its official ebay is being sued

[rons]

http://www.numisnews.tv/eBay-Hit-with-Coin-Listing-Policy-Lawsuit.htm

 

Does this lawsuit have any merit? Would the outcome be different in a different state? Do any of the participants have a legitimate gripe?

I see that centsless is involved and feel the name describes their chances but what about the rest? Sound off

[James_OldeTowne]

I can see both sides of the argument. All in all, those five companies really are the only legitimate certification companies in the United States, so I'd prefer to see the lawsuit get thrown out.

 

[brasseye]

minor...the outcome is only going to have ramifications for ANA, and no one else.

[jgrinz]

I see the point of they are making ...

 

"claim actions essentially branded their graded coins as "counterfeit" and/or their companies as dealing in counterfeit items."

 

This is statement is true as when My PCI coin got pulled that was the stated reason - 'counterfeit'. If this is the bassis of the claim then they probably do have a case.

[MTHead-migration]

I don't see the Canadian companies (CCCS and ICCS) listed as acceptable. Would a coin in one of these company's plastic get the boot if CCCS or ICCS are used in the listing?

[Jeff S]

What has happened to free enterprise? What has our country come to that allows a few to make a company run how they feel it should run? Granted eBay should have worded their listing rules a bit better and did some research but…… No one makes anyone use any company. If you do not like a service or product a company offers by its rules do not use it.

 

“They claim actions essentially branded their graded coins as "counterfeit"

 

Key word here is essentially. So someone must feel guilty? Handle chit and you will get chit on your hands.

 

[CHABSENTIA]

I see the main Problem as E BAY not pursuing the bad dealers as I mentioned in another Forum here as per the Show on E Bay on the CNBC Channel the other night.

 

Just a few days ago a Dealer on E Bay was selling a Morgan which he claimed was a TOP 50. He mentioned it as a closed Eyelid and there is such a Vam in the TOP 50. Another problem was the VaM number he mentioned was for the Gator Eye which is not in the Top 50.

 

I E - Mailed the guy and he never responded and never took it off. They Interviewed this Meg Whitman and she only seems to be interested in flying around and going to Events that remonded me of the ones shown about the Pyramid Sales Cheerleading events. She said things like "EBAY has 132 million Dealers and if they were a Country then E Bay would be the 9th largest".

 

 

I see where she is stepping down. There are already two Lawsuits against it and one is Tiffanys.

 

The People on EBAY who are selling Raw Coins and doing it according to the New Regs are losing Money and most likely to complain. There are others who just don't care like the Top 50 claimant above and will ignore them anyway.These are the ones that rule was meant for and EBay just ignores them anyway so the only ones losing are the ones that obey the rules.

[Frank Provasek]

The Sherman Act makes it difficult to ban certain companies and not ban others because it tends to restrain trade and prohibit new companies from entering the marketplace. Back in 1985 the only grading services were ANACS and Accugrade, and had they made such an arrangement with PNG, ANA and ebay, PCGS and NGC would be the companies banned!

 

A real auction house like Teletrade actually sells the coins (you pay Teletrade). Teletrade can determine what brand names of slabs they wish to carry. Ebay sells online ads, the transaction does NOT involve ebay (you DO NOT pay Ebay for a coin you buy, you pay the seller)

 

While ebay can ban whole categories (guns for example) they can't single out certain companies for different treatment. You can list a PCI or SEGS coin, pay the same listing fees, final value fees, paypal fees, but you are not allowed to list the grade, or the value or even the PCI or SEGS name either in the title or description.

 

It would be like a newspaper or TV station claiming you can advertise Chevy or Kia, but if you advertise Kia, you can show a picture of it, but can't mention the name Kia, the model or the price.

 

Now relating to the PNG grading survey..which was not scientific..it simply polled OPINIONS. Suppose the Chevy Dealer Association sponsored a poll among CHEVY dealers comparing Chevy and Kia NOT with automotive performance tests but simply with Chevy dealer's opinions and "feelings" about Kia, a brand they do not even deal with. Since Chevy dealers make their money selling Chevy, the bias would be apparent. Now suppose Chevy goes to a non profit organization, maybe the National Safety Council, and gets THAT organization to work with newspapers to establish a "policy" to ban advertising of Kia because they have a survey showing Kias are poor and Chevys are good. And if one of the "approved" car companies paid the nonprofit group a large fee to be called the organization's "official" car company, that REALLY looks bad...and if the biggest "very pq" Chevy dealer was both president of the non profit organization AND a big customer of Chevy AND a big advertiser on the newspaper that adopted the "policy" restricting the advertising of the competiton...well

 

Kia would be suing Chevy, the Chevy dealers association, the Safety Council, Mr Very PQ dealer, and the newspaper. And they would win.

