Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How successful was this auction site before that though? Was he a real player in this space? I'd never even heard of them before BODA posted about it.

I bid on and won some cards thru Small Tradition. Never a problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I bid on and won some cards thru Small Tradition. Never a problem.

What does that prove?

[packs]

I'm sure there is more to the story but it will have nothing to do with this idea that PWCC was starting a competing platform and eBay booted them before they could be bankrupted by it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm sure there is more to the story but it will have nothing to do with this idea that PWCC was starting a competing platform and eBay booted them before they could be bankrupted by it.

If I had to guess at this point, I would guess that ebay wanted to dissociate itself from PWCC and Brent because bad things are going to happen to them on the legal front. Just a guess.

[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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I had to guess at this point, I would guess that ebay wanted to dissociate itself from PWCC and Brent because bad things are going to happen to them on the legal front. Just a guess.

That would be my guess. I don't have a guess as to why people want to portray the PWCC platform as being more than it is though.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What does that prove?

I was just relaying my experience. Didn't realize I needed to "prove" something.

[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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

This notion that PWCC was or is a threat to eBay's business is absurd. eBay does not only sell sports memorabilia and the sports memorabilia it does sell makes up a fraction of it's entire revenue. There is no competing with eBay. It's like saying Yahoo is competing with Google. They both exist, but they're not in competition with each other.

Of course PWCC is a threat to ebay's business. They did something like 150 million in revenue in just the first half of 2021 alone. And all those cards that they're selling are in their possession, in their vault. They weren't just the largest seller of sports cards on ebay, they were the largest seller by a long shot. They were also one of ebay's largest sellers in any category, not just cards. When PWCC launches their new platform, they're taking that business with them. Ebay stands to lose a significant revenue stream if those cards are no longer being sold on their platform. Is it going to bankrupt eBay? No, of course not. But it's definitely a kick in the balls to their wallet. Plus, if PWCC is successful, and if they are able to provide a platform with even lower selling fees, they could end up gaining a much larger share of that market in the future. It is without question in ebay's best interest to do whatever they can to ensure this doesn't happen. Ebay is also well known for playing dirty. Cutting off their competition and capping them at the knees by sending out an email blast to all of PWCC's buyers is precisely the sort of calculated move I would expect from eBay. They've earned their reputation for a reason. As has PWCC. Which of the various theories, if any, turn out to be true in the end, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But you'd be foolish to think that PWCC poses no threat to ebay's business. Even myslabs.com poses a threat to ebay. Hell, myslabs just cost ebay $350 yesterday when I sold just one card on their platform that I otherwise would have sold through ebay. Those fees add up quick.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Of course PWCC is a threat to ebay's business. They did something like 150 million in revenue in just the first half of 2021 alone. And all those cards that they're selling are in their possession, in their vault. They weren't just the largest seller of sports cards on ebay, they were the largest seller by a long shot. They were also one of ebay's largest sellers in any category, not just cards. When PWCC launches their new platform, they're taking that business with them. Ebay stands to lose a significant revenue stream if those cards are no longer being sold on their platform. Is it going to bankrupt eBay? No, of course not. But it's definitely a kick in the balls to their wallet. Plus, if PWCC is successful, and if they are able to provide a platform with even lower selling fees, they could end up gaining a much larger share of that market in the future. It is without question in ebay's best interest to do whatever they can to ensure this doesn't happen. Ebay is also well known for playing dirty. Cutting off their competition and capping them at the knees by sending out an email blast to all of PWCC's buyers is precisely the sort of calculated move I would expect from eBay. They've earned their reputation for a reason. As has PWCC. Which of the various theories, if any, turn out to be true in the end, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But you'd be foolish to think that PWCC poses no threat to ebay's business. Even myslabs.com poses a threat to ebay. Hell, myslabs just cost ebay $350 yesterday when I sold just one card on their platform that I otherwise would have sold through ebay. Those fees add up quick.

