. Otherwise people are buying blind.”

‘Abolish feedback’

But Mr Jones said he was determined to carry out his court action threat.

He disputed that the phone was the wrong model, and said phones sold on his site were advertised as “pre-owned”.

He said: “I gave the customer back his money back and that should have been it. He had no right to post negative feedback which will show up on my profile and put off other customers.”

Mr Jones said he wanted eBay to abolish its feedback system because he said the company was “siding with the buyer”.

eBay spokeswoman Jenny Thomas said that a single negative comment was unlikely to affect Mr Jones’s seller rating

She added: “Buyers are strongly encouraged to leave honest and fair feedback for a transaction, if they feel it is deserved and as long as it is not defamatory.

Growing gulf

“We are very disappointed that this seller has chosen to sue rather than to attempt to resolve the buyer’s problem amicably.”

The row has exposed a growing gulf between buyers and the mainly small sellers on the eBay site – sparked by a decision by the company earlier this year to ban sellers’ negative feedback on buyers appearing on the site.

Some eBay sellers say they are now at a disadvantage, compared with buyers who they say now use the feedback system to their own advantage.

There is no suggestion that Mr Read was involved in this practice.

New system

On the social networking Facebook site, eBay Sellers Want Feedback Rights, sellers say some buyers are not paying for goods and threatening negative feedback unless prices are slashed.

One says: “Since this new policy came in, my incidence of non-paying bidders has increased… this has got to be due to the fact that buyers now think they can do what they want.”

Ms Thomas said that eBay was aware of the “unfairness” felt by many of its sellers regarding its feedback policy.

In response, she said, the company was launching a new dispute system later this month, which would make it easier for buyers and sellers to resolve disputes.

A new “feedback revision” process will enable the seller to ask the buyer to change feedback, once a dispute has been resolved to the buyer’s satisfaction.

News reported by The BBC

The online auction giant eBay has simplified and slashed its charges on fixed-price items sold on its site, as it seeks to compete more aggressively with its rival Amazon by enticing small businesses and big ticket retailers to its website.

EBay UK said the pricing changes, which comes into effect on 24 September in the UK, mean the “majority of sellers” will see their overall fee reduced, although fees will vary depending on the size of the seller’s offer.

The initiative is an attempt by eBay UK to grab a larger share of booming online retail sales and to change the perception of its site as primarily an auction site for consumers. The UK changes were unveiled on the same day that eBay in the US introduced a different set of cost reductions for listing on its Buy It Now marketplace.

EBay estimates that 178,000 people in the UK earn a primary or secondary living by running a business on the site. Retailers, including the home shopping specialist Shop Direct, formerly Littlewoods, and the mobile phone company Orange, also sell products on the site.

In the UK, a key change is that for identical items, such as an iPod, sellers will pay a flat fee for a single listing, which they can use to sell as many items as they want. EBay will also move fees to the back end so that sellers only pay the auction giant when an item has been sold. An eBay UK spokeswoman said: “Currently a seller could pay as much as £1.30 to list a single fixed-price item for a maximum of 10 days. That will now come down to a flat rate of 40p regardless of the price of the item, and will be on the site for up to 30 days – up from 10.”

For those paying the highest premium anchor shop subscription monthly fee, the listing price will come down to 1p for up to 30 days and there will be no extra charge for limitless items. However, the subscription fee for premium anchor custom-ers will go up to £350 a month.

Nick Gladding, lead analyst at Verdict, said eBay hoped to increase revenues by attracting more retail customers, but said the overall change to the listing fees it receives would “be revenue neutral”. Mr Gladding said: “The main focus is to grow the site to appeal to retailers. At the moment, it is used by very few retailers and eBay sees potential in growing itself as a platform for anyone to buy anything.”

Robin Goad, research director at the online market research company Hitwise, said brand recognition on the internet is becoming more important, which is driving high-street retailers’ online sales. “You cannot afford to ignore eBay, but if you have a well-developed online presence it will probably be not so important [for high-street retailers].”

News reported by The Independent

Jeweller Tiffany has begun an appeal against a court ruling that eBay was not primarily responsible for ensuring fake goods were not sold on its site.

Tiffany argued that eBay should be responsible for policing the site.

However, a US court decided in April that the primary burden for protecting a brand lay with its owner.

Tiffany first sued eBay in 2004 after it claimed that 73% of a random sample of supposed Tiffany goods for sale on the website were counterfeit.