 

Now I test drove a Kia, in my opinion they are junk, and I would never buy one...I have a Malibu. But if it's legal to sell Kias, my opinion doesn't matter...it's up to the car buyers to determine their success or failure in the marketplace. But restricting the ADVERTISING of Kias, even with the "good intention" of "protecting" the public from buying a "bad" car..is still illegal.

 

I have laid out this argument ATS and have been bashed as a "must be another crrap slab seller who is mad because he can't cheat people anymore", even had people private message me that they would do whatever it takes to ruin my business because I don't tell people to buy only PCGS coins.

 

I am on the board of the Texas Coin dealers Assoc where we worked with the State for a $1000 and over sales tax exemption, and also worked with local municipalities for reasonable hold periods for over the counter coin purchases, and trying to abolish certain city laws that force coin dealers to register as pawnbrokers or second hand junk dealers. Thus, I do have quite a bit of experience working with legal related issues. (In case, as ATS, someone wishes to tell me "you're not a lawyer, shut the F up)

 

Despite your opinion of PCI or SEGS or other companies, the law is on their side.

[Frank Provasek]

I don't see the Canadian companies (CCCS and ICCS) listed as acceptable. Would a coin in one of these company's plastic get the boot if CCCS or ICCS are used in the listing?

 

Yes, I bid on a an 1838 reeded edge half graded ICCS VF20 offered by a Canadian dealer. It looked like an XF40. I was the high bidder with $90. Then

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

MC036 eBay Listing Removed ( 176203731)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear frankcoins(sales@frankcoins.com),

 

Thank you for your bid on the following auction-style listing:

 

190192334390 - USA half dollar 1838 reeded edge ICCS VF20

 

Unfortunately, eBay has removed this auction-style listing. All bids or offers on this listing have been canceled. Because the listing was ended, you no longer have any obligation to purchase this item.

 

[Frank Provasek]

The People on EBAY who are selling Raw Coins and doing it according to the New Regs are losing Money and most likely to complain.

 

I sell lots of hand picked raw Washingtons and Franklins in the MS64 range, which is an ideal combination of value and quality fot those putting album sets together. But now I can't use the ANA grades like MS64, can't quote the price I sell them for in my own store, can't quote Greysheet bid, can't say what I paid for it, what I would buy it back for, and even must white out the "circle it" price that I paid for it on the 2x2 before photographing it. Since no one can reliably grade a mint state coin from a photo, my coins started bringing silver melt value after listing them under ther new rules....talk about restraint of trade!

[Frank Provasek]

What has happened to free enterprise? What has our country come to that allows a few to make a company run how they feel it should run?

But YOU are the company. YOU are selling the item. eBay is telling YOU how to run YOUR company. What you may and may not sell. How you descibe it. Certain things you CAN sell but you can't tell your buyers WHAT IT IS you are selling! Free enterprise is letting the marketplace decide what succeeds.

[gmarguli]

The Sherman Act makes it difficult to ban certain companies and not ban others because it tends to restrain trade and prohibit new companies from entering the marketplace.

 

This has nothing to do with preventing competition from entering the marketplace of TPG. Competitors are free to enter. I'd point to the numerous new TPG over the past couple of years as proof that TPG competition is alive and well - outright flourishing! Not a single TPG has tried to restrict these new companies.*

 

This is a case of a single company unrelated to those other businesses deciding that it is in the best interests of its customers and its shareholders to restricting certain key words in their listings. It'd be totally different if PCGS owned eBay and changed the rules so that only PCGS coins could be listed as certified.

 

*cough, cough.

[MarkFeld]

The Sherman Act makes it difficult to ban certain companies and not ban others because it tends to restrain trade and prohibit new companies from entering the marketplace.

 

This has nothing to do with preventing competition from entering the marketplace of TPG. Competitors are free to enter. I'd point to the numerous new TPG over the past couple of years as proof that TPG competition is alive and well - outright flourishing! Not a single TPG has tried to restrict these new companies.*

 

This is a case of a single company unrelated to those other businesses deciding that it is in the best interests of its customers and its shareholders to restricting certain key words in their listings. It'd be totally different if PCGS owned eBay and changed the rules so that only PCGS coins could be listed as certified.