What? If PWCC did 150 million in gross sales on eBay, what percentage of those sales do you think eBay kept? Let's say it was 5% across the board and that would be a very high number, I think. That is 7.5 million of eBay's over 10 billion in gross revenue. I would not call that a threat to eBay's bottom line...in the least. They already forgot he is gone.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

What? If PWCC did 150 million in gross sales on eBay, what percentage of those sales do you think eBay kept? Let's say it was 5% across the board and that would be a very high number, I think. That is 7.5 million of eBay's over 10 billion in gross revenue. I would not call that a threat to eBay's bottom line...in the least. They already forgot he is gone.

The threat isn't necessarily that they take a large chunk of Ebay's business, the threat is that they are successful, which inspires more and more people and groups to think about taking things off Ebay. Ebay already has enough competition, and they aren't wilingly looking for more. They've been moving away from their auction format for quite a few years now. Talk has been they'd like to be more like Amazon for quite a while now with BIN listings seeming to outpace the auctions by 10X - 20X, at least for baseball cards. Will also be interesting to see if PWWC maintains an auction only strategy on their new platform, or also allow consignors to do BINs as well.

Don't forget, if PWCC can sell on their own platform they cut out Ebay fees. They can probably pass some portion of that fee reduction on as savings to their consignors/customers and lure away product from Ebay. And regardless of whether you like them or not, if PWCC can lure away the product, the buyers will follow. That could become a blueprint for other big Ebay sellers in different categories to possibly observe and mimic, a trend Ebay would not care to see start. Pure speculation though, but plausible.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

The threat isn't necessarily that they take a large chunk of Ebay's business, the threat is that they are successful, which inspires more and more people and groups to think about taking things off Ebay. Ebay already has enough competition, and they aren't wilingly looking for more. They've been moving away from their auction format for quite a few years now. Talk has been they'd like to be more like Amazon for quite a while now with BIN listings seeming to outpace the auctions by 10X - 20X, at least for baseball cards. Will also be interesting to see if PWWC maintains an auction only strategy on their new platform, or also allow consignors to do BINs as well.

Don't forget, if PWCC can sell on their own platform they cut out Ebay fees. They can probably pass some portion of that fee reduction on as savings to their consignors/customers and lure away product from Ebay. And regardless of whether you like them or not, if PWCC can lure away the product, the buyers will follow. That could become a blueprint for other big Ebay sellers in different categories to possibly observe and mimic, a trend Ebay would not care to see start. Pure speculation though, but plausible.

I feel this is oversimplifying what it takes to move to your own platform. I doubt most sellers on eBay would want to take on the responsibility on maintaining what it takes to drive traffic to them while still being able to focus on their primary purpose of being in business. Going to take much more than being inspired. If it didn't then many sellers would have done it long ago. I am not defending eBay as a great venue or well run business but I doubt many sellers would have the ability to sustain their businesses without eBay.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I feel this is oversimplifying what it takes to move to your own platform. I doubt most sellers on eBay would want to take on the responsibility on maintaining what it takes to drive traffic to them while still being able to focus on their primary purpose of being in business. Going to take much more than being inspired. If it didn't then many sellers would have done it long ago. I am not defending eBay as a great venue or well run business but I doubt many sellers would have the ability to sustain their businesses without eBay.

Oh, I'm not saying it is or would ever be easy, but if someone the size of PWCC could take a stab at it, who's to say they couldn't in the future branch out to other sales areas/categories as well, and slowly take away more and more business from Ebay. Don't we often see posts about how many people dislike Ebay and the latest thing they've done that no one wants or likes? So what if someone like PWCC sets up something that many see as similar to, but cheaper and better than Ebay? I could see them maybe adding more categories of items to be selling over time, and slowly start to take more and more business from Ebay. It is always a possibility, and one I wouldn't be surprised if Ebay took very seriously.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't forget, if PWCC can sell on their own platform they cut out Ebay fees. They can probably pass some portion of that fee reduction on as savings to their consignors/customers and lure away product from Ebay.

There is no way they are saving money using their own platform over the sweetheart fees they had with ebay. The costs are tremendous.

No design, no maintenance, no hosting and on and on.

