eBay

wkndshop · ‎11-16-2016

On every listing page there is an option about the top right corner to share the item via Emai, Facebook, Twitter & Pinterest.

Wouldn't it be great if we could share items via Ebay UserIDs?

Instead of entering an email address, just enter the user id.

This feature seems long overdue and please forgive me if it is somehow already available.

For example :

I had a buyer send me a message about an item using Ebays message service.

I copied and pasted a link to an item that i thought would interest the buyer.

When i looked at the sent message , the link is there but it is not active, the buyer will have to copy and paste the link into her browser in order to view the item. This is an extra step in my opinion that some buyers may have trouble with. Not every one is tech savvy.

All of this could be solved with a share button Ebay users.

BTW you're welcome Ebay for this great tip, i would like a half a cent for everyone that uses this once it is implemented, please send the monthly cheque to my home address, thanks

cumos55 · ‎11-20-2016

Paypal is very specific with respect to how it uses our information.

As sellers on eBay we must be careful and keep a buyer's information private....

That information is there for a transaction and nothing else..... Once the transaction has been completed we must eventually destroy all records relating to a buyer's personal information.

For income tax purposes a business must hold all sales information for six years. That information must be kept in a safe environment. over this time period.

When documents are destroyed, the documents must be shredded such that no one can find the information in a usable format....

i.am.vivian · ‎11-20-2016

@cumos55 wrote:
Paypal is very specific with respect to how it uses our information.

I was just commenting on what is specifically written in the PayPal policy.

rose-dee · ‎11-20-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:
Here is the reply: https://www.paypal.com/ca/webapps/mpp/ua/privacy-full#rScope_and_Consent

Please note that merchants, sellers, and users you buy from or contract with have their own privacy policies, and although PayPal’s user agreement does not allow the other transacting party to use this information for anything other than providing PayPal Services, PayPal is not responsible for their actions, including their information protection practices.

In other words, the email a buyer provides to paypal which is viewable by your ebay seller is to be used for that transaction only.

The problem with this regurgitation by Paypal of its own internal policies is that it doesn't address whether Paypal has any legal authority to impose its rules and policies outside its own purview, i.e. contradicting the laws of Canada governing "implied consent", which are quite clear.

To restate the metaphor a bit, you are asking the chickens to say whether the farmer should be allowed in the hen-house to collect eggs. Of course they will say not in our hen-house. More specifically, in a court the query you posted that was sent to Paypal would be called a leading question. What we really should be asking Paypal is how they explain the discrepancy between their policy and the "implied consent" provisions of our anti-spam laws, and what authority they have for contradicting that law in their own policies.

Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not arguing for the propriety of using a buyer's email address for marketing purposes without obtaining consent. The first outside email I send to any former buyer specifically asks whether they wish to receive any further emails, and invites them to opt out. That is what Canada's anti-spam law requires.

What I'm trying to do is parse the question of whether eBay (or Paypal) have legal jurisdiction with respect to the outside use of email addresses where there is a transaction or other initial connection between buyer and seller. It would be important to establish that. And I think that narrowly-defined question, as I've said, can really only be answered by an independent authority, outside the bounds of those whose interests these "in-house" agreements serve. I think I have some idea of whom to approach on this, aside from the OCA, but it may take some time.

rose-dee · ‎11-20-2016

@rose-dee wrote:
What we really should be asking Paypal is how they explain the discrepancy between their policy and the "implied consent" provisions of our anti-spam laws, and what authority they have for contradicting that law in their own policies.

I should have added that this is not a question Paypal customer service can answer. It requires a very knowledgeable interpretation of Canada's laws.

cumos55 · ‎11-21-2016

eBay has its rules...

Paypal has its rules...

Canada has the Privacy act.

and now... The most important set of rules is what each of us does as a seller on the internet.

Each of us has information about a buyer..... We each have a responsibility to keep that information .... private.

That responsibility in all situations must be personal and not imposed upon us.

There will be those that choose to do as they please.... but.... This action indicates that the seller does not show respect for the buyer's option to be safe from any form of intrusion.

The internet has changed our way for communicating.....Everyone and anyone has access to what we place on the internet.

For me it is not what eBay, Paypal or the Government of Canada says ... IT is what I choose to do.... or more specifically what NOT to do

As a seller on the internet I set my own standards..... and I would anticipate that my buyers do the same.

There are people on the internet who know how to access every bit of information on the internet..

We must be vigilant.... for there might come a day when nothing is absolutely sacred on the internet...

rose-dee · ‎11-21-2016

@cumos55 wrote:

The most important set of rules is what each of us does as a seller on the internet.
Each of us has information about a buyer..... We each have a responsibility to keep that information .... private.
That responsibility in all situations must be personal and not imposed upon us.

