Ebay wins again, dammit

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw 

Local rag reported today that a case for defamation against ebay had been thrown out of court. Apparently, someone rich who was ticked off about negative feedback actually sued ebay for publishing defamatory materials by posting negative feedbacks. The court ruled that ebay was akin to an internet chat board, which is immunized under Federal law from liability for the defamatory comments of posters. The lawsuit against the person who posted the item apparently was permitted to go forward, however.

This will bear close scrutiny since there is so much inflammatory commentary in typical negative feedbacks. I'd be extra careful in the future vis a vis what you say in a negative feedback--limit the comment to the transactional facts and skip the personal attacks or you could end up on the business end of a summons from some whacko.

Scary times we live in, eh?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

It should be pointed out that this 'whacko' who started the suit was a lawyer

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

who aren't lawyers?

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

. . . who aren't lawyers?

You mean there are wackos who aren't lawyers?

Just kidding!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

This case merely illustrates that lawyers are, by nature, zealous advocates, but not neccesarilly zealous advocates of good ideas.

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

NEVER to leave negative fedback, uless 1) nothing ever comes in the mail 2) I never hear from seller at all 3) the thing has been egregeously packed and arrives in terrible shape.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The guy works for a publisher and is attuned to libel laws, so he availed himself of them. So what? Are you implying that a person who is defamed should not sue, or are you implying that lawyers are not entitled to sue the same as anyone else? Your position makes no sense. Suppose I posted feedback on ebay claiming that you stole a card from me; would you stand by idly and let it go? How would you feel if ebay agreed that the post was false and then refused to take it down? Pretty angry, right? Note that the case did NOT say that the plaintiff was not defamed--it said that ebay had a legislatively-created immunity against liability for publishing a defamatory comment by a poster. The person posting the comment may still be found to have defamed the guy and might still have to pay damages for it.

I am so tired of people popping off against lawyers--do you even realize where these anti-litigation ideas come from? Let me give you a hint: the insurance and manufacturing lobbies, who spend millions every election cycle trying to convince people that the right to sue someone for damages for injuring them is spurious, "dirty" or "bad" and should be curtailed. What else would you suggest, talk to a congressman? Better have a lot of money or a solid bloc of voters all over the country behind you? I forgot to bribe, er, contribute megabucks to his campaign, so I don't have access that would get anything done--unlike the lobbyists from the computer industry who paid their way through the door, created the exemption legislation ebay used and got the congress and president to accept it. The court is the last place the little guy can go to tell Ford not to crispy critter people to save $10 on vehicle construction, yet the "reformers" (insurance and mfg lobbyists) have brainwashed many people into believing that this is a bad thing. Being sued sucks--I have been sued so I know how it feels--but being unable to sue someone who hurt you is far worse. CA has a law limiting medical malpractice liability (passed by the efforts of the insurance lobby in 1978) so severely that my parents can't find anyone to take a case against a doctor who misprescribed a double dose of a dangerous narcotic to my sister and killed her in the process. Were it not for court cases, we'd still have segregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education), car design choices consciously made on the basis that it is cheaper to kill people than to fix defects (Ford Pinto case), schools with the right to bar students from school for political speech ("F___ the draft" T-shirt case), etc., etc., etc.

Sorry for the screed--back to cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Most of the public has been spoon-fed with this tripe about lawyers and lawsuits for so long they simply accept it as gospel. If anyone truly wishes to study the issue of why insurance costs go up, I am confident they would find what many of us already know-- insurance companies raise premiums so as to achieve certain rates of return to their shareholders; rates that likely would otherwise be met if their money managers knew what the hell they were doing.

While 9/11 certainly hit the life and casualty insurers hard, the health insurance industry has no excuse. It is not (and has not been)an issue of claims exceeding premiums. This crap about tort reform has been a hot issue now, and was in the early '90s. Both W. Bush and Clinton decried how lawyers and lawsuits had run amok, and the lemmings just would not look to see the obvious-- the S&L crisis of the late 80's (Clinton), and the stock market plunges of a year or more ago (Bush). THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAD LOST BILLIONS IN POOR INVESTMENTS DURING THESE TIMES, and yet would raise rates under the guise that the legal system was being abused by unscrupulous plaintiffs and their lawyers. After all, someone had to pay and someone had to be blamed.

