Seeing Fakes, Angry Traders Confront EBay

[The Mad Hatter]

[Ebay] said it had no responsibility for the fakes because it was nothing more than a marketplace that links buyers and sellers.

That very stance — the heart of eBay's business model — is now being challenged by eBay users like Ms. Rogers who notify other unsuspecting buyers of fakes on the site. And it is being tested by a jewelry seller with far greater resources than Ms. Rogers: Tiffany & Company, which has sued eBay for facilitating the trade of counterfeit Tiffany items on the site.

If Tiffany wins its case, not only would other lawsuits follow, but eBay's very business model would be threatened because it would be nearly impossible for the company to police a site that now has 180 million members and 60 million items for sale at any one time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/technology/29ebay.html?ei=5090&en=37c0f658ecbcd4b1&ex=1296190800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

 

[Feraud]

I hope Tiffany's wins the case against Ebay. I am sick of Ebay hiding behind the old "no responsibility" excuse.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I saw a fake "A2" jacket on ebay recently. The buyer claimed that his knock-off Avirex A2 with a picture of the serviceman and certificate of authenticity inside belonged to a colleague of his who retired from the Chinese airforce 30 years ago! Yeah, sure! :rage:
I noticed that the fake bloodchit on the back of the jacket had 56 stars on the American flag part, so I emailed the poster of this obvious scam and hinted that I was on to him. A lot of others probably emailed him too, but probably not as gently as I did. Soon after, the item was removed.
This person had the gall to ask $500 bucks as minimum bid!
I wish all the fakers were as dumb as this one was, because there are a lot of phonies that get away with it. Ya gotta be really careful and do your homework when shopping for vintage items on ebay.Maybe there should be stricter controls on the listings of items offered for sale there?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The counterargument, on Ebay's behalf, is that it cannot operate if held responsible for fakes sold on it - the costs of policing fakes would be too much.

Of course, if too many people get burned too badly too often, then they will stop shopping there.

And there's also a disadvantage for the legitimate sellers. Suppose I want to sell my Aero A-2. I would get a lower price than a 3-year-old Aero A-2 should get because - since it's on Ebay - I'm asking the purchaser to assume some risk that it's a fake. ( Aero acutally makes this point on its site - that, yes, you can purchase a WWII flight jacket on Ebay - but then you don't know whom you are dealing with. ).

 

[Feraud]

I think the arguement that Ebay cannot operate if held responsible for fakes holds little water. The chain of responsiblility definitely starts with the seller and extends to the buyer (caveat emptor to a certain degree) but should never exclude the auction house. Isn't Christie's or Sotheby's responsible for the products they sell? There have been cases when items are misrepresented by sellers or auction house themselves but when the piece is exposed as a fraud then we have to determine who is responsible. There is no way the intermediary can claim 'no responsibility'! That is the price of doing fair business and we assume Ebay is interested in that..

 

[photobyalan]

The counterargument, on Ebay's behalf, is that it cannot operate if held responsible for fakes sold on it - the costs of policing fakes would be too much.

How much would it be? $20 Million a year? $50 Million?

Let's say it's $50 Million. That would be roughly the equivalent of hiring 500 new employees at an annual salary/benefits package of $100,000. These people could be knowledgeable in various fields such as jewelry and collectibles - any category where fraud is common. eBay could then offer, for a small fee, an escrow and appraisal service whereby, at the end of the auction, the seller would ship the item to one of their appraisers who would then verify its authenticity before it went on to the buyer. The seller pays the fee and gets to add a logo to their listing, thus reassuring the buyer that they are getting an honest collectible, diamond, Versace suit, A2 jacket, or whatever. eBay gets a fee up front, then the selling price is probably higher for these items so they collect on the back end as well. The program would probably pay for itself with the fees but, even if it didn't, it would still be worthwhile to combat counterfeit items.

Yes, there are details that would need to be ironed out, but my point is that eBay could go a long way toward solving the problem with a little effort on their part.

By the way, eBay's profit (net income) in 2005 was $279 Million. In the 4th quarter. For the full year it was $1.08 Billion. I think they can afford it.