Everything you say is well founded. Respect for our buyers is not only the right thing to do from a personal standpoint but makes for good business practice as well. There is no excuse for ignoring a buyer's wishes in this respect, once those wishes are known. The crux of the issue to my mind is whether the initial outside contact to obtain consent is allowable under Canadian law, regardless of the internal rules or policies of a site like eBay or Paypal. To put it differently, how do you get consent in the first place?

What I'm really trying to do I suppose is disentangle the legal question of what happens when privately-made rules or policies apparently conflict with current law. I find it an interesting subject to consider, but I think only an expert in the field could provide a meaningful analysis and answer.

Is Paypal not aware of current Canadian legislation? That would be hard to believe, especially since its user agreement is stated to be made under the laws of Ontario and Canada (which means Canadian lawyers were involved in drafting it, or at least approving it). I think instead they know that rules set in their user agreement have no authority outside Paypal.

I think this reality is reflected in this paragraph):

"Please note that merchants, sellers, and users you buy from or contract with have their own privacy policies, and although PayPal’s user agreement does not allow the other transacting party to use this information for anything other than providing PayPal Services, PayPal is not responsible for their actions, including their information protection practices."

What is interesting about this is that Paypal is clearly acknowledging they have no legal jurisdiction beyond the rules of their own site. There is similar wording in the eBay member-to-member contact policy, as I've quoted earlier. I expect Paypal is obliged to include this sort of text in its user agreement in order to protect itself from lawsuits, i.e. we don't allow our users to do it, but if it happens, don't look to us for legal redress. They are, to be blunt, covering their posteriors, which corporations do.

The other scenario that I find intriguing is to think about is what recourse Paypal (or eBay) would actually have if a buyer complained that they were being contacted outside those sites by a seller from whom they had purchased something. One would think the seller would be kicked off the site (or at least given a warning) if it could be proven the email came from that seller.

But what if the seller turns to the authority of the laws of Canada which state that a transaction of any kind is "implied consent"? Now you have a potential conflict which in real life might only be able to be resolved by an application to the appropriate court. This is an area of ambiguity that is of importance to online sellers and something I'm hoping the OCA may be able to clarify.

Maybe others don't find this as fascinating a legal question as I do, but I think it begs clarification by a disinterested authority.

I just want to say that if anyone believes that by raising this issue I'm condoning or advocating the use of buyers' emails without proper legal consent, whether explicit or implied (as provided by Canada's laws), they are wrong and have misunderstood the whole point of my posts in this discussion. (This isn't meant to be directed to 'cumos' of course, simply a general statement).

momcqueen · ‎11-23-2016

Like I said I would, I took this to Weekly Board Hour. For the record, this is the response form ebay Canada at http://community.ebay.ca/t5/Weekly-Chat-Session/November-23rd-2016-Weekly-Session/td-p/357771

If you are having trouble viewing the screenshot, this is what it says: Boldface coloured text is my own emphasis.

Re: November 23rd 2016 Weekly Session

in reply to mjwl2006

‎11-23-2016 12:14 PM

@mjwl2006 wrote:
My next issue. Now this has been subject of some, ahem, vigorous debate.

Are sellers allowed to collect and utilize the email addresses of ebay buyers to subscribe those ebay buyers (without consent) to post-purchase newsletters for off-ebay website stores? http://community.ebay.ca/t5/Seller-Central/Ebay-Feature-Request-Share-items-to-userid/td-p/357156

I say emphatically no (citing the ebay privacy policy prohibiting spam as I am interpreting it) but others disagree. I'm certain you will hear more about this today from (an)other member(s) so I will leave it at that. Please review the thread I cited above.

There are a few things I will say about this. First, sellers aren't supposed to use your email obtained via an eBay transaction to try and drive their sales off eBay. For obvious reasons however, this is very hard to enforce. Second, with regards to CASL (Canadian Anti Spam Law), while it's true that implied consent grants someone who has previously done business with you the right to contact you, that is only true for a certain period of time, while expressed consent grants the marketer the right to contact for a much longer period. Everyone should familiarize themselves with the CASL finer details and act accordingly, and complain to the authorities if they feel they are being spammed by a seller who isn't following the rules.

http://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/home

Now, Rose-dee went on to the thread with her own take on the question so I will leave it to her to provide that elaboration as I am certain she will be here shortly to do so.

From my own point of view, I think as a seller I will make a solemn promise in my listings of the future to explicitly state that we do NOT to spam buyers post-transaction. I value the privacy of my buyers and they should know in advance that their data is safe with me.

rose-dee · ‎11-24-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:
Like I said I would, I took this to Weekly Board Hour. For the record, this is the response form ebay Canada at http://community.ebay.ca/t5/Weekly-Chat-Session/November-23rd-2016-Weekly-Session/td-p/357771

"There are a few things I will say about this. First, sellers aren't supposed to use your email obtained via an eBay transaction to try and drive their sales off eBay. For obvious reasons however, this is very hard to enforce. Second, with regards to CASL (Canadian Anti Spam Law), while it's true that implied consent grants someone who has previously done business with you the right to contact you, that is only true for a certain period of time, while expressed consent grants the marketer the right to contact for a much longer period. Everyone should familiarize themselves with the CASL finer details and act accordingly, and complain to the authorities if they feel they are being spammed by a seller who isn't following the rules."

