Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[Yoda]

I feel pretty confident that when PWCC launches its' new platform, we will see an avalanche of PSA graded cards on offer and undoubtedly some will have been messed with. But if you offer them, they will come.
As big as Ebay is, I am sure they miss the revenue PWCC provided, and it obvious that vintage, maybe outside of Probstein, has dried up on Ebay. The simplest solution, of course, is to stop buying any PSA graded cards and move to SGC or Beckett. That is wishful thinking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I feel pretty confident that when PWCC launches its' new platform, we will see an avalanche of PSA graded cards on offer and undoubtedly some will have been messed with. But if you offer them, they will come.
As big as Ebay is, I am sure they miss the revenue PWCC provided, and it obvious that vintage, maybe outside of Probstein, has dried up on Ebay. The simplest solution, of course, is to stop buying any PSA graded cards and move to SGC or Beckett. That is wishful thinking.

What makes you think SGC or Beckett are any better at stopping altered cards?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What makes you think SGC or Beckett are any better at stopping altered cards?

It's more fun to join the psa bashing band wagon

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What makes you think SGC or Beckett are any better at stopping altered cards?

Peter, I don't think for a moment that SGC or Beckett has any magic formula for detecting and stopping altered cards from receiving anything but an A grade. But it seems that all of the scandals we have seen over the past few years, Moser, you name it, have almost always involved PSA graded cards, much less than the other two whose pop reports are suspect at best. Their slick marketing supports auction results, SMR and pop features. As many have said, PSA knows how to play Money Ball.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Peter, I don't think for a moment that SGC or Beckett has any magic formula for detecting and stopping altered cards from receiving anything but an A grade. But it seems that all of the scandals we have seen over the past few years, Moser, you name it, have almost always involved PSA graded cards, much less than the other two whose pop reports are suspect at best. Their slick marketing supports auction results, SMR and pop features. As many have said, PSA knows how to play Money Ball.

Me thinks because psa gets the most money hands down, people would try them first. The crap that doesnt pass filters down to sgc and the like and aome BIG ones have been outed

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Yoda

As big as Ebay is, I am sure they miss the revenue PWCC provided

Makes one think it was a big (legal?) issue for eBay to kick PWCC off.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

Makes one think it was a big (legal?) issue for eBay to kick PWCC off.

Or that eBay got wind of the fact that there were plans in the works at PWCC to leave eBay completely and set up their own auction platform, so eBay retaliated in classic eBay fashion. Who knows why they actually did it, but to cut ties so publicly in the way that they did sure makes one wonder.

One thing is certain though. The premise of the email was clearly bullshit. eBay has never given two shits about shill bidding in the past. This was most likely about something other than cracking down on shill bidding. Perhaps the FBI was breathing down their neck and the legal team felt they had to make a drastic move to cover their asses. Or perhaps they wanted to damage the brand of a soon-to-be competitor who was already on their way out the door. I think those are the two most plausible scenarios. Time will tell. If it is cracking down on shill bidding though, surely that will become apparent via further actions against shill bidding. And if it's the FBI breathing down their neck, that will become apparent once all these indictments start rolling in (any day now... any day now...). But if neither of those things happens, then the scale begins to tip quite heavily toward them just trying to damage the brand of a competitor. Stay tuned, IMO.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Or that eBay got wind of the fact that there were plans in the works at PWCC to leave eBay completely and set up their own auction platform, so eBay retaliated in classic eBay fashion. Who knows why they actually did it, but to cut ties so publicly in the way that they did sure makes one wonder.

One thing is certain though. The premise of the email was clearly bullshit. eBay has never given two shits about shill bidding in the past. This was most likely about something other than cracking down on shill bidding. Perhaps the FBI was breathing down their neck and the legal team felt they had to make a drastic move to cover their asses. Or perhaps they wanted to damage the brand of a soon-to-be competitor who was already on their way out the door. I think those are the two most plausible scenarios. Time will tell. If it is cracking down on shill bidding though, surely that will become apparent via further actions against shill bidding. And if it's the FBI breathing down their neck, that will become apparent once all these indictments start rolling in (any day now... any day now...). But if neither of those things happens, then the scale begins to tip quite heavily toward them just trying to damage the brand of a competitor. Stay tuned, IMO.

It is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand. Taking a dump on a competitor to damage their brand is called "trade libel" (publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments,LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376) and if a $10 billion company does it just to thwart a competitor it will find itself on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit. The fact that eBay did what it did publicly and loudly means that it has solid evidence in hand sufficient to allow their corporate counsel to greenlight a statement that is otherwise textbook trade libel.

[packs]

I think people have been trying to point out that a seller's individual gross revenue is not the revenue eBay generates. So if someone is doing a hundred million in sales eBay's revenue lives in the eBay fees generated by those sales. They are not equal and eBay's revenue is dependent on hundreds of thousands of sellers and not any one.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand. Taking a dump on a competitor to damage their brand is called "trade libel" (publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments,LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376) and if a $10 billion company does it just to thwart a competitor it will find itself on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit. The fact that eBay did what it did publicly and loudly means that it has solid evidence in hand sufficient to allow their corporate counsel to greenlight a statement that is otherwise textbook trade libel.