 

*cough, cough.

I agree with Greg.

[Frank Provasek]

 

 

This is a case of a single company unrelated to those other businesses deciding that it is in the best interests of its customers and its shareholders to restricting certain key words in their listings. It'd be totally different if PCGS owned eBay and changed the rules so that only PCGS coins could be listed as certified.

 

*cough, cough.

 

Actually, you have it backwards. If PCGS owned ebay, they COULD regulate what is sold. (just as they ban favorable mention of Laura, NGC or CAC on their forum)

 

A crime is involved when UNRELATED companies conspire to shut out other players.

 

By the way, when you mention "best interests of ebay's customers" you DO realize that eBay's customers are the SELLERS???...So you are saying that a seller should pay ebay money so ebay can tell them what is in THEIR best interest...

 

 

[MarkFeld]

 

 

This is a case of a single company unrelated to those other businesses deciding that it is in the best interests of its customers and its shareholders to restricting certain key words in their listings. It'd be totally different if PCGS owned eBay and changed the rules so that only PCGS coins could be listed as certified.

 

*cough, cough.

 

Actually, you have it backwards. If PCGS owned ebay, they COULD regulate what is sold. (just as they ban favorable mention of Laura, NGC or CAC on their forum)

 

A crime is involved when UNRELATED companies conspire to shut out other players.

 

By the way, when you mention "best interests of ebay's customers" you DO realize that eBay's customers are the SELLERS???...So you are saying that a seller should pay ebay money so ebay can tell them what is in THEIR best interest...

 

Frank, if PCGS as a hypothetical owner of Ebay, could regulate what is sold, why would it be any different for Ebay to do so? Also, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that "unrelated companies" have conspired to do anything.

[gmarguli]

Actually, you have it backwards. If PCGS owned ebay, they COULD regulate what is sold. (just as they ban favorable mention of Laura, NGC or CAC on their forum)

 

Nope. Then they'd be trying to restrict competition. PCGS owns the Long Beach and Santa Clara coin shows, yet NGC, ANACS, & ICG set-up at them. If they could ban them that easy they would, but they know they'd get into trouble. They also own the CCE, yet non-PCGS coins trade on it all the time.

 

As for their messageboards, PCGS can pick and choose who they allow on and what topics are discussed. There is no law that says a company that uses their own resources for promotion has to provide the opportunity for a competitor to use those same resources.

 

 

By the way, when you mention "best interests of ebay's customers" you DO realize that eBay's customers are the SELLERS???...So you are saying that a seller should pay ebay money so ebay can tell them what is in THEIR best interest...

 

Saying that eBay's customers are their sellers is a simplistic way of looking at it. eBay fully understands that they need to help, protect, and promote bidding in order to have sellers. I think it would be very reasonable to argue that both buyers and sellers are eBay's customers as they both come together to create revenue for eBay.

[DC Dawg]

The Sherman Act makes it difficult to ban certain companies and not ban others because it tends to restrain trade and prohibit new companies from entering the marketplace. Back in 1985 the only grading services were ANACS and Accugrade, and had they made such an arrangement with PNG, ANA and ebay, PCGS and NGC would be the companies banned!

The problem is that Sherman, Clayton, and all of the competition laws is that they cover markets and not the facilitator of a market. Since eBay is a facilitator and responsible for its own market, eBay has the right and the responsibility to its shareholders to create a market environment beneficial to all who use its platform. As a non-government entity, eBay is allowed to restrict access to its assets for almost any reason.

 

One of the things that the courts will look at are the precedents that control similar markets. In nearly every case, the facilitator was either exonerated, settled with no decision, or the remedy did little to advance the plaintiff's cause. Examples include Ticketmaster and Microsoft.

 

Ticketmaster has always been a target because of their "exclusive" agreements with venues. Pearl Jam fought the first significant battle with Ticketmaster over service fees. This case was

settled out of court but did not settle the controversy. Subsequenty, other bands and events sued Ticketmaster. Although the 4th Circuit found Ticketmaster in violation of several sections of Title 18 of the United States Code (anti-trust laws), subsequent settlements and changes in Ticketmaster policies appeased the courts leaving their business model intact.