[Gorditadogg]

Just to make sure we all understand the scale.

ebay had $5.3 billion of revenue the first half of this year and $1.5 billion of operating income. PWCC's contribution to ebay's revenue was about $0.007 billion and maybe $0.002 billion to income*. A drop in the bucket.

*PWCC reported $150 million of sales for the first half of 2021. ebay was charging PWCC fees of less than 5%, according to ebay, which would about $7 million at the most, and probably a lot less. At a 28% average margin to revenue, ebay's operating income on PWCC business would have been about $2 million (or $0.002 billion).

Bottom line: ebay doesn't give a flying fig about PWCC.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Just to make sure we all understand the scale.

ebay had $5.3 billion of revenue the first half of this year and $1.5 billion of operating income. PWCC's contribution to ebay's revenue was about $0.007 billion and maybe $0.002 billion to income*. A drop in the bucket.

*PWCC reported $150 million of sales for the first half of 2021. ebay was charging PWCC fees of less than 5%, according to ebay, which would about $7 million at the most, and probably a lot less. At a 28% average margin to revenue, ebay's operating income on PWCC business would have been about $2 million (or $0.002 billion).

Bottom line: ebay doesn't give a flying fig about PWCC.

Exactly they don’t. PWCC needed Ebay, Ebay didn’t need PWCC.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

What? If PWCC did 150 million in gross sales on eBay, what percentage of those sales do you think eBay kept? Let's say it was 5% across the board and that would be a very high number, I think. That is 7.5 million of eBay's over 10 billion in gross revenue. I would not call that a threat to eBay's bottom line...in the least. They already forgot he is gone.

This was in just the first 6 months of 2021. And in a growing market. They were on pace to probably do upwards of 350 million in revenue this year on ebay. You're fooling yourself if you think eBay doesn't care about that revenue. It was one of their top 10 accounts in all of eBay. They care. This decision was 100% discussed with and strategized by all of the top executives at eBay. Probably at great length. Their legal team, CEO, and CFO all thought deeply about this issue without question, whatever that issue was. Obviously, ebay will do just fine without PWCC. They'd even do just fine without the entire sports card industry. But you shouldn't conflate that with the idea that they don't care about losing one of their largest accounts or that they couldn't be bothered by the idea of PWCC creating a competing platform to take away "their" customers. I promise you, they care.

I work for a company that has a similar grip on a different market like eBay has in theirs (and our market cap is triple that of eBay's). There are a handful of other companies that try to do what we do, but none of them come even remotely close to our capabilities and volume. We are orders of magnitude larger than all of our competitors combined. But I promise you, we definitely care what they're doing and we pay close attention to all of them. Only a fool wouldn't.

Say what you want about PWCC, but scandals aside, one thing is certain. They've built a remarkable brand in this hobby in a fairly short amount of time. They have catapulted themselves to the very top of the sports card industry, and the owners are extremely driven and creative. Perhaps all these rumors about them are true, in which case they'll burn down in flames. But if they're not true, then I wouldn't want to bet against them. They took consignments to a new level. They invented the vault. They launched a premier auction platform and broke records right out of the gate. They've built arguably the best database for card sales that exists online, and they're launching a new platform to compete against eBay with lower tier cards next month. They continue to innovate more and more every year. People like that don't just stop creating new products and expanding. They don't just suddenly become content. They are greedy. They are driven by the desire to succeed and will pursue it at any cost. Today, it's sports cards, but tomorrow it might be sports cards and comics, and the next day it's cards, comics, Pokémon, video games, and coins. I promise you, eBay execs aren't stupid. They see the threat for what it is, and it's not just a few million dollars per year in lost revenue.

I'll make a prediction. Come back and visit this thread in 5 years. Either they'll be in jail, or they'll be a huge competitor to eBay in this space within 5 years, and they will have already expanded into other collectibles markets by then as well, and will continue to develop more tools and resources for the market and their customers as well.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This was in just the first 6 months of 2021. And in a growing market. They were on pace to probably do upwards of 350 million in revenue this year on ebay. You're fooling yourself if you think eBay doesn't care about that revenue.

