New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Setting aside the fact that undisclosed shill bidding is illegal in OR where PWCC operated, we can argue about the margins of what is tolerable on the spectrum between the auctioneer driving up the bid using 'house' accounts and inside information about the actual bidders' maximums (Mastro) and a consignor having a friend bid to a specific level w/o the auctioneer's participation and if there is an actual risk of having to 'buy' the card from the auctioneer (i.e., pay for it and take delivery).

My view is that if you want to have a reserve auction, have one. If you want to set a floor on a card, set it. But don't claim to sell in an absolute auction and then engage in or tolerate shilling to put a floor under the item. Just doesn't smell right to me. Again, legalities aside.

As for comps, I agree with Leon when it comes to rare items. There are no comps, so fighting over the price is silly because I am not going to negotiate over it. Modern cards are so commoditized that comps are ubiquitous. I have four apps available on my phone plus eBay to check prices. All I hear at shows from modern card shoppers is “Card Ladder this” and “Wax Stat that”, and at the last show I attended every table had at least a customer or two furiously fingering something at his crotch (oh, get your minds out of the gutter; I mean their phones, checking comps).

I get the argument that if my specific item is shilled such that it drives up the amount I pay, then I’ve been screwed and have damages.

What I’m less convinced about is the generally inflated market has caused me damages that I should be able to collect. As an analogy, just because some people are willing to pay $20 for a dozen eggs at Whole Paycheck doesn’t mean that I have damages because I pay $5 per dozen for mine at the regular Joe grocery store, even though the price for my eggs was influenced by the fact that some people pay a whole lot more for their eggs at Whole Paycheck.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I get the argument that if my specific item is shilled such that it drives up the amount I pay, then I’ve been screwed and have damages.

What I’m less convinced about is the generally inflated market has caused me damages that I should be able to collect. As an analogy, just because some people are willing to pay $20 for a dozen eggs at Whole Paycheck doesn’t mean that I have damages because I pay $5 per dozen for mine at the regular Joe grocery store, even though the price for my eggs was influenced by the fact that some people pay a whole lot more for their eggs at Whole Paycheck.

A price umbrella is a thing in economics/antitrust law. In other words, where dominant firms price fix or otherwise charge supra-competitive prices, the theory goes that customers of other firms are also harmed because those firms are able to raise their prices too. Is it hard to prove? Absolutely.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A price umbrella is a thing in economics/antitrust law. In other words, where dominant firms price fix or otherwise charge supra-competitive prices, the theory goes that customers of other firms are also harmed because those firms are able to raise their prices too. Is it hard to prove? Absolutely.

Fun stuff.

I guess we’ll see how this suit plays out, including whether they can get anything to stick. Even if they can’t win, I think we’ll all be interested in any testimony or evidence introduced into the record.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Fun stuff.

I guess we’ll see how this suit plays out, including whether they can get anything to stick. Even if they can’t win, I think we’ll all be interested in any testimony or evidence introduced into the record.

I would love to know who is providing the information that's the basis of the complaint and the extent to which they can back it up -- and who they will implicate.