I'll stop now, or find another forum, since I'm more than a little off topic. Still, Adam, be aware that you're not the only one who needs to blow off a little steam now and again about the lawyer bashing.
Regards.........Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I'm not sure who Adam was posting specifically against. If it was against me, I point out that both my posts were 100% factually accurate. 1) The guy is a lawyer. I probably got that fact from the same article you read. I used the term 'whacko' as that was the term you used in your post. I personally was not calling anyone a whacko, which is why I used the quotes ... 2) Whether or not 'zealous' was an accurate or desirable adjective is debatable (if someone finds that a loaded word and wishes to remove it from the post that is fine, though I didn't use it to be inflamitory. In fact, I bet that many legal textbooks regularly use the term 'zealous' in describing how lawyer must act according to the law, and am certain that many lawyers, such as private defenders, would be disbarred if they were not zealous as advocates), but my second post was also accurate. Lawyers are, by job defifition, advocates (I suppose we all are, but as much by job definition and legal requirement). The mere fact that a common phrase is 'opposing lawyers' points out that not all lawyers are neccesarilly advocates of the same ideas (I understand and appreceate how the legal system works with opposing 'zealous' advocates of a side or idea producing a legal truth).

I was well aware that two of the posters in the thread were lawyers and was not trying to be provative or inflamatory. Besides, complaining about lawyers is such a cliche. For the record, I am also aware that that famous quote from a Shakespere was said by the bad guy in the play, and that it is ammusingly ironic that lawyer-bashers use it.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

People often quote Shakespeare's "First we kill all the lawyers," without realizing that the quote, taken in context, meant the first way to deprive the populace of their rights and liberties was to get rid of those who protect them, i.e. lawyers.
Yes there are a bunch of jerks out there practicing law, but there are also a lot of dedicated and caring individuals whose services are not appreciated by the lawyer-bashers. I am proud to be an attorney, I make no apologies. I have never wrongfully taken a dime from a client and have handled a lot of needy clients pro bono (no charge) when their circumstances tugged at the hearts strings but their pocketbooks were empty. In a recent poll, lawyers in general were not held in very high esteem by the public, but when those polled were asked to rate THEIR OWN PERSONAL lawyer, lawyers came off quite well. All lawyers have two things to thanks for the current view of attorneys:
1) Nixon and his band of crooks who were primarily attorneys
2) The ABA allowing wide-spread advertising which promotes the view of hucksterism and mercenary shysterism. If all those damn ads on tv, the radio, newspapers and telephone books were eliminated, we'd all, public and attorneys alike, be a helluva lot better off.
Just my 2 cents...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I don't havea problem with 'sue at will', but what I do have a problem with is the lack consiquences if the suer losers. Those cases are almost always contigency based and if lost, the only people out money are the lawyers. Now, if the suer had to foot the bill for the other side if they lost, I would be all for it. This would help put an end to a lot of frivilous lawsuits that don't even pass the laugh test.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Give me a break.

Think we're dumb? Ebay was sued because eBay has money. The only person sued should have been the one responsible - the person who made the negative feedback. But he probably doesn't have any money so a lawyer wouldn't take the case unless you go after eBay. If it wasn't for the person initiating the suit being a lawyer the case probably never would have gone to court. Someone said something bad about him in ebay negative feedback - so (bleeping) what! Did he loose clients? Does his wife hate him now? The point of restitution is to make up for damages. What did he loose? NOTHING! Yet he's a lawyer so the courts time is wasted because his wittle feewings were hurt. Poor baby. I have negative feedback from moochers who never paid. SO WHAT! My life didn't change a bit.

Why is ebay responsible for giving someone the means for some fool to abuse a portion of their operation?

A drunk driver in a Chevy hurts someone - can you sue Chevy for giving the drunk an opportunity to be on the road? NO!

Lawyers aren't maligned because they sue corporations for unsafe products or doctors who screw up. They are maligned because they sue to get millions of dollars for some fool who puts hot coffee between her legs in a car and - here's a shocker - gets burned, prison inmates because they couldn't get porno magazines and burglars who hurt themselves trying to rob a business.

Why did this case get to court? Adam, you summed it all up when you said, "someone rich who was ticked off".