 

The same with Microsoft. Although courts have found various Title 18 violations as well as the European Union equivalent laws, Microsoft has proposed remedies that are less than the suggested ones by law. The courts have accepted the remedies and little has happened (legally) to Microsoft.

 

There have been cases by retailers against shopping mall owners and manufacturers against retailers to gain access to markets. With the exception of a pending case against WalMart, all have been dismissed or defeated. The reason is simply that a private business has the right to pick and choose who it works with as long as the result does not prevent the plaintiff from having access to other markets.

 

(I do not have the citation for the WalMart case, but it was brought by a manufacturer who had an exclusive deal with WalMart that WalMart walked away from and caused the manufacturer to lose other business because of the way it was handled by the retailer. This case is still pending in [i think] Arkansas)

 

While ebay can ban whole categories (guns for example) they can't single out certain companies for different treatment.

Yes they can, just like a shopping mall can exclude K-Mart and include JC Penny's!

 

It would be like a newspaper or TV station claiming you can advertise Chevy or Kia, but if you advertise Kia, you can show a picture of it, but can't mention the name Kia, the model or the price.

Newspapers can accept or reject any advertisement for any reason. This is stated on their rate cards and it happens all of the time.

 

Despite your opinion of PCI or SEGS or other companies, the law is on their side.

And the law is against them because you nor they can prove restraint of trade. Neither your or these TPGs can prove that their business was hurt because of this act--especially if I can show six PCI slabbed Morgans that sold following the new policy for fair prices. And neither you nor these TPGs can show any precedent that the act by a private market that does not effect their status on other markets is illegal under Sherman or Clayton.

 

Scott

[Frank Provasek]

Ticketmaster has always been a target because of their "exclusive" agreements with venues. Pearl Jam fought the first significant battle with Ticketmaster over service fees. This case was settled out of court but did not settle the controversy. Subsequenty, other bands and events sued Ticketmaster. Although the 4th Circuit found Ticketmaster in violation of several sections of Title 18 of the United States Code (anti-trust laws), subsequent settlements and changes in Ticketmaster policies appeased the courts leaving their business model intact.

 

This is likely how this will end. PCI and SEGS will be granted parity and damages. The basic model will not change. Nor have I claimed anything different than that.

 

 

There have been cases by retailers against shopping mall owners and manufacturers against retailers to gain access to markets. With the exception of a pending case against WalMart, all have been dismissed or defeated. The reason is simply that a private business has the right to pick and choose who it works with as long as the result does not prevent the plaintiff from having access to other markets.

 

But since ebay controls 95% of the online market, telling owners of SEGS coins to start their own website, or peddle their coins at shows, or use one of the other auction sites that has virtually no traffic is not an option.

 

 

 

Yes they can, just like a shopping mall can exclude K-Mart and include JC Penny's!

 

And ebay can ban sellers. And ebay can ban sellers from selling certain classes of products. But once a mall owner has accepted Penney's as a tenant, does the mall owner have any business telling Penney's that they can sell a Waring blender but not an Osterizer blender? That Penney's can sell Seiko watches but not Timex?

 

Newspapers can accept or reject any advertisement for any reason. This is stated on their rate cards and it happens all of the time.

 

That is done so that they can not be forced to accept false or misleading advertising. If done to restrict competition, it would be illegal. What if you5r local paper accepted ads for but not candidates?

 

Neither your or these TPGs can prove that their business was hurt because of this act--especially if I can show six PCI slabbed Morgans that sold following the new policy for fair prices.

Nonsense. Ask Larry Briggs if he was hurt when he had to give 6 boxes of ungraded coins and the $25,000 check for grading fees back to the submitter who he changed his mind about having SEGS slab the coins because they could not be listed as "certified by SEGS" on ebay. Would you consider your reputation damaged if you sold someone a genuine coin, the buyer listed the coin he bought from you on ebay, and ebay ended the auction, telling your customer that he has listed a counterfeit? That's what ebay is telling people who list coins from unapproved services.

[Frank Provasek]

Also, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that "unrelated companies" have conspired to do anything.

 

I don't know what to say. I told the "Chevy and Kia" story to the local coin club and an 11 year old "gets it." He replied "if you just say that grading company gave it that grade, and have a picture of it, and the buyer can send it back if he doesn't like it, what's wrong with listing it?"