A US district court found that eBay was not responsible for seeking out and removing counterfeiting goods before they could be put up for auction. Tiffany’s decision to carry this litigation on after the District Court’s decision doesn’t do anything to combat counterfeiting

Catherine England, eBay

Tiffany’s legal representative, Patrick Dorsey, said: “The effect of this is that eBay can continue to profit at the expense of consumers and trademark holders.”

EBay has removed items listed for sale on its site when notified that they were suspected to be counterfeit, but the luxury retailer argues that eBay should be compelled investigate and take action without prior notification.

In a statement, eBay said: “Tiffany’s decision to carry this litigation on after the District Court’s decision doesn’t do anything to combat counterfeiting.”

In April, the court decided that when eBay knew of counterfeiting on its website, it took “reasonable steps to investigate and stop that wrongdoing through general anti-fraud measures”.

It ruled that “the burden of policing the Tiffany mark appropriately rests with Tiffany”.

Damages

EBay lost two further court cases this year relating to the sale of branded goods.

In June, a French court ordered the auction site to pay 40m euros (£31.6m; $63m) to luxury goods group LVMH for allowing online auctions of fake copies of its goods.

LVMH claimed that eBay’s French site had not done enough to stop the sale of counterfeit bags and perfumes.

On 4 June, a court in the eastern French city of Troyes found the auction site directly responsible for the sale of fake Hermes bags.

It imposed a penalty of 20,000 euros jointly on eBay and the woman who offered the bags for sale.

News reported by The BBC

In a ruling that some will see as a victory for online consumers but others view as a “counterfeiters’ charter” a judge has ruled that auction sites such as eBay have no obligation to ensure that the designer goods being sold on their pages are genuine.

In 2004, the exclusive New York jewellers Tiffany, which is fiercely protective of its brand, launched an investigation into the sale of its goods online. Officials trawled eBay and bought 200 items purporting to be genuine Tiffany pieces, only to find that three-quarters of the items were fakes.

The online retail pioneer knows perfectly well that its website has become an emporium for knock-off goods but has failed to take adequate action, Tiffany alleged in a lawsuit, which finally went to trial last November. eBay countered that it cannot be expected to vouch for every sale on the site, an argument that was upheld by a judge in New York yesterday.

In a statement, Tiffany said that it was “shocked and deeply disappointed” and was likely to appeal the ruling.

News reported by The Independent

A French court has ordered eBay to pay 40m euros (£31.6m; $63m) to luxury goods group LVMH for allowing online auctions of fake copies of its goods.

LVMH said eBay’s French site had not done enough to stop the sale of counterfeit bags and perfumes.

The brands affected include Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Givenchy.

An eBay statement said LVMH was trying to “protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice” and added that it would appeal.

‘Illicit’

The case against eBay in a commercial court in Paris was brought jointly by six brands belonging to the LVMH group.

Louis Vuitton Malletier, the group’s handbag and luggage section, and clothing brand Christian Dior Couture accused eBay of “negligence” in allowing illegal copies of their goods to be sold in online auctions.

Four perfume brands – Dior, Guerlain, Kenzo and Givenchy – sued for what they called “illicit sales” of their products.

They alleged that even auctions involving their legitimate perfumes were illegal, because only specialist dealers were permitted to sell them.

The court barred eBay from selling the four perfumes in future.

LVMH spokesman Pierre Godet welcomed the decision, telling French news agency AFP that it “protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage”.

‘Uncompetitive’

But Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman, said: “If counterfeits appear on our sites, we take them down swiftly, but today’s ruling is not about our fight against counterfeit.

“Today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday.

“We will fight this ruling on their behalf; we will be seeking leave to appeal.”

According to the judgement, eBay must pay 19.28m euros in damages to Luis Vuitton Malletier, 17.3m to Christian Dior Couture and 3.25m to the perfume brands.

The BBC’s Hugh Schofield in Paris says the ruling is seen as a landmark, because it could oblige eBay to rethink its business model.

Until now, this has been built around the simple notion of bringing together buyers and sellers, with minimal supervision from the company.

The penalty is the second in a month imposed on eBay by French courts.

On 4 June, a court in the eastern French city of Troyes found the auction site directly responsible for the sale of fake Hermes bags.

It imposed a penalty of 20,000 euros jointly on eBay and the woman who offered the bags for sale.

News reported by BBC