 

[photobyalan]

I think the arguement that Ebay cannot operate if held responsible for fakes holds little water. The chain of responsiblility definitely starts with the seller and extends to the buyer (caveat emptor to a certain degree) but should never exclude the auction house. Isn't Christie's or Sotheby's responsible for the products they sell? There have been cases when items are misrepresented by sellers or auction house themselves but when the piece is exposed as a fraud then we have to determine who is responsible. There is no way the intermediary can claim 'no responsibility'! That is the price of doing fair business and we assume Ebay is interested in that..

Agreed. If they weren't charging fees for listings, or they were a not-for-profit operation, then it would be a different story.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

How much would it be? $20 Million a year? $50 Million?

I frankly think it probably would be considerably more than that. If it had been only in the $20 to $50 million ballpark, it would have been in Ebay's interest to have spent that amount already.

The real question here is howto achieve quality control on Ebay. Apparently, Ebay's ratings system is insufficient.

And if high quality controls cost a lot of money, Ebay would have to charge much higher fees than it now is.

 

[Flitcraft]

Man, its about time somebody held E-prey at least a little accountable. I collect old watches and you'd be amazed at the number of outright, blatant fakes on there. The worst offenders are the guys who steal the pictures from a legitimate auction and post when they have a total counterfeit for sale.
I dealt with one seller who put up pictures of one watch, sold me another and then had the nerve to say I should be happy because the watch he sold me was so much better.
Trust me, read Ebay's latest earnings report, they're making more than enough money to police the site better.
As for the threat of raising listing fees, their new president has pretty much admitted that Mom & Pop sellers are not Ebay's preferred listers. The company would much rather focus on larger Power Sellers because those listings generate more revenue.

 

[Zemke Fan]

My two cents worth...

As an eBay buyer and (more recently) an eBay seller, I can tell you that this is a place for which you have to tread VERY carefully. I know a lot of sellers of WWII memorabilia who are very reputable and careful.

However, I have seen at least one seller who has been selling fake wings with inscriptions and he has been making a fortune. The problem is that unless you notice that he has the SAME items for sale (with similar inscriptions in the same script typeface) all the time, you'd never suspect that he's a major forger.

It's one thing to sell things that in your best judgment ARE authentic (but may not be) and quite another to sell items that you know to be fake. It's the latter category of folk who are the most harmful. Those guys ought to be shut down AND prosecuted.

 

[Feraud]

Ebay would no longer be a free enterprise entity. It would be totally commercialized, and there fore totally ruined! I like the fact that I can find obscure , one - of - a kind items, at a reasonable price, from all corners of the world. That's what makes it fun and interesting. The big sellers are over-priced for the most part and you rarely get a bargain from them.

I disagree on this. I think responsiblilty does not cut down on the free enterprise of a company. In fact, it promotes business! Who would you deal with a person you feel safe, secure, and comfortable with or one you do not trust because they tend to misrepresent their products?

There is no reason Ebay cannot responsibly maintain the fun and interesting aspect of its website. It is their website they are at least partially responsible for what is sold on it. Ebay takes their stand on selling tobacco, liquor or Nazi paraphernalia, and they should take a stand against counterfeit goods.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I think the arguement that Ebay cannot operate if held responsible for fakes holds little water. The chain of responsiblility definitely starts with the seller and extends to the buyer (caveat emptor to a certain degree) but should never exclude the auction house. Isn't Christie's or Sotheby's responsible for the products they sell? There have been cases when items are misrepresented by sellers or auction house themselves but when the piece is exposed as a fraud then we have to determine who is responsible. There is no way the intermediary can claim 'no responsibility'! That is the price of doing fair business and we assume Ebay is interested in that..

To be fair, Christie's and Sotheby's sell far, far, far fewer items than ebay does and for the most part they sell them for higher amounts. They have the time and money to check the authenticity of the goods. Plus, in large part their business depends on trust.

Ebay is a completely different market with a completely different strategy. Authenticating merchandise which passes through their system also opens them up for all sorts of liability, such as when they say something is a fake but the seller proves it is actually genuine. Or they say something is real and the buyer proves it is a fake.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I disagree on this. I think responsiblilty does not cut down on the free enterprise of a company. In fact, it promotes business! Who would you deal with a person you feel safe, secure, and comfortable with or one you do not trust because they tend to misrepresent their products?