You might have a more compelling argument if you weren't conflating PWCCs revenue with eBay's revenue. PWCC may make $350MM in a year, but eBay only captures a small portion of that. From their 10-K:

The majority of our revenue comes from a take rate on the GMV of transactions closed on our Marketplace and StubHub platforms.

[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 carlsonjok

You might have a more compelling argument if you weren't conflating PWCCs revenue with eBay's revenue. PWCC may make $350MM in a year, but eBay only captures a small portion of that. From their 10-K:

The majority of our revenue comes from a take rate on the GMV of transactions closed on our Marketplace and StubHub platforms.

I'm not conflating the two. I was making a point about the sheer volume that PWCC does. I also pointed out how much ebay earns from those sales later in the post.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This was in just the first 6 months of 2021. And in a growing market. They were on pace to probably do upwards of 350 million in revenue this year on ebay. You're fooling yourself if you think eBay doesn't care about that revenue. It was one of their top 10 accounts in all of eBay. They care. This decision was 100% discussed with and strategized by all of the top executives at eBay. Probably at great length. Their legal team, CEO, and CFO all thought deeply about this issue without question, whatever that issue was. Obviously, ebay will do just fine without PWCC. They'd even do just fine without the entire sports card industry. But you shouldn't conflate that with the idea that they don't care about losing one of their largest accounts or that they couldn't be bothered by the idea of PWCC creating a competing platform to take away "their" customers. I promise you, they care.

I work for a company that has a similar grip on a different market like eBay has in theirs (and our market cap is triple that of eBay's). There are a handful of other companies that try to do what we do, but none of them come even remotely close to our capabilities and volume. We are orders of magnitude larger than all of our competitors combined. But I promise you, we definitely care what they're doing and we pay close attention to all of them. Only a fool wouldn't.

Say what you want about PWCC, but scandals aside, one thing is certain. They've built a remarkable brand in this hobby in a fairly short amount of time. They have catapulted themselves to the very top of the sports card industry, and the owners are extremely driven and creative. Perhaps all these rumors about them are true, in which case they'll burn down in flames. But if they're not true, then I wouldn't want to bet against them. They took consignments to a new level. They invented the vault. They launched a premier auction platform and broke records right out of the gate. They've built arguably the best database for card sales that exists online, and they're launching a new platform to compete against eBay with lower tier cards next month. They continue to innovate more and more every year. People like that don't just stop creating new products and expanding. They don't just suddenly become content. They are greedy. They are driven by the desire to succeed and will pursue it at any cost. Today, it's sports cards, but tomorrow it might be sports cards and comics, and the next day it's cards, comics, Pokémon, video games, and coins. I promise you, eBay execs aren't stupid. They see the threat for what it is, and it's not just a few million dollars per year in lost revenue.

I'll make a prediction. Come back and visit this thread in 5 years. Either they'll be in jail, or they'll be a huge competitor to eBay in this space within 5 years, and they will have already expanded into other collectibles markets by then as well, and will continue to develop more tools and resources for the market and their customers as well.

My comment had nothing to do with PWCC's awesomeness. I will leave all of that up to you. You inaccurately portrayed PWCC's absence as a seller on eBay as some material event for eBay. Despite your suggesting you know the daily operations of both companies, this separation is a much larger deal to PWCC than it is to eBay. PWCC paid a very deeply discounted fee to eBay and had a great deal of support within eBay. Even if they were to have done 350 million in sales this year the revenue is not something that impacts eBay's EPS.

And contrary to what you think eBay cares about what they actually care about is that PWCC, who is still under a federal investigation, had been engaged in shill bidding and the impact that would have on them should they continue to look the other way. I doubt it was a very timely or difficult decision to cut ties and make that very public announcement.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

There is no way they are saving money using their own platform over the sweetheart fees they had with ebay. The costs are tremendous.

No design, no maintenance, no hosting and on and on.

Don't disagree at all Scott, but then why would PWCC have been working on their own platform already? If they had such a sweet deal with lower Ebay fees in the first place, and costs for setting up and then running their own platform would be so exorbitant, why would they have ever thought of operating outside of Ebay? If it ends up costing them so much more to operate their own platform, one would think they would have to charge more to their consignors to cover their costs then, or end up settling for making less money.

