Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. And the reason they didn't sue for libel is because ebay's lawyers were careful when crafting that email by saying, "individuals associated with PWCC" were shill bidding. In other words, their consigners (ebay's responsibility, not PWCC's) were shilling their own cards. Also, ebay has had a decades long track record of actively enabling shill bidding on their platform. And PWCC has a fully built out auction platform up and running literally one month later. A custom built in house website that had been in development for the better part of a year. This is not just coincidence. There is zero chance that PWCC was kicked off for shilling cards themselves.
|
I think unless you are a party to either side's legal team, it is pure speculation on your part. "Individuals associated with PWCC" could mean far more than just consignors. It could include employees of PWCC too. It is a matter of convenience for you to conclude eBay was referring to only consignors.
Despite the impressive numbers PWCC did on eBay, they represented a immaterial amount of eBay's bottom line. With that said, I am sure eBay did not want PWCC taking their sales to their own site but if that was a violation of the agreement PWCC had with eBay, namely they will not compete, and then they went ahead and competed, why can't eBay simply steer clear of a potential libel suit and just say, PWCC violated terms and boot them?
Anyway, glad you got made whole by ML. Great to hear that they did the right thing. I still contend it was a complete oversight.