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

It is always easy to find fault with all or nothing arguements. I strongly believe that the current tort system needs to be reformed. I guess my issue is with the concept of mass torts. If someone is injured they should sue. If they have a legitimate case and there is no cap on liability(which I don't think there should be) then there should be no difficulty in finding a lawyer to champion their cause. My problem with mass torts is that I think they compensate some people who deserve no compensation and overcompensate the attorneys. I also believe that awards in these cases should be decided by either judges or special panels of "experts". Leaving the decisions on awards up to twelve people who couldn't find an excuse to get out of jury duty that day seems a little crazy.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I'm surprised that you would advocate treating the symptom rather than the disease. Fix the problems with ebay and these little maggots that post unwarranted and libelous negative feedback won't be allowed to do so. It is well within ebay's capabilities to respond to complaints about feedback and to remove any that is questionable.

Ebay has tried to portray themselves as a giant flea market with few possible legal repercussions for member wrong-doings ("Hey, we're just providing the means for you people to get together and do business!"), yet they are perfectly willing to police any area where doing so can increase their revenue - they are hypocrites.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

My experience has been that my lawyers were very nice people who only wanted to promote good in the world, and my ex-wife's lawyers were a-holes. Oddly, my ex feels exactly the opposite.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Jay Behrens:
Requiring an unsuccessful plaintiff to "foot the bill" for defense fees would lead to innumerable injustices almost too great to calculate. Can you realistically believe Ford, GM, MCDonald's and corporate America would ever be sued by "the little guy" if he faced having to pay their gargantuan fees? Talk about potential litigation abuse.

As for frivolous cases, the rules and statutes already on the books provide that someone who pursues a frivolous claim may be required to pay the other side's fees. The fact that you seldom hear of such fees being awarded might be attributed to the fact that few cases are frivolous.

Pete:
Your remark about the McDonald's case is typical of that offered by many, and is utterly ignorant. Please type " McDonald's coffee" into your search engine and review any one of a number of reports about that case. For your convenience, you can try this one:
http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
One can argue all one wants about lawyer spin, but I challenge anyone to find their own source and show how the underlying facts are materially different than what is reported here. I believe that if you really knew what happened in that case, your opinion would change.

Jay Miller:
I have no problem with reviewing the processes involved in class action suits, but was really not aware that this was perceived as a significant issue in the tort reform debates. Good points to consider, however.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Just so you know, a person reputation is Constitutionally protected liberty interest. The day you take away a persons right to sue for this type of defamation, is the day our country falls apart. Whether the suits seem fruitless is between the persons involved and the court.

If he succeeded and there was a way to remove defamatory feedback from ebay without a huge hassle because of the law suit, I am sure everyone would take advantage of it eventually. So would it seem so ridiculous then?

Also, the McDonalds lady with the coffee. Most people don't know that McDonalds (that particular one) was repeatedly warned that their coffee was WAY to hot to meet health code standards and they ignored it every time. Not only did the lady receive 2nd degree burns to her genetal area, her damages were also reduced to the point where they barely covered her medical costs. But they don't publish or report on that in the evening news because then they would have to take back everything they had said about how messed up our legal system is.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

Todd, that's the point of having consiquences involved. If there really is merit to the case, then the lawyers will take on anyone, but if it's boarderline, then the lawyer is gonna think long and hard about pursing the case.

Example of a real case that was in the Sacramento paper years ago, an car saleman was sued for selling a high powered sportscar leading to the person being involved in an accident that left the person paralyzed. He claimed that the salesman should have made sure that he had the ability to drive such a car.

I am tired of lawsuits that are filed to try and put the blame on someone else so that they don't have to take responsiblity for their own stupid actions.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

With all due respect, I don't think you get it. Lawyers already think "long and hard" about taking cases, borderline or otherwise. They know they could lose, and have spent hundreds of hours over the span of a year or more, for absolutely no fee. That asessment is made every day by personal injury lawyers.

And don't fool yourself for a minute into thinking that defense attorneys (paid by the hour) are incapable or unwilling to drag a case along with various costly and delay oriented tactics, hoping to beat down the usual wage-earner Plaintiff or his lawyer into either going away or at least taking far less than what a case is truly worth if it made it to a jury.

Now, if I had to tell a client, in the opening interview, that not only could they lose the case and recover nothing, but that they could be on the hook for tens of thousands (or more) in the other side's fees, think how many cases would never be filed. Before you jump up and conclude that this would be a great result-- no more lawsuits, think about its natural effect on consumer safety issues and John Q. Public.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

I can see where this debate on lawyers could grow/drone on and on. Still, since this is a collector's forum, I have nothing more to post, although I would be willing to repsond to any e-mails on the subject. I'd rather move on to the land of the vintage.