And you know how some people/consignors can be when it comes to even a slight increase in costs, they immediately start looking for a cheaper alternative. I don't know if Probstein has the same sweet deal PWCC did regarding Ebay fees. But if PWCC does end up having to charge more to their consignors going forward to cover the operating costs of their own online platform, couldn't this possibly cause some PWCC longtime consignors to maybe start consigning to Probstein, or others who sell on Ebay, instead?

That's why I was thinking PWCC may have figured out a way to operate their own platform at a more reasonable cost than Ebay. I know it isn't cheap to operate their own platform, but PWCC is not ignorant when it comes to running their business. Of course they weren't expecting the boot from Ebay, so maybe that has screwed up their plans on how they were going to run their new platform more than we'll ever likely know. Will be curious to see how PWCC's new platform will actually operate. Will it be like Ebay auctions or more like an online store with mostly BIN pricing, does anybody really know yet? I guess time will tell.

[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.

[steve B]

PWCC would also have more control over their platform, who is on, and what information is available especially closing prices.

All of that would mean they could limit how much people examine the cards and bidding patterns.

I don't think they would be a threat to Ebay even if they were successful, which is doubtful.

Ebay has a fairly large direct competitor in stamps, the former Stampwants now HipStamp/HipPostcard which has been through a name change and been sold at least twice. It's mostly supported by several large dealers who are also on Ebay.

[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.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. Though I have seen some pretty bone-headed moves by in-house counsels in my career...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Agreed. Though I have seen some pretty bone-headed moves by in-house counsels in my career...

Yes but at the level of an ebay for the most part in my experience you're dealing with very good lawyers.

[Lorewalker]

I would also have to assume eBay's move was with the FBI's "nudging" too. Highly doubt eBay was just now able to identify shill bidding with PWCC--whether it as by consignors, employees or both.

[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.

[perezfan]

Despite all of the variables and "theories" being bandied about here, one thing is certain...

Ebay felt that their liability/culpability in harboring a company involved with shill bidding, selling altered cards and undergoing FBI Investigation was far greater than any benefit they derived from the 5% commission.

My belief is that they were tipped off, and chose to wash their hands of PWCC. Cutting off their association would be viewed as a positive, should PWCC eventually drag them into the mud of legal proceedings. Sure, eBay knew of the shill bidding much earlier in the game, so a tip-off or FBI intervention likely stimulated eBay to make its decision.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I would also have to assume eBay's move was with the FBI's "nudging" too. Highly doubt eBay was just now able to identify shill bidding with PWCC--whether it as by consignors, employees or both.

And could very well be a contributing factor as well, with Ebay being proactive in their actions towards PWCC to protect their customers/buyers as well as themselves. Look how proactive Ebay was in regards to state sales taxes.

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

+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.

Ya, I definitely agree with that. I don't think we'll be seeing PWCC filing suit against eBay even if it was libel.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

Travis, you're not wrong, but you know how people can be. They'll read something quickly and walk away with the first thing that pops into their head. And in this instance, I think most people get the impression from that Ebay email that PWCC was directly involved somehow in the shilling claims. So even if someone slows down and carefully reads the statement to ascertain the correct, true meaning of what was being said in it, it can still be argued that the average person will take a negative position against PWCC from it, and thus there is damage being done to their reputation. Reminds me of how Bill Clinton (who is/was a lawyer) argued on the stand against allegations towards him from the Monica Lewinsky situation, about how he did not have certain relations with her. I'm pretty sure sure most people were saying to themselves, "Yes, you did!", but being a lawyer is very often about the precise meaning of words, and their perception by the parties involved and affected.

I still would like to also see the actual terms of use agreement PWCC had with Ebay, and wonder if that could hold any clues or answers as to why Ebay said and did what they did in regards to PWCC.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

So now it is someone else's fault that "nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption"? I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assumptions play a huge role in the judicial process.

For starters, maybe PWCC should not have placed themselves in the predicament they are now in--knee deep in fraud. Or do you see that as also someone else causing them all of this grief?