How can you possibly say that it is "definitely NOT that" though? I assume you're a lawyer. Pay attention to the language used in that email. Their claim is that "individuals associated with PWCC engaged in shill bidding". That's a remarkably broad statement that could easily just mean that people who consigned with PWCC bid on their own auctions. Surely, their legal team carefully crafted that email so as to avoid any such lawsuits. If they had proof that PWCC employees were the ones doing the shill bidding, then why not just say so? After all, as you said, surely they wouldn't make such a claim without proof. But they in fact did not make such a claim. Probably because they did not have such proof.

To walk away from that email and assume that eBay meant anything other than people who consigned with PWCC would be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions. If that is in fact who eBay was referring to when they said "individuals associated with", then I think what they did should be criminal and that it should be considered trade libel. I'm also of the belief, based on my experiences with eBay and the experiences of several of my friends who have worked there (some of whom were executives) that this is most likely what happened.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How can you possibly say that it is "definitely NOT that" though? I assume you're a lawyer. Pay attention to the language used in that email. Their claim is that "individuals associated with PWCC engaged in shill bidding". That's a remarkably broad statement that could easily just mean that people who consigned with PWCC bid on their own auctions. Surely, their legal team carefully crafted that email so as to avoid any such lawsuits. If they had proof that PWCC employees were the ones doing the shill bidding, then why not just say so? After all, as you said, surely they wouldn't make such a claim without proof. But they in fact did not make such a claim. Probably because they did not have such proof.

To walk away from that email and assume that eBay meant anything other than people who consigned with PWCC would be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions. If that is in fact who eBay was referring to when they said "individuals associated with", then I think what they did should be criminal and that it should be considered trade libel. I'm also of the belief, based on my experiences with eBay and the experiences of several of my friends who have worked there (some of whom were executives) that this is most likely what happened.

You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand." Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course I don't know, but like Adam my assumption would be that a corporation with a 50 billion dollar market cap would have internal controls such that a statement accusing a customer of shill bidding to be widely disseminated would be subject to rigorous review.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand." Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.

Clearly, I'm not a lawyer. I just take issue with your conclusion, not your language. I understand what you wrote. I just disagree with your claim that it is "definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand". I am not saying that definitely is, I'm simply saying that I don't think you can rule it out. I also am of the opinion that the likelihood of it being the sole intent of that email is actually quite high, but that's just a personal opinion. My disagreement comes from your use of the words "definitely not" rather than "probably not".

I think our disconnect comes from this statement here, where you wrote

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business.

To which I ask, "solid evidence to back up which statement"? The one that reads, "individuals associated with PWCC have engaged in shill bidding"? This is the phrase that matters. This is what the entire debate hinges on for me. Who are the "individuals associated with PWCC"? It is an entirely different claim to say that PWCC employees engaged in shill bidding than it is to say that random eBay users who consigned with them (which PWCC has no control over) engaged in shill bidding. Surely, you can appreciate the difference between those two claims.

There's a reason eBay's email was vaguely worded as to who actually committed the shill bidding. Perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but I don't think so.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand." Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.

+1,000

If PWCC does have anything even remotely not above board, they will not want to risk going to court and expose any of it. If they did, I can already picture FBI reps sitting in the front row at the trial taking notes.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It is definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand. Taking a dump on a competitor to damage their brand is called "trade libel" (publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. (City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments,LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376) and if a $10 billion company does it just to thwart a competitor it will find itself on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit. The fact that eBay did what it did publicly and loudly means that it has solid evidence in hand sufficient to allow their corporate counsel to greenlight a statement that is otherwise textbook trade libel.

I hear you Adam, and don't disagree. Also saw Snowman's response to you, and can see the logic in some of his statements as well.

I guess I'm wondering if a huge factor in all this is exactly what is in the terms of use (or whaver they call it) agreement all seller's have to agree to before selling on Ebay. I haven't seen their current rules of what Ebay sellers must agree to and abide by. Also, because of the size/volume of PWCC's sales on their platform and the special sweetheart deal they apparently gave them on fees, is it not possible that Ebay could have had a special operating deal in place with PWCC that goes beyond the standard terms of use agreement they give to everyone else to sign off on? If so, there could be something in it that specifically protects Ebay from trade libel for determining and doing what they did. I guess one way we may find out is if PWCC were to ever bring a lawsuit against Ebay for being booted off their site by them.

But as others have speculated, I find it difficult to believe Ebay's lawyers weren't involved with this PWCC situation from start, and would be shocked if they hadn't already addressed this potential libel issue to make sure Ebay was protected in some way or manner. Again, I guess time will tell.