 

 

[DC Dawg]

But since ebay controls 95% of the online market, telling owners of SEGS coins to start their own website, or peddle their coins at shows, or use one of the other auction sites that has virtually no traffic is not an option.

Change this around to Microsoft and Internet Explorer. It's the same legal arguments. As soon as MS decoupled IE from Windows and stopped mandating IE over (say) Firefox, the courts were satisfied and we all went on with life.

 

BTW: I think Heritage, Teletrade, DLRC, and others would argue about your 95-percent claim!

 

Yes they can, just like a shopping mall can exclude K-Mart and include JC Penny's!

And ebay can ban sellers. And ebay can ban sellers from selling certain classes of products. But once a mall owner has accepted Penny's as a tenant, does the mall owner have any business telling the Penney's that they can sell a Waring blender but not an Osterizer blender?

Your analogy is wrong. Penny's can sell the Waring AND Oster products, but the mall can restrict how these are advertised on their premises. Ebay does not say that you cannot sell a non-approved TPG slab. It does restrict how you can advertise those items. Again, perfectly within their rights as the facilitator.

 

Ask Larry Briggs if he was hurt when he had to give 6 boxes of ungraded coins and the $25,000 check for grading fees back to the submitter who siad he changed his mind about having SEGS slab the coins because they could not be listed as "certified by SEGS" on ebay. Would you consider your reputation damaged if you sold someone a genuine coin, the buyer listed the coin he bought from you on ebay, and ebay ended the auction, telling your customer that he has listed a counterfeit?

IFF Larry Briggs can prove that this has caused a restraint in trade, then he has a case. Ebay has made their policy clear... you can sell a a coin in a SEGS slab but you are restricted to how it can be advertised. Under nearly every reference I can find says that does not meet the definition of restraint of trade or anti-competitive practices.

 

However, the example you cite could be a defamation situation--which is very different. Defamation is difficult to prove and could be less lucrative than an anti-trust suit. BTW: under the law, a plaintiff who sues under Title 18 and wins are award treble the amount of actual damages as awarded by the jury. The key is what is considered actual damages. If you remember the case of the USFL v. NFL, the jury found for the USFL and awarded actual damages of $1. Under Title 18, the award to the USFL was $3 because damages were trebled.

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

You edited your post while I was typing a reply. I wanted to add one thing...

 

Newspapers can accept or reject any advertisement for any reason. This is stated on their rate cards and it happens all of the time.

 

That is done so that they can not be forced to accept false or misleading advertising. If done to restrict competition, it would be illegal. What if you5r local paper accepted ads for (donkey political party) but not (elephant political party) candidates?

NOTE: Edited Frank's note to allow his intent to be displayed.

 

This is a different situation altogether. This is not a restraint of trade issue, this falls under election laws. Under Federal Election laws and most state laws, any media entity that accepts political ads must accept them from anyone who will pay the prevailing rate for those advertisements. The law prevents charging different fees between candidates or rejecting an ad unless it has content that may be in violation with the law of FCC policy.

 

Scott

[Frank Provasek]

Your analogy is wrong. Penny's can sell the Waring AND Oster products, but the mall can restrict how these are advertised on their premises. Ebay does not say that you cannot sell a non-approved TPG slab. It does restrict how you can advertise those items. Again, perfectly within their rights as the facilitator.

 

You are are seriously claiming that a mall owner has the right to tell

Penney's that they CAN put up a sign on the counter saying

 

Waring Model HPB300BK blender, regular $400, sale $224.99

 

but since the mall owner doesn't "approve" of Oster, you can still

sell it but Penney's cannot put up the same size sign, on the same counter, which reads

 

Oster model 4126 Blender, regular $229, sale $99.95

 

but must simply say

 

BLENDER FOR SALE

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree with Greg.

 

By far the most interesting statement in this thread. Hold on folks, I think its the end of the world!

[MarkFeld]

Also, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that "unrelated companies" have conspired to do anything.

 

I don't know what to say. I told the "Chevy and Kia" story to the local coin club and an 11 year old "gets it." He replied "if you just say that grading company gave it that grade, and have a picture of it, and the buyer can send it back if he doesn't like it, what's wrong with listing it?"

 

And now I don't know what to say , as I still don't see any evidence of a conspiracy.

 

I agree with Greg.

 

By far the most interesting statement in this thread. Hold on folks, I think its the end of the world!

