[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

There's no question and can be no serious debate that there's material and concrete deception involved in eBay shilling, in that there is material difference between the way the bidding was run and the way bidding rules were stated (eBay rules stating the auction forbids shilling, plus the seller not stating he would be shilling). There can be no debate that the seller broke the stated rules for the auction, and if the bidders had been told shilling would be allowed they would not have placed bids. At the very least, the bidders would would not have placed the max bid they were shilled up to.

If the above case was brought to small claims court and shilling was legal, the auction winner would still receive a refund as the seller broke the stated rules for the auction. The judge would say the auction winner was deceived out of money by the seller's covert breaking of the rules. The judge would understand and appreciate that the winner would have bid differently, if at all, if he had been informed how the auction was going to really be run.

Whatever one's pro-shilling arguments are, if you tell a bidder there is no shilling then shill them, you've deceived him. If this bidder can prove you broke the stated auction rules by shilling up the price, he'll win his money back about every time in court. It's not just a matter of shilling being legal or illegal, but that you broke the stated rules of the auction.

And if you auction on eBay, all of your auctions have explicit rules that state the seller does not shill.