There is no reason Ebay cannot responsibly maintain the fun and interesting aspect of its website. It is their website they are at least partially responsible for what is sold on it. Ebay takes their stand on selling tobacco, liquor or Nazi paraphernalia, and they should take a stand against counterfeit goods.

I would tend to trust the smaller operations myself. Even some of the bigtime "power sellers" misrepresent their products. And maybe the fact that they are in the bigtime makes it easier for them to do so? It's a thorny issue with no cut and dried answer for sure. Maybe it all comes down to the old adage, "let the buyer beware"?
And ebay does give people the option of reporting listings that they feel are bogus. Most people just don't want to get involved I suppose.

 

[Feraud]

Maj. Nick Danger & Vladimir Berkov, you both make good point. Ebay is not exactly a Christie's or Sotheby's auction house, tho' they set themself up as an online auctionplace. Go figure...

As for authenticating products, I believe this starts with the seller. If they approach Ebay with a Rolex that turns out to be a knockoff, the seller is responsible to make amends to the buyer. Ebay is responsible to facilitate this. I think they do this to a certain extent. From the complaints I have read perhaps they are not active enough. They are the middlemen in this transaction.

You would be surprised how quickly the item descriptions clarify and scammers disappear if Ebay showed a little backbone.

It may not be easy, but it is do-able.

 

[Twitch]

Just the word "vintage" is bogus on ebay. People write the ads for items rationalizing that since something isn't new in a retail store they can get away with using the word vintage for something a couple years old. I've seen lots of all sorts of items less than 10 years old touted as "vintage." The word has ceased to mean anything anymore when connected with ebay.

 

[Story]

On a related note

Whistleblower reveals £30m antiques scam
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3690367.ece

ONE of Britain’s leading furniture restorers has blown the whistle on the antique trade - revealing that he has fabricated pieces that have been offered for sale for up to £525,000 each.

Dennis Buggins, 48, has revealed that his Kent farmhouse has been operating as a production line for £30m of replica and revamped antiques for more than two decades. He claims he only recently discovered some of his work had been offered for sale as original pieces.

“We have turned out hundreds of pieces from carcasses or from scratch,” he said last week. “They have been misrepresented and a line has been crossed.”

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

I see that the original article was older, but ebay has been pulling counterfeit bags from its site for years. I know, because a friend of mine tried to sell a Chinatown special and was kicked off ebay. Since they've already taken responsibility to police fakes in some areas, why shouldn't they have to take it in all areas?

 

[Fletch]

Dennis Buggins, 48, has revealed that his Kent farmhouse has been operating as a production line for £30m of replica and revamped antiques for more than two decades.

Dennis Buggins?
lol DENNIS BUGGINS??!?!

There'll always be an England.

 

[Micawber]

Items examined, authenticated and then offered for sale by sale by reputable auction hoses are one thing. However I am not sure how Ebay could be held responsible for items that they themselves have not been physically able to examine and authenticate (or otherwise).

Caveat emptor.

 

[reetpleat]

I think the arguement that Ebay cannot operate if held responsible for fakes holds little water. The chain of responsiblility definitely starts with the seller and extends to the buyer (caveat emptor to a certain degree) but should never exclude the auction house. Isn't Christie's or Sotheby's responsible for the products they sell? There have been cases when items are misrepresented by sellers or auction house themselves but when the piece is exposed as a fraud then we have to determine who is responsible. There is no way the intermediary can claim 'no responsibility'! That is the price of doing fair business and we assume Ebay is interested in that..

Yes, but Southebys makes big money holding auctions for expensive hings that they authenticate. Ebay can hardly be asked to examine every item and authenticate it.

I suppose they should have a system whereby if enough people complain about a seller, or if the legitimate manufacturere complains about it, then they should cooperate in shutting them down. and maybe they should try and police certain item ctegories heavily with a few experts, But How could ebay authenticate and approve a bunch of auctions if items they hae not even seen.

A least with Paypal, as bad as it sucks in ways, you can, in theory make a protest and have money held if you get a fake item. But if someone buys a fake and doesn't ever know it, or knowingly buys one because they want the style and look for cheap, then wha could ebay do? In New York, it is up to the manufacturere working with the feds to shut down counterfeiters. I don't think ebay has a responsibility except to cooperate with manufacturesand law enforcement.