Ebay eliminating buyer protection for non paypal users
fr...@frankcoins.com
eBay will double PayPal Buyer Protection on its site, offering up to
$2,000 of coverage for qualified transactions on eBay.com, but is
eliminating buyer-protection for non-PayPal transactions. The move is a
dramatic effort by eBay to push buyers to use its PayPal online-payment
service at a time when it faces increasing competition from Google
Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.
-------------------------
Frank Provasek Rare Coins
http://www.frankcoins.com Ebay FRANKCOINS
Member ANA, Texas Numismatic Assoc, Texas Coin Dealers Assoc
PC
<fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:1168458997....@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> it faces increasing competition from Google
> Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.
>
It sounds like they are standing on shaky legal ground by not allowing other
payment options. Not that I am a lawyer nor do I play one on usenet.
gogu
news:1168458997....@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> from AuctionBytes.com January 10, 2007
>
>
> eBay will double PayPal Buyer Protection on its site, offering up to
> $2,000 of coverage for qualified transactions on eBay.com, but is
> eliminating buyer-protection for non-PayPal transactions. The move is a
> dramatic effort by eBay to push buyers to use its PayPal online-payment
> service at a time when it faces increasing competition from Google
> Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.
And I thought that there were severe laws regarding free competition in the
US;-)
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
Bruce Remick
>
>
> eBay will double PayPal Buyer Protection on its site, offering up to
> $2,000 of coverage for qualified transactions on eBay.com, but is
> eliminating buyer-protection for non-PayPal transactions. The move is a
> dramatic effort by eBay to push buyers to use its PayPal online-payment
> service at a time when it faces increasing competition from Google
> Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.
I'm glad I already initiated a reimbursement claim with eBay for
non-delivery in a non-PayPal transaction. First problem in ten years;
never had one in coin dealings. I may be able to go another ten years
without one if I only bid in coin auctions. Not!
Bruce
Ian
Not every comment on legalities and legal issues come from lawyers, as
is readily evidenced by your statement (above).
Thankfully for society as a whole, last time I looked you don't have to
be a lawyer to have a valid viewpoint. That is not to say that lawyers
necessarily have a valid viewpoint in the first place although you might
occasionally find that they do.
All caveats aside, I am compelled to ask what on earth possesses you to
believe and subsequently state that `they' (ebay) are standing on shaky
legal ground? Your reasoning please?
PC
"Ian" <I...@somewhereovertherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:Cypph.34506$MO2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> All caveats aside, I am compelled to ask what on earth possesses you to
> believe and subsequently state that `they' (ebay) are standing on shaky
> legal ground? Your reasoning please?
>
OK interesting that you offer no opinion on this but want me to lay the
cards down, so to speak.
I don't know about Scotland but in the U.S. we have laws against monopolies.
Monopolies can be vertical in nature. Take Standard Oil as the classic
example. By not allowing other payment options, and aggressively pushing
e-Bay users to use only PayPal, they are free to add whatever surcharges
they want for the privilege of using their shady (my opinion) PayPal
service. This sounds like a vertical monopoly to me. e-Bay gets you coming
and going. They take when you list, they take when your item sells, and now
they take when you get paid.
Happy?
Ian
Put it this way, I understand what your viewpoint is now that you have
troubled yourself to explain it.
I don't have a perspective on the legality or otherwise as it affects
you in the US. I will venture to say however that ebay does not appear
to be preventing anyone from using alternative forms of payment.
Discouraging them, perhaps. Preventing them...no. As such they do not
appear to be even close to approximating a monopoly (vertical or
otherwise) with regards to `payment'. What I `think' is happening here
is that ebay is refusing to facilitate (through its site) the services
of a competitor. I would have thought that it had the legitimate
business right to do so. Now, I would imagine it would be a different
kettle of fish if they were to start telling people that the only method
they could use to pay for items bought on ebay was `paypal'. THAT would
be very shaky legal ground in any civilised country IMHO. As it is they
are merely refusing to support their main competitor by denying them
access to their market via the back door. A seller could quite easily
email the buyer and say that they could pay by whatever method is
acceptable to them. if that included google, then it has nothing to do
with ebay whatsoever. There is no obligation to use ebay's email,
payment tracking system, or indeed paypal.
While ebay could make life easier by supporting more options, I don't
see any logical reason why they should be compelled to provide their
competitors *free* access to business they had no part whatsoever in
generating.
I'm all for `competition' in order to keep prices as low as is possible.
It's really up to the competition to market their wares and provide
viable alternative solutions though. Maybe if everyone thought google
offered the best payment method, then google might be encouraged to
develop an auction site to go along with it..........THAT would something.
PC
*snippage*
> There is no obligation to use ebay's email, payment tracking system, or
> indeed paypal.
>
I never said there was an obligation. They do appear to be making it more
and more difficult all the time. That could be enough.
> While ebay could make life easier by supporting more options, I don't see
> any logical reason why they should be compelled to provide their
> competitors *free* access to business they had no part whatsoever in
> generating.
>
Other merchants accept this all the time.
.
Ian
>
> Other merchants accept this all the time.
>
Ebay sellers are the merchants in this case though.