So do you love PWCC that much or do you just like playing the contrarian?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I would also have to assume eBay's move was with the FBI's "nudging" too. Highly doubt eBay was just now able to identify shill bidding with PWCC--whether it as by consignors, employees or both.

Didn't specifically address your point about "nudging" before, but can definitely see (and know) that can happen. Would have thought the government could have just gone in and got any records and data they would need, but maybe they didn't have enough to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant?

[ALBB]

If you nudge..you get the judge

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes but at the level of an ebay for the most part in my experience you're dealing with very good lawyers.

Skilled lawyers, yes.

I'm not so sure they're good.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree at all Scott, but then why would PWCC have been working on their own platform already? If they had such a sweet deal with lower Ebay fees in the first place, and costs for setting up and then running their own platform would be so exorbitant, why would they have ever thought of operating outside of Ebay? If it ends up costing them so much more to operate their own platform, one would think they would have to charge more to their consignors to cover their costs then, or end up settling for making less money.

And you know how some people/consignors can be when it comes to even a slight increase in costs, they immediately start looking for a cheaper alternative. I don't know if Probstein has the same sweet deal PWCC did regarding Ebay fees. But if PWCC does end up having to charge more to their consignors going forward to cover the operating costs of their own online platform, couldn't this possibly cause some PWCC longtime consignors to maybe start consigning to Probstein, or others who sell on Ebay, instead?

That's why I was thinking PWCC may have figured out a way to operate their own platform at a more reasonable cost than Ebay. I know it isn't cheap to operate their own platform, but PWCC is not ignorant when it comes to running their business. Of course they weren't expecting the boot from Ebay, so maybe that has screwed up their plans on how they were going to run their new platform more than we'll ever likely know. Will be curious to see how PWCC's new platform will actually operate. Will it be like Ebay auctions or more like an online store with mostly BIN pricing, does anybody really know yet? I guess time will tell.

Don't underestimate the money to be made in an opaque setting where nobody can access your data without a subpoena. This doesn't make the expenses less, it just makes the upside greater.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

So now it is someone else's fault that "nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption"? I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assumptions play a huge role in the judicial process.

For starters, maybe PWCC should not have placed themselves in the predicament they are now in--knee deep in fraud. Or do you see that as also someone else causing them all of this grief?

So do you love PWCC that much or do you just like playing the contrarian?

I mostly just like playing devil's advocate, or at least think that all sides should be considered in discussions. I hate when groupthink starts off with a set of assumptions (which are often invalid) and these discussions just build and build on top of them without those assumptions being challenged. This shill bidding topic is a prime example. People have been accusing PWCC of shill bidding (PWCC themselves, not just their consignors) for years. Before this whole eBay scandal blew up, whenever people were asked to provide evidence of these shill bidding claims, the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers. This is of course absurd, and in no way constitutes evidence, or even suggests, that PWCC was shilling their own auctions.

As far as whether or not I "love PWCC"; no, I definitely do not. I have zero cards in their vault, and despite having consigned hundreds of cards in the past, I've never once chosen PWCC to handle my consignments. If they happen to have a card that I want up for auction, I will bid on it because I want the card and don't care who it comes from. As far as my experiences go with them, they haven't been positive. I bought a high-grade vintage card from one of their auctions a couple years ago and after it arrived I noticed that it was clearly trimmed on the left edge. Irrefutably trimmed. It was sharp as a knife and lighter colored than the other 3 edges. I took close-up photos of the edges which clearly showed what I was describing and asked to return the card. They threatened to ban me from all future auctions. I wasn't happy. I've also recently had another major issue with a high-end purchase that was extremely frustrating to deal with. But I don't let those experiences cloud my judgment about whether or not they have engaged in shill bidding. I believe it is in PWCC's best interest not to engage in shill bidding, and to furthermore prevent it to the extent they are capable. I do not believe that they shill bid, and am not capable of believing it without sufficient evidence. I believe they act in their best interests.

This whole discussion reminds me of all the conspiracy theories about all of the online poker sites "stacking the deck" to increase the rake (the amount deducted