This was really the only response I'd expect from eBay, and the only one they can give from their point of view.

However, it does nothing to resolve the crux of the matter, which is the conflict between eBay policy and the law of the land. Raphael's reply to me on that issue was predictably eBay-centred, focused on the tangential subject of fee avoidance, a red herring. I'll discuss it separately.

The term "spam" is a loaded one these days, but it doesn't recognize that there are buyers who might actually like to receive occasional email news or promotions from a seller. What Canada's anti-spam legislation has recognized is that if a commercial relationship has been established once, the customer may have an interest in continuing it, and accordingly the fair thing is to allow the seller an opportunity to keep that window open (under certain conditions).

As Raphael's answer mentions, there is a time limit (2 years) that allows "implied consent" contact. But what he conveniently (or deliberately) neglected to add is that expressed consent can easily be obtained by a seller providing the customer with a means of opting out when the initial implied consent email is sent out. In fact, the law requires this. So implied consent is really only a means of permitting a retailer/seller to obtain that initial consent or rejection, and to act accordingly from there.

EBay doesn't have a policy that crosses the border between what is done on its site(s) and what is done privately, because that is a legal impossibility, as I've said earlier. EBay has no jurisdiction to make such laws. For years eBay has been rather paranoid about off-site contact from within eBay, and they've prohibited it, which they're completely entitled to do. Put an email address in an eBay message to anyone and you'll find the message deleted.

However, let's not kid ourselves -- eBay's big concern has never been about curtailing spam for its buyers. If it were, they would stop sending their own endless sales pitches by email to anyone who drops into the site (using the provisions of implied consent, I might add). No, the main reason eBay has rules against sellers using eBay features to contact buyers is that they are protecting their own turf, restricting competition, and trying to control the loss of sales (FVF) revenue. On their own site(s) they have every right to do so of course. But not outside.

Raphael is right that everyone relying on Canada's anti-spam legislation should familiarize themselves with it, but it isn't only a vehicle for consumer complaints. It's a recognition of the realities of modern commerce, and a setting out of parameters for contact that is fair to both sides.

momcqueen · ‎11-24-2016

I beg to differ. eBay has every right to protect its customers from spam sent by sellers. If I got some stupid email newsletter from every seller I'd ever bought from on eBay, I'd have quit eBay five years ago. No one has time for that nonsense. My data as a buyer is mine.

rose-dee · ‎11-24-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:
I beg to differ. eBay has every right to protect its customers from spam sent by sellers.

Yes, of course they do -- within their own circle of jurisdiction, but not outside.

The point is that sellers must adhere to Canada's laws in this respect in any event, on or off eBay. It isn't a permanently open door. The anti-spam legislation places the onus on the retailer/seller to provide the consumer with a means of opting out and expects consent to be treated as a privilege. To put it simply, you get one chance to get it right as a seller. From there, the buyer has every right and possibility to make a complaint.

Most email programmes I know of provide pretty good spam protection as well as an easy and automatic means of re-routing unwanted email. You really only need to look at the first email from any source. I doubt every seller I ever purchased from would be bothered in the first place. It takes time and effort to put together a newsletter and collate email addresses properly.

To be frank, the most annoying spam I get these days is from eBay itself, because I can't ignore or dispense with it without checking the contents. Most of it is pure garbage, of no interest to me at all. At least the newsletters from retailers I do let through occasionally contain something that I might like to buy.

rose-dee · ‎11-26-2016

I finally received a reply from OCA (see my earlier posts in this thread).

Actually there were two replies. The first simply said that they had forwarded my enquiry to an expert. The second, which I'm paraphrasing here to avoid the moderators thinking I'm quoting another board or eBay member, indicated that the expert they consulted suggested I contact legal counsel with expertise in CASL to advise how it would apply to the particular situation of an online seller listing on a platform such as eBay.

This is more or less what I expected to hear, although I was hoping the government might have some in-house counsel mandated to advise the public in a general way (i.e. not on a particular dispute or case). Unless someone has a couple of thousand dollars to spare to get a lawyer with the appropriate expertise to provide a formal legal opinion, there really isn't anyone else to consult. That is, with the exception of case law on the subject that may accumulate in future.

So, we're back to square one, although (without repeating verbatim what I've said earlier and what Raphael has stated), the reality is that eBay can really only have authority within its own walls. Beyond that, sellers must adhere to the provisions of CASL, as well as using common sense and courtesy. Without getting into the tedious details there are however instances where the two sets of rules could come into collision (Raphael is quite wrong about this), where a legal expert and court application would be necessary to determine precedence and redress.