eBay Buyer Sued For Leaving Negative Feedback on $6.44 Item

[michael3322]

Couldn't believe it when I read it, so thought I would share it.

Orange County man sued over negative eBay feedback
May 23, 2012

[esd10]

that's crazy

[Jay Wolt]

Buyer waited over 30 days w/o receiving item before posting his negative feedback.
It wasn't like he left it after 48 hours.

[3-2-count]

Man I gotta become a lawyer.

[Leon]

This should go back to the absolute defense of libel or slander being the "truth". As long as the guy that gave the negative is being 100% truthful then he shouldn't have anything to worry about. It's still a hassle and in some states the loser of particular lawsuits has to pay both legal fees (I believe). Hopefully that is what will happen there. The only negatives I have ever given on ebay were for a few small items I bought that were just out and out theft. I think the 2-3 sellers I neg'd got booted quickly afterwards.

It is worth repeating that everyone is legally liable for what they say on this board too. Believe me, there have been threads on this board used in court cases already. I will be happy to work with any authorities on these issues. I have had calls from Postal Inspectors, USPS Special Agents, FBI and local authorities. It is always my pleasure to help them in their investigations.

[yanksfan09]

The world keeps getting crazier.....uh oh hope Mother Earth don't sue me now....please delete

[brickyardkennedy]

Not the best way to attract customers.

[Exhibitman]

Ebay's feedback system has become a bad joke I don't even bother with. When I have a problem with a seller I just file a paypal claim and leave it at that.

Remember, just because someone has the $ to file a lawsuit doesn't mean he will win it. "Mere opinion" is not a basis for a defamation or trade libel claim and truth is a defense. The plaintiff still has to prove a case.

What's really going on when a business targets a critic often is a strategic lawsuit against public participation--we call it a SLAPP suit--which is litigation filed to scare people into not expressing views that might damage a commercial interest. The theory is that if you sue a vocal critic and subject him to ruinous attorneys' fees and costs you can scare everyone else into not commenting. A case like that filed in CA is subject to a motion to dismiss on the basis of CA's anti-SLAPP law, which provides for an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing defendant. I handled a case like that some years ago for a N54 member:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2005...lifornia-judge

[drc]

If you are a restaurant owner, beating the crap out of a random customer might prove a point, but it won't help your business.