Time to forget Ebay?

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

21 December, 2007 | 12:10PM GMT

Following on from our announcement on 10th August 2007 we wanted to let you know that from mid-January we?ll be expanding our ongoing efforts to protect eBay buyers and sellers by only allowing PayPal to be offered as a payment option on certain listings.

We?ve looked at the results of the earlier payment restrictions that we put in place in August, and we?ve already seen a decrease in transactions where eBayers have been left dissatisfied. The safety of the eBay trading environment and prevention of fraud is very important to us, so we?ll continue to monitor and closely analyse the listings where we?ve restricted payment methods.

From around 10th January, PayPal will need to be the only payment method for sales in the following listings:

• those that are set for a one-day auction * those in the following categories: o Computing > Software o Consumer Electronics > MP3 Players o Wholesale & Job Lots > Mobile & Home Phones o Business, Office & Industrial > Industrial Supply / MRO

If you would like to sell in the categories, you?ll need to sign up for a PayPal account if you don?t already have one:

• Sign up for a PayPal account * Learn more about how PayPal protects the buyers/sellers

We appreciate your continuing support in helping to keep eBay a great place to buy and sell.

Regards,

The eBay Team

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

Basically I can see that unless you have paypal, you won't be ABLE to use ebay shortly.

Isn't this in contravention of some monopoly legislation somewhere

[Andy Hall]

Hard to say from this whether it is a fraud reduction game (the categories listed may well be ones for scams and piracy) or whether it's simply an excuse for a gradual lockin to the inhouse payment vehicle so that they can make a turn on that component as well.

I don't think so. There are other big players with their own payment systems (Google, Amazon) and there are other trading sites.

More to the point will be whether people don't like Ebay's moves and go elsewhere.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 00:56:00 on Fri,

28 Dec 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I don't think the PayPal fees are going to put off sellers any more than the listing charges do, although I agree that it's slightly less convenient for people selling a one-off item in those categories. Then there's the other side of the coin - I won't buy off people who refuse to take PayPal, as it means a huge delay while I mail a cheque to them and they wait for it to clear. Very few sellers have direct Credit Card Merchant facilities, and not PayPal. Not accepting PayPal is a huge alarm bell.

You seem to be glossing over the main issue here - which is consumer protection. Too many people are being ripped off by rogue sellers, and the PayPal restriction is actually so that sellers are better monitored and refunds can be given to buyers more easily if there's a problem later on.

In any event I have yet to find a transaction (as either buyer or seller) where there has been any objection at all to paying by cash-on-collection [even if the sale was "PayPal only" in theory]. Although both parties have to realise that the transaction is final at that point (like buying at a car boot sale) and subsequent problems are most unlikely to be sorted out.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 01:41:22 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

Mainly, yes. For a seller to accept PayPal they must have verified a bank account with them, so it adds a big chunk of traceability and scares away people who want to sell-and-run using disposable accounts. If the merchant wants to sell more than £500 a month through PayPal they

*also* have to register a credit card.

Buyers find it convenient to pay by PayPal, as it gives any seller the ability to receive funds from a buyer's Credit card. At that point there's Credit Card commission and buyer protection involved (and quite likely cashback to the buyer as well) and that has to come from someone other than the tooth fairy.

[Geoff]

I would have thought that it would fall (possibly) against EU competition law seeing as Ebay own Paypal. And possibly restraint of trade since sellers are being dictated to as to what payment method they can accept. (IANAL)

[Andy Hall]

Nobody *has* to use Ebay unless one says that they are in a defacto trading monopoly position (e.g. Microsoft).

There seems to be some flexibility on acceptance of payment - e.g. one doesn't hear American Express complaining because some traders don't accept their cards, or Mastercard and Visa that others don't accept theirs.

OTOH, I did read that Google was having a scrap with Ebay about wanting Google Checkout as an option, so certainly there is a commercial angle.

OTOOH, Ebay would argue that they are facilitating traders operating without the cost and bureucracy of a credit card merchant account.

[Tim Ward]

But less important than protecting the privacy of the fraudster.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I don't see that. No trader on the high street for example is forced to offer credit card payment or to take a cheque. And could conceivably state they only accepted one make of credit card as payment. They might be mad to do so, but why would it be against any law?

Ebay isn't a monopoly and no one is forced to use it.

[Tim Ward]

I'm not sure that's the main objection to PayPal. I get the impression that the main objection, and the reason I won't use it, is that it simply doesn't conduct itself to the standards we expect of a UK bank even in these benighted times.

[Andy Hall]

Depends on who is paying to cover the cost of the fraud

[Andy Hall]

Doesn't that depend on how it is used?

For example, one could just put enough funds into the account to cover a purchase and take out any balance after making a sale.

However, I don't really see the problem in this. Nobody *has* to use Ebay. The world did function perfectly well before they came on the scene and there are other choices.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 09:24:29 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

In what kinds of way? Their dispute resolution process can be a bit opaque, but my High Street Bank doesn't even *have* such a process.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 09:33:22 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

eBay is very good for both buying new items and recycling used items. To that extent it is a huge improvement. It has saved me lots of money by finding "hard to get" items without having to fruitlessly visit dozens of shops.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Indeed. Or if you prefer to do it via a credit card get one solely for use with Paypal.

True.

I'd just add the one major loss I've had with Ebay - and really the only loss - was buying something and paying cash on delivery by the seller. It was an secondhand engine and not in the condition as described. But I'm not sure paying by any other method would have helped in this circumstance. I've not had any problems with Paypal despite using it for about 400 transactions. Certainly the *obvious* scammers don't use it - they usually insist on Western Union.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 09:22:51 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

How are you getting on with that? What law do you think the fraudster has broken by opening an account in your company's name?

Have you tried asking them to send you the userid and password for the account, as presumably you can demonstrate that you are an officer of your company. Then you'll be able to see the details for yourself.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 09:29:54 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

Yes, if a Credit Card Company allows a chargeback after a dispute with a seller, you don't expect them to tell you the dodgy trader's personal details as well.

Just as the Internet allows people to be their own publisher, and their own Travel Agent, it now lets become their own CC-accepting retailer. All these activities come with extra things to think about, whether the person believes it or not.

[Andy Hall]

Yes I can understand that, but it's still not a "must have" - i.e. they are not the only route to buying food and medicines.

OTOH, I would argue that Microsoft isn't a "must have" either (in fact better if it were a shouldn't have, but that's not likely any time soon) but they have been chided for monopolistic practices.

[Andy Hall]

Fair enough.

However, everybody does understand the rules on going in (or should have read them) and therefore should act accordingly.

It's the same as if I buy something as a consumer vs. buying something as a business. Different rules apply.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 10:05:31 on Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

If that's your only criterion, then most of civilisation is unnecessary.

[Tim Ward]

Nowhere.

Not clear, but that's not the point. The only motivation for opening an account in my company's name can have been to defraud someone else - it's

*prevention* of *this* crime that I was trying to achieve. And the real point ... this would result in hassle for me to cope with.

They have made it absolutely clear that they won't give me any information about their customer who has opened an account and who might have accidentally mistyped the wrong company name and address when they did so.

Companies House have advised me to report this to the police but I'm not sure how to do so in a fashion that they will either understand or do anything about.