Referencing the current results (subject to change) of the attempt to impose a PayPal only payment process on eBay Australia which eBay has been told by the Australian government it could not implement and the latest $63 Million fine by a French court for not properly policing the eBay site for counterfeits Dee reminded us;

eBay: In France – “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.”

The ACCC in Australia to eBay: ‘‘consumers are in the best position to determine which service offers the best features… consumers are in the best position to decide which payment method is most suitable for them.”

eBay in France: “We believe that the overreach manifests itself through an attempt to impose, in France, a business model that restricts consumer choice through an anti-competitive business practice.”

Dee says: “Replace ‘in France’ with ‘in Australia’ and you’ve discovered eBay hypocrisy at its ugliest.”

Sorry folks, you still can’t have your cake and eat it too…

Post from: EveryJoe

Australian Cake Eaten In France – eBay Wants It Both Ways

Developments In eBay Plan To Go PayPal Only

“The Australian IT website reported that eBay Australia sent a “strongly worded” letter this week to users warning that failure to comply with the new policy would result in an immediate removal of product listings and repeatedly emphasizing the deadline.”

After they told everyone that the date for implementation of the new policy would be pushed back to July. So, eBay feels powerful enough to countermand the Australian government though they had said they would work with the ACCC to come to an amicable solution.

Solution be damned – full speed ahead – we care not about your ACCC – height of obnoxiousness.

Post from: EveryJoe

Approaching The Height Of Arrogance!

Australia Says No to eBay’s PayPal-Only Policy

“The Australian government told eBay it could not implement its PayPal-only policy in Australia next week and would make a final determination on the matter. It issued a 42-page draft notice today that said consumers are in the best position to determine which service offers the best features. The agency waded through submissions by eBay buyers and sellers, online payment providers, financial industry organizations and other interested parties.”

Ooops! In another article on the same topic, Ina quotes the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Graeme Samuel, saying something that strikes me regarding consumers and their best interests. eBay really tried to give the impression that the consumers’ interests were at the heart of their changes. Well, Mr. Samuel says;

“While the organization (the ACCC) believes a PayPal-only policy has the potential to deliver some benefits to users, such as increased buyer protection insurance in certain circumstances, it believes that ‘consumers are in the best position to decide which payment method is most suitable for them.’”

I.E. eBay ought to leave the consumers’ best interests to what the consumer wants, not what eBay wants, or – Do you think eBay might have had a self-centered motive? :)

Post from: EveryJoe

Australia Tells eBay – Rethink Your PayPal-Only Plan

Ina Steiner at Auctionbytes gives us the scoop;

OZtion Sees Sales Spike after eBay Plans PayPal-Only Policy

“OZtion, an online auction site based in Australia, issued a press release to announce it has seen a 50% increase in sales for the month of May compared to the month of March. The company has seen a significant increase in sales since eBay Australia announced in April that all items must be paid for using PayPal.”

Ouch – 50%??? Could statistics be misleading? It doesn’t look like it as Ina also tells us;

“It has experienced a 65% increase in Gross Merchandise Volume (the value of merchandise traded), and has 670,000 items listed for sale.”

That’ll work…

[image from OZtion itself]

Post from: EveryJoe

Dr. Phil Might Be Asking eBay…

We’ll take a look at the second court determined legal standard, the Per Se Test.

In Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court found that illegal restraints can sometimes fall outside a rule of reason analysis. In such cases carefully defined categories of restraint are illegal per se because “their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused.” Related is the Socony Vacuum Oil Company case (1940) in which the Court found that even though there were previous specific exceptions, tampering with price structure is nonetheless illegal, and stated “raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate and foreign commerce is illegal per se.”

Pernicious: Causing much harm in a subtle way.

Speaking of subtle harm, this announcement regarding eBay from AuctionBytes certainly might be of interest;

eBay Australia Files Response to PayPal-Only Policy Complaints

“eBay Australia has filed its response to submissions to the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding its PayPal-only policy slated to go into effect next month. The company rejected claims from sellers, banks, competitors and other organizations that the policy would lessen competition in the online payments market and that the public benefits were illusory.

eBay Australia said in its filing, “No party has adequately demonstrated that the benefits submitted by eBay as resulting from the Project will not outweigh any likely detrimental effect on competition.”

Post from: EveryJoe

Restraint of Trade – The Per Se Test