I was told it was a reprint..

[pbspelly]

As a lawyer who happens to focus on false advertising, I find these kinds of listings fascinating. Regardless of what disclaimers a person puts in their ad, the key question is usually going to be what is the net impression a reasonable consumer would take away? Here, I think you would be hard pressed to say that a reasonable consumer would feel that the seller was "claiming" the card to be real. On the other hand, I think a lot of reasonable consumers would say the seller was claiming that there is a chance it could be real. In that respect, then, the claim is deceptive, since, presumably, the seller knows that it isn't real, and knows that there is no possibility of being real. Still, it would be pretty tough to argue that the consumer was taken advantage of, since a consumer who bought it thinking it was real was buying it hoping, themselves, to take advantage of a seller's mistake.

From an ethical standpoint, though, I do think these kinds of listings are unethical. If the seller knows that a card is a copy, I think it is wrong to deliberately list it in such a way that someone might mistakenly think you were wrong. But it is an interesting issue. At least to me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

As a lawyer who happens to focus on false advertising, I find these kinds of listings fascinating. Regardless of what disclaimers a person puts in their ad, the key question is usually going to be what is the net impression a reasonable consumer would take away? Here, I think you would be hard pressed to say that a reasonable consumer would feel that the seller was "claiming" the card to be real. On the other hand, I think a lot of reasonable consumers would say the seller was claiming that there is a chance it could be real. In that respect, then, the claim is deceptive, since, presumably, the seller knows that it isn't real, and knows that there is no possibility of being real. Still, it would be pretty tough to argue that the consumer was taken advantage of, since a consumer who bought it thinking it was real was buying it hoping, themselves, to take advantage of a seller's mistake.

From an ethical standpoint, though, I do think these kinds of listings are unethical. If the seller knows that a card is a copy, I think it is wrong to deliberately list it in such a way that someone might mistakenly think you were wrong. But it is an interesting issue. At least to me.

These little ploys on ebay could make a book. It's interesting to me too.

[drcy]

It's an annoying and unethical ebay sale no doubt, but a buyer would have an impossible time winning a lawsuit considering the seller say he's selling it as a reprint, the back of the holder says it's a reproduction, the seller specifically tells bidders to read the disclaimer on the back of the holder, and nowhere does he say he's offering an original.

I have seen where sellers strongly imply a reprint is authentic or that they believe it to be a reprint, but "have to sell it as a reprint because it's not graded." You know, the old "My local card shop owner says it looks real, but according to eBay rules I must sell it as a reprint for $999." That's crossing the border into clear cut scamming land.

You can break the law without saying without saying whether or not something is original. The law says if you know it's a reprint (and especially if you made it yourself) you have to clearly say you're selling a reprint. Saying "I never said it was original. It the buyer thought that that's his fault" is not an excuse, in particularly when you in so many words implied that the item was or could be real. A big art forger went to prison after trying to use that as a defense. He never said his artificially aged to look centuries old creations were originals, but he never corrected buyers when they thought they were. There's a thing called lying by omission.

[JustinD]

I also get annoyed at pages of this junk, with the majority having completely misleading descriptions. If someone wants it, they should be relegated to buying it from a replica site, much like a fake Rolex.

I don't understand how these continue to be so prevalent when ebay has specific rules forbidding this that are completely unenforced.

This link clearly outlines these as against ebay rules -

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...unterfeit.html

"We don't allow replicas, counterfeit items, or unauthorized copies to be listed on eBay. Unauthorized copies may include things that are bootlegged, illegally duplicated, or pirated. These kinds of things may infringe on someone's copyright or trademark."

Every one of these should be removed the moment it is listed.