Greg and I disagree strongly on a few subjects, but I think he would agree with me that we agree on many others.

[gmarguli]

Yes they can, just like a shopping mall can exclude K-Mart and include JC Penny's!

 

And ebay can ban sellers. And ebay can ban sellers from selling certain classes of products. But once a mall owner has accepted Penney's as a tenant, does the mall owner have any business telling Penney's that they can sell a Waring blender but not an Osterizer blender? That Penney's can sell Seiko watches but not Timex?

 

As a matter of fact, yes they can. For example, can a mall owner who allows XYZ Video store to sell Bambi, but forbid that same video store from selling Bambi's Anal Adventures #13? Of course they can. Play by their rules or go somewhere else.

 

Malls frequently have restrictions on the types of movies that theaters can screen - and I'm not talking about adult movies here. Try finding an NC-17 movie at a mall theater. At some malls, try finding an R rated movie showing!

 

Go to a Garth Brooks concert at ABC Arena and you can buy a beer. Go to an Ozzy concert at ABC Arena and there is no beer being sold.

 

Venues - both online and physical - can set restrictions on what their users can do. Don't like it, go to a different venue!

[MarkFeld]

Yes they can, just like a shopping mall can exclude K-Mart and include JC Penny's!

 

And ebay can ban sellers. And ebay can ban sellers from selling certain classes of products. But once a mall owner has accepted Penney's as a tenant, does the mall owner have any business telling Penney's that they can sell a Waring blender but not an Osterizer blender? That Penney's can sell Seiko watches but not Timex?

 

As a matter of fact, yes they can. For example, can a mall owner who allows XYZ Video store to sell Bambi, but forbid that same video store from selling Bambi's Anal Adventures #13? Of course they can. Play by their rules or go somewhere else.

 

Malls frequently have restrictions on the types of movies that theaters can screen - and I'm not talking about adult movies here. Try finding an NC-17 movie at a mall theater. At some malls, try finding an R rated movie showing!

 

Go to a Garth Brooks concert at ABC Arena and you can buy a beer. Go to an Ozzy concert at ABC Arena and there is no beer being sold.

 

Venues - both online and physical - can set restrictions on what their users can do. Don't like it, go to a different venue!

I agree, again (except for the part about Bambi, to which I will plead complete ignorance).

[Jeff S]

EBay cannot be equated to a mall owner. Ebay stands behind the sells that their sellers make. Sellers rent space in their store and agree to use their rules.

[DC Dawg]

Your analogy is wrong. Penny's can sell the Waring AND Oster products, but the mall can restrict how these are advertised on their premises. Ebay does not say that you cannot sell a non-approved TPG slab. It does restrict how you can advertise those items. Again, perfectly within their rights as the facilitator.

 

You are are seriously claiming that a mall owner has the right to tell

Penney's that they CAN put up a sign on the counter saying

 

Waring Model HPB300BK blender, regular $400, sale $224.99

 

but since the mall owner doesn't "approve" of Oster, you can still

sell it but Penney's cannot put up the same size sign, on the same counter, which reads

 

Oster model 4126 Blender, regular $229, sale $99.95

 

but must simply say

 

BLENDER FOR SALE

Have you ever signed a commercial real estate rental agreement? You would be surprised what is in those documents most people don't read. If you sign the agreement to use their facilities, they can legally restrict what you can advertise on their premises. Signed agreements can supersede the law as long as both sides agree. This does drive retailers crazy who try to create consistent marketing campaigns across all of their stores!

 

As for eBay, by signing on and using their system, you agree to abide by their policies. If you do not agree, you are free to buy and/or sell your goods elsewhere. It is no different than your local shopping mall.

 

As illogical as it may sound, that is the case.

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

EBay cannot be equated to a mall owner. Ebay stands behind the sells that their sellers make.

They do? Where in their policies does it say or gives you an indication that what you say is true? If that is the case, then what is my indemnification as a buyer?

 

Scott

[Frank Provasek]

I still don't see any evidence of a conspiracy.

 

 

 

The definition of conspiracy (the tort definition) is simply

 

'An agreement between two or more parties to do an illegal act OR an act which may become by the combination injurious to others."

 

The ANA told ebay that they should implement the new policies ONLY IF they are based on the PNG survey. Ebay agreed and did so.

 

So a charge of consipracy can be made even if the acts were not illegal, but simply "injurious to others" This is a civil case.