Maintaining momentum

[canadianfootballcards]

It's not enough that we've complained to Raphael about the cart disconnect issue, and it's not enough that Ina's written a blog post about it.

Her story will be quickly forgotten, replaced by the next eBay mis-step and eBay will be able to safely put us back into the marginalized bin.

If we want this serious issue fixed we have to keep pressing, and it can't just be rose-dee leading the charge.

What can be done now to capitalize on any momentum from Ina's coverage and keep this problem in the spotlight?

Ideas?

[rose-dee]

Sorry it's me again , but my suggestion would be for someone to pass that article of Ina's on to the "big" media before it becomes cold.  Someone like CBC TV's Amanda Lang might take an interest.  If it got onto the CBC, the U.S. media might pick it up, especially those who do a lot of business coverage. 

Incidentally, there were some minor inaccuracies and/or omissions in Ina's story, not critical, but significant.  For example, not mentioning that this will affect Canadian or other buyers who log onto .com, not just U.S. buyers (and apparently U.K. as well). 

Come to think of it, I'm going to do this right away.  I'll report back in due course on any response. 

The other option -- a long shot for many reasons -- is legal action, through a class action suit.  As I've said previously, the two big problems are the effort of organizing and coordinating the plaintiffs (including arranging how to pay for initial legal costs), and the problem of gathering appropriate evidence of damages.  Say-so, theories, assumptions and anecdotes aren't sufficient.  

Even if it's possible to demonstrate what the problem is (as we've done through tests), for a lawsuit to have any hope of success it would be necessary to provide proof of loss, and further, be able to prove those losses were directly connected to this issue.  That's a tall order.  Add to that the "David and Goliath" aspect of the scenario, and you have a huge challenge.  

Still, it may be worth looking into.  As I might have mentioned earlier, I spent many years as a paralegal and researcher in the field of commercial civil litigation, so I have some idea of the challenges (and costs) involved. I also know how to research the law.  It will take time, since I'm a bit bogged down at the moment with a lot of other things, but I'll try to do some preliminary investigation and see what I can come up with.  

If there is some case law to support such a lawsuit, getting an initial opinion from a lawyer -- preferably someone with a prominent resumé in the field -- regarding the viability of suing would be the first step.  Not every case is appropriate to litigate, let alone winnable.  Actually, the first step would be organizing sellers to collect enough to pay for that advice, which might prove the end of the venture before it starts.  

At any rate, I'll try to work on Step 1 over the next 3 or 4 weeks.  And I will contact Amanda Lang.  

[berubegirl]

Sorry to say my dear but legal action is a dead end with this. The user agreement ebay employs is iron-clad as far as issues such as this go.

Legal action could be taken stateside on a private level but very expensive. Two different legal minds spent a few days deciphering ebay's user agreement and both said that ebay covered their butt like mother covers new-born.

[recped]

Legal action? Is that a joke? eBay has no legal obligation to have a fully functioning cart system!

[rose-dee]

---

@berubegirl wrote:

Sorry to say my dear but legal action is a dead end with this. The user agreement ebay employs is iron-clad as far as issues such as this go.

Legal action could be taken stateside on a private level but very expensive. Two different legal minds spent a few days deciphering ebay's user agreement and both said that ebay covered their butt like mother covers new-born.

---

The eBay user agreement differs substantially between .ca and .com, but I think you may have it reversed. The US agreement has a forfeiture clause against legal action, but the Canadian agreement doesn't (at least the last time I looked, which was several months ago).  Things may have changed in the meantime but I have yet to check -- I've had other things to do! 

There was a successful case against eBay in Canada (in Québec) not too long ago.  It was of course being appealed by eBay, and I want to check the case law to see whether the appeal actually went forward and if so, what the outcome was.  

Since the cart problem primarily affects Canadian sellers, and since (the last time I looked) anyone who accepted the eBay.ca user agreement did not sign away their right to legal action, a lawsuit would not be out of the question on the face of it.  

However, that's different from saying it would be feasible or advisable.  One of the hurdles is the jurisdictional issue, but if I recall, the Québec court did rule in favour of the plaintiff on that point.  So, it's worth researching.

As I said, legal action is an unlikely and difficult avenue but it may not be a totally hopeless prospect.  

[rose-dee]

---

@recped wrote:

Legal action? Is that a joke? eBay has no legal obligation to have a fully functioning cart system!

---

Well, legal agreements are like concrete dams that work perfectly as long as no one finds a vulnerable area and drills a hole through.  You'd be surprised how many times that happens, even to major corporations -- which is why they're constantly amending their agreements.  Also, interestingly, it's why the eBay.ca user agreement discusses legal venues even though the agreement excludes liability for damages on eBay's part (I just looked). 

The real question in most circumstances is whether the driller has enough time, money and determination to create a leak, and whether what might be expected to spring from the leak is worth it all.   

[rose-dee]

Since this old thread is connected to the question of pursuing eBay generally, I thought I'd update it here rather than on the original topic: 

http://community.ebay.ca/t5/Seller-Central/Quebec-Court-of-Appeal-rules-against-eBay-in-favour-of-se...

The update is that Moko, the original plaintiff, and the successful party in the application on the narrow issue of jurisdiction, apparently hasn't yet had his day in Court on the substantive part of the claim.  I couldn't find any case reported on it (yet). Jurisdictional issues aside, the claim itself seemed pretty spurious to begin with, so Moko, having won his initial point against eBay in late 2013, may have decided not to proceed with the damages claim. Or it may just be taking a long time for the case to be heard (not unusual).  

There is a third possibility -- that eBay settled with the plaintiff to avoid having to actually defend the claim in a Québec court where consumer laws are pretty strong and the jurisdictional question has now been upheld.  I imagine there could be a danger of setting a precedent there that would open the floodgates.