As previously mentioned, Ebay sellers can accept payment via whatever
source is best suited to them. The transaction is between them and the
seller.
fr...@frankcoins.com
On Jan 12, 2:48 am, Ian <I...@somewhereovertherainbow.com> wrote:
> PC wrote: (snip)
>
> > Other merchants accept this all the time.Ebay sellers are the merchants in this case though.
>
> As previously mentioned, Ebay sellers can accept payment via whatever
> source is best suited to them. The transaction is between them and the
> seller.
Ebay sellers are prohibited from accepting Google payments...
PC
<fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:1169719903....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You don't have to even go all the way to being a monopoly for the government
to crack down. Just keep slowly pushing everyone to use PayPal only and
eventually they just might get stung.
RayCanada
Canada they reported that E-Bay had sales of 1.6 Billion and made
something like 361million in profit and that paypal usage had increased
by 26 percent. I'm sorry I can't remember what their profit was, but I
do remember the newstory saying that Paypal had been increasing it's
market share and profits for it's parent company E-Bay.
So I would imagine this is just another way to increase profits, as
from the perspective of a buyer, I'm going to use the payment option
that allows me the most protection. I use Paypal even though I'm not
keen on it because it does offer some limted protection, what I would
like to see happen though is that they become regulated under banking
laws, as I think there is a lot of things they do that are shady. Here
are a few examples in my opinion. They say the have no fee's for the
buyer but thier exchange rate is all ways at least 2.5 to 3 percent
below the posted rate the banks give for customers to buy at. When I
pay by an E-Check they take the money out of my bank account the same
day or the following day, but hold on to it for ten days in the mean
time they send the seller an E-mail saying it will take 4 days here is
a copy of a recent purchase. I removed parts of it to keep the seller
info private and my name and such.
This eCheck Payment will remain "Uncleared" until the funds have
cleared from the sender's account, which usually takes 4 business days.
If
you are shipping an item, please do not ship your item until the funds
have cleared into your PayPal account. You will be notified by email
when the funds have cleared into your PayPal balance.
This is what it says in my Paypal account.
Total Amount:
-$38.33 USD
Date:
Jan. 22, 2007
Time:
00:28:35 PST
Status:
Uncleared(Expected Clearing Date: Jan. 30, 2007)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion From:
-$46.15 CAD
Conversion To:
$38.33 USD
Exchange Rate:
1 Canadian Dollar = 0.830564 U.S. Dollars
Thats the same transaction, I have just not posted the seller
information or my banking information. I don't like what Paypal does
and with that I think it's an outright lie to the seller and on my end
I feel it's a debit transaction, they have the funds they just don't
give them to the seller for ten days in my opinion they do this to play
the money markets, from my perspective the seller should get my payment
the moment the money leaves my bank account. They only reason I still
use paypal is for the limited amount of fraud protection that I would
not get if I used other payments.
On Jan 10, 2:56 pm, f...@frankcoins.com wrote:
> from AuctionBytes.com January 10, 2007
>
> eBay will double PayPal Buyer Protection on its site, offering up to
> $2,000 of coverage for qualified transactions on eBay.com, but is
> eliminating buyer-protection for non-PayPal transactions. The move is a
> dramatic effort by eBay to push buyers to use its PayPal online-payment
> service at a time when it faces increasing competition from Google
> Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.
>
> -------------------------
> Frank Provasek Rare Coinshttp://www.frankcoins.comEbay FRANKCOINS
RayCanada
Mon,Jan,22,2007.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Member ANA, Texas Numismatic Assoc, Texas Coin Dealers Assoc- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
PC
"RayCanada" <ray197...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169752110....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thats the same transaction, I have just not posted the seller
> information or my banking information. I don't like what Paypal does
> and with that I think it's an outright lie to the seller and on my end
> I feel it's a debit transaction, they have the funds they just don't
> give them to the seller for ten days in my opinion they do this to play
> the money markets, from my perspective the seller should get my payment
> the moment the money leaves my bank account.
Very well stated. I agree this is shady. They also aggressively push
people out of personal accounts into merchant accounts so they can pick your
pocket everytime you do a transaction with them.
Another thing I *ABSOLUTELY HATE* is how they make it very inconvenient as a
buyer to switch to a credit card instead of snatching from your bank
account. Then they put up that BS warning about how you are more protected
by PayPal. Absolute lie in my view.
I like to use a card that kicks back miles to me. Every once in a while I
am not paying attention and make a large payment through PayPal and forget
to switch to a credit card. No matter how fast you close that browser after
hitting submit it will not help. Too late. They should allow you to set a
preferred payment as a default but they won't because it gives them less of
a chance to bilk you out of your money.
RWF
On Jan 10, 5:30 pm, "PC" <PCame...@Cincinnati.oh.us> wrote:
> <f...@frankcoins.com> wrote in messagenews:1168458997....@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > it faces increasing competition from Google
> > Checkout, a method it prohibits sellers from accepting on its site.It sounds like they are standing on shaky legal ground by not allowing other
> payment options. Not that I am a lawyer nor do I play one on usenet.
Nobody is forced to use eBay.
It's their ball and their game.
PC
"RWF" <rwfemail2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169766831.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
*sigh*
Please go learn what a monopoly (or near monopoly) is and come back to the
discussion.