eBay: pro-choice, but only when it suits

Angus Kidman
01 July 2008, 12:50 PM


eBay is screaming blue murder over being banned from selling Louis Vuitton goods by a French court... meanwhile it is pushing on with banning all payment methods except PayPal.


What's the difference between letting people choose between who they buy handbags from and letting them choose how they pay for them? According to eBay, the former is a cornerstone of consumer choice it is determined to keep fighting for, but the latter merely leads to insecure shopping and it will battle on to restrict your rights in this area.

eBay getting whacked with a 40 million Euro (AUD$65million) fine for allowing the sale of faked luxury goods from French brands owned by Louis Vuitton has been all over Internet news sites. It would be hard to present the LVMH group of companies as being in favour of consumer choice in this area. Not only is LVMH opposed to counterfeits (which is fair enough), it's also opposed to anyone other than its authorised representatives reselling even legitimate products. Viva le revolution!

eBay naturally doesn't like this, and is planning to appeal. The company's press release describes the finding as an "overreach" and continues: "Today's ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday."

Yes, the hollow laughter can be heard all the way from Perth to Prosperine. Choice apparently is a good idea when it comes to what you can buy, but not when it comes to how you pay for it, especially in Australia.

While eBay has reluctantly backed down from imposing its PayPal-and-nothing-else policy after a strict talking to from the ACCC, it hasn't officially abandoned the policy. A public meeting in Sydney to discuss issues with the ACCC doesn't seem to have advanced the cause much, and certainly hasn't done much to neutralise the increasing toxicity of the eBay brand.

Let's look to that statement again. "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce . . . Overzealous enforcement of restrictive sales practices are anti-competitive and give consumers a bad deal." Truly, the pot and kettle joke writes itself.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Ahh eBay .... Once a trusted and helpful friend .... You sure do know how to shoot yourselves in the foot ! Which is a feat (pun intended) because it's usually in your mouth !

01 July 2008, 1:41 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Telstra is the same. They are all for 3rd party access to infrastructure when they aren't the owner.

With regard to this ebay thing... Is the ban on all sales of that brand, or just sales of goods that are "new in box" as they say? Because I can totally understand them wanting to restrict access to the brand new items, since bad sales reflects badly on the manufacturer with these higher class products.

01 July 2008, 1:43 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

mel6662 (New user):

e-bays use of private investigators posing as e bay members to catch sellers out is this legal

13 July 2010, 7:36 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user