An Amazon shopper faces up to 20 years in jail for $290,000 fraud. Prosecutors say he bought Apple,

[ssales12]

So why won't ebay protect its sellers?  We recently provided ebay with proof positive of a buyer who claimed at least 13 INR's within 2 months.  ebay's response.  "The buyer has a good history on eBay, buying with the same type of purchases with other sellers without issue. The claims they have opened appear to have been opened for legitimate reasons."   so part time thieves are welcome at ebay.

Regardless of reasonable logic, it is statistically impossible for this event to occur without fraud.

[recped]

eBay's seller protection for INR claims is just fine, if you had any proof of delivery you would never lose.

The story you reference about the Amazon buyer relates to Return Fraud and they were able to get away with at least US$290,000 before Amazon took action.

If you are going to ship using Lettermail and sell in a category that seems to attract a lot of less than honest buyers that is your problem to deal with. eBay won't protect you from yourself.

I ship lots of untracked packages domestically and internationally, overall I get very few INR claims but I do get more on tracked items (legit claims obviously) than untracked.

[cumos55]

This is why ... Report a Buyer ....is important .

Buyers cannot receive negative Feedback.

If a sellers has a problem with a buyer......  That buyer should be reported to eBay.

eBay  pays attention to the number of times a buyer has been  reported..... and why.

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

A buyer can also be measured based on the type of feedback a buyer leaves for sellers. This can be a Report a Buyer situation.

If a seller has a problem with that buyer... then the buyer should be reported

[cardconnoisseurs]

The solution is to remove all buyer protection for INR's if the seller offers a tracked service. If the buyer is given the choice of a tracked service, or a cheaper untracked service, and elects to choose the untracked service, the seller's obligations should be settled simply by proving that the item was mailed. 

I am surprised there hasn't been a court case over Amazon/Ebay/etc taking funds from sellers to fund INR claims, since a buyer cannot prove INR, making the claim a case of "their word vs. ours". 

The fact that the oppurtunity for free enrichment via INR's is essentially part of Ebay/Amazon's marketing to customers is absolutely disgusting, and only serves to raises prices for everyone. 

[marnotom!]

---

@cardconnoisseurs wrote:

The solution is to remove all buyer protection for INR's if the seller offers a tracked service. If the buyer is given the choice of a tracked service, or a cheaper untracked service, and elects to choose the untracked service, the seller's obligations should be settled simply by proving that the item was mailed. . 

---

The reason eBay and PayPal have buyer protection schemes in place is largely to bypass the credit card chargeback process, which is expensive, time-consuming, and resource-consuming.  If a buyer chooses to have their item sent untracked it won't stop them from filing a chargeback and likely winning it.