Should eBay be responsible for fake goods on its site?

I would certainly have more faith in ebay if this ruling was applied having received 2 fake items from ebay sellers who subsequently deleted their accounts. It wasn’t for very much (a rare cd – copied + a t-shirt) but it was enough to put me off ebay for ages.

I only use it now to sell my old bangers, works a treat for that.

Ebay generally got tiresome though, even if you drill down to exactly the items you want, there were still plenty of items like badges, accessories, generic items all listed in the specific category.

As long as eBay ( and the likes) provide an easy and quick way for suspicious items to be flagged and removed quickly then they shouldnt be liable.

However there is also a danger that “large companies” will attempt to stop the sale of any of its goods online , even 2nd hand items from private sellers, by bombarding eBay with claims of “possibly fake”.

I do think ebay could do more in enforcing the requirements for name and address details to be displayed by sellers who are obviously “in business”.

Difficult this one, if u buy goods from a franchise operating within a large department store which subsequently turn out to be unfit for purpose or fake then who do u sue? The department store or the franchise holder who may well have disappeared?
Surely ebay is the same as the department store. My personal view is it’s up to the department store or ebay to vet the vendor before allowing them to use the premises or the auction site however are they liable in law? I sense lawyers starting to salivate lol

I received a fake PS3 controller, and initially the seller was very apologetic, and said it was an honest mistake. However he spun it out for more than 60 days by a combination of late replies and my holidays at which point he ceased communication. It urned out that this is the period at which Ebay and Paypal cease to care, so I had to get a refund from my credit card company who were very good.

Normally the retailer should be responsible for what it sells. So is eBay a retailer or is it simply an on line portal for retailers? If you purchased a fake item from an advert in a local newspaper, is that newspaper liable?

I think the answer has to be no to those questions. The purchaser has to gain redress from the seller or on failure from the credit card or Pay Pal.

But eBay (and the local newspaper) should take some responsibility in ensuring that sellers are genuine and that they should investigate and ban sellers when cases of miss-selling are proven.

The purchasing of key words does muddy the waters though. Is eBay doing this to increase its own business or is it being paid by the sellers to help promote the sellers’ businesses? If it is the former, then this is no different than a newspaper advertising itself to increase its own circulation. If it is the latter, then L’Oreal is correct and eBay has overstepped its position.

i think Ebay should buy the most faked items from random sellers and pass on any fakes/sellers details to police just to keep dodgy sellers aware of the consequences.

Similarly to a previous post,If I put a note in a newsagent’s window selling my car, you can hardly blame the newsagent if my tyres are bald. Likewise if I place a misleading ad in a magazine, I am liable for misrepresentation, not the magazine. So how is eBay different to this? I think they should make sure they know the identity of the seller and that any legitimate complaints are supported by them fully by providing evidence and document trails for the police but beyond that, why should they be liable for other people’s criminality? The same goes for all the attempts to sue isp’s for uploaded content. No one tries to sue BT for what is said over their telephone lines!