PSA / JSA liability

[Klrdds]

Just curious because of all the mistakes that they have made during their existence could PSA or to a lesser extent JSA ever be hit with a lawsuit or a "class action" type of lawsuit for all the autographs they issued auction cert letters for or outright certed that were later found to be not good ?

[mr2686]

Short answer is no, mainly because at the end of the day it's just an opinion.

[Lordstan]

I have not heard of one, but I assume they would use the defense Mike stated. We are only providing an opinion and not a guarantee.
I would think it might be possible to sue them for not performing their job if you could show that they did not inspect an item they for which they provided an auction cert. Not sure what their liability could be though. Perhaps the cost of the cert. I would think it would be a significant black mark on their reputation as well as the reliability of the AH involved if discovered to be true. That would probably be much more damaging than the award. Not sure how it would ever be proven though. I don't think you would get any AH to cooperate with someone trying to prove this.

[chaddurbin]

Lol if all the forensic experts are still free to cert all the bad fakes without repercussions then the "legit" experts have nothing to worry about.

[Leon]

It is all just an opinion unless you got it yourself. According to the FBI last night, speaking at the Net54 dinner, they are difficult cases because of some of the things stated in this thread. I would say if you had video of someone making fakes and selling them as real then you could have a case. Good luck on that.

[keithsky]

Their certs used to say years ago "Guaranteed Authentic" as I remember. That might have got them thinking we better change that to "Its our opinion" or words to that so they don't get sued. Must have gotten fancy lawyers involved to ask what words can we use so we wont get sued. Probably said just say it's an opinion and your safe. Must work cause all the crooked ones are using it and getting away with it.

[btcarfagno]

How about an item that they pre-certed but now refuse to cert? And the item is 100% identifiable as the same item?

Tom C

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

How about an item that they pre-certed but now refuse to cert? And the item is 100% identifiable as the same item?

Tom C

Yeah, to me that's the real problem. Anything pre-certed and then denied by the same company should be allowed for a full refund. Anything else is just BS.

[T206Collector]

You should read the disclaimers on the websites or forms of all of the grading and authenticating companies. A good summary of them is on REA's website and their auction rules.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

Lol if all the forensic experts are still free to cert all the bad fakes without repercussions then the "legit" experts have nothing to worry about.

I wrote about that numerous times a long time ago, but still a great point to bring up.

If the likes of Chris "I Never Saw An Autograph I Didn't Like" Morales, Stephen Rocchi (GFA), Drew Max and the rest of the Forensic crew don't have the anyone chasing them, then PSA, JSA, etc. shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[drcy]

If collectors and the hobby treated the letters as third party opinions in the first place-- which is what they are--, there wouldn't be this issue. The problem isn't that they are offering opinions, but that make people try to take them as or make them into something that they aren't.

[kerichar]

Yes, they can be sued. TPAs present themselves to the public as experts in autograph authentication. When they make a mistake, they can be sued for their negligence.

The measure of damages might be the sticking point. As I recall, JSA has a limitation of damages clause in their COA that limits JSA's liability to the cost of authentication. This poison pill clause hardly makes a lawsuit a cost effective.

The moral of the story is read the fine print on the COAs.

[drcy]

Considering the margin of error and lack of time they give examining each autograph (I read that PSA/DNA examines 300,0000+ autos a year), the hobby problem is that sellers and auction houses use them as final arbiter including visa vie sales returns.

I think JSA and PSA/DNA give a worthwhile service-- offering an independent third opinion. But obviously they make mistakes and there is a margin of error, and obviously their opinions should be a supplement not a replacement for seller and buyer knowledge and opinion.

If there is a bad autograph and PSA (or JSA) has made a mistake, the seller doesn't or auction house doesn't allow refund/return because "PSA is the final word" and PSA only allows refund of the opinion, there is an institutional problem in the hobby.

It's like with card grading-- where grading involves subjectivity and margins of error-- but entities treat the numbers of the label as 100% accurate. The problem isn't that there is a margin of error-- there is a margin of error in everything--, but when people an entities treat it as being 100% accurate.

In my opinion, the seller is responsible for the refund when an item is fake. And I think legally, that is the case. The authenticators are saying they are offering an opinion-- and if others treat it as something else, that is the others' misinterpretations and misuse. An old saying of mine is: "If you go to a Three Stooges movie expecting Orson Welles, that's your fault not the movie's."

Not to pick on anyone, but I remember a game used collector who posted here that had an LOA from years back and a previous sale, and he thought the LOA should apply forever, he should be refunded what he spent (as opposed to the original sale price) and by the original seller/LOA writer even though he wasn't involved in that sale. It said nothing to that effect on the LOA, but he thought that should be the case. Golly gee, life would be easy and we'd all be rich if we could years later magically rewrite contracts, change guarantees and cross out "in my opinion"and replace it with in "word from God, and if we're wrong we buy you a new house."

However, I do agree that, even if they are just saying they are offering their opinions and people should take their opinions as opinions, authenticators can or should be held liable if they misrespresent their abilities or don't do their due diligence. The numbers of of autographs PSA/DNA examines was an eye opener, and, if push came to shove, it could be evidence of shoddy work and bring up the question of how exactly were all these autographs examined.

One thing to remember is that you should buy items-- autographs or cards-- on the merits of the items themselves, not just by a LOA or grade label. If the LOA opinion or grade assists you that is fine. I always encourage collectors to get second opinions, even if it's just acting a collecting buddy. However, you don't know the future of grading or grading companies, and you don't know the future value of the of a particular company's LOA or label. Remember that 15 years ago GAI was widely respected as a grader and autograph authenticator. Maybe PSA will be around in 20 years and still be the hobby institution that it is (And I am in no way suggesting they won't be), but will change their grading system and you will have to your card re-graded.

Or, as my other old saying goes: "Collectors should only collect what they can authenticate themselves."

[kerichar]

Nicely said Drcy.

I agree that an auction house is responsible for selling non-conforming goods.

[btcarfagno]

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

[drcy]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

At the least, it is proof of the margin of error in their system, and why the hobby anointed arbiters shouldn't be treated as infallible.

I see some institutionalized design problems with the hobby, in particular where fallibility is treated as infallible. As I've said, there is nothing errant with there being a margin of error and there is a margin of error in everything-- but the margin of error has to be part of the design.

You can likely guess what I think of card registry "scores" that are simply calculations to the 0.00 of the numbers on the labels. Beyond the bad science, I would argue that the math itself is bad.

I remember when my grandmother complained that the weatherman being wrong, because he had said that there was a "30% chance for rain" and it was sunny all day. I fruitlessly tried to explain to her that his prediction was accurate.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

Exactly. then it becomes TPA LOA ping pong between the AH and the TPA and the so called statute of limitations as they call it at the AH , even though Statute of Limitations applies to criminal activity , which in some ways this is. And the amount of liability from the TPA for the price paid for the item versus what they consider their financial liability for their "error".

[mighty bombjack]

Don't forget that there are very few cases where a TPA can be proven incorrect without the use of another party's opinion (e.g., situations where the signed card was printed years after the player's passing). Those do exist, sadly, but the vast majority of "errors" that I've seen are along the lines of "this other expert disagrees" (Nash's site is notorious for this in its worst, anonymous form: "Experts we spoke with thought..."). Whether or not you and I agree with that expert's judgements, these things are very difficult to prove in a court of law because it comes down to one expert's opinion over another.

Example: In the court of Net54, a TPA-slabbed item that Ron K. says is bad is going to be deemed BAD. Many members will take that as truth, many others will research (or already have researched) the auto and form their own opinion. But a jury in a court will hear the opinion of Ron K. vs. that of TPA Jabroni X and not know what to think or who to believe. They'll conclude what many here are rightfully saying: this is opinion, not demonstrable fact.

To put it another way: Whether or not the person whose name is written on an item was actually written by that person is VERY difficult to prove. We have opinions and opinions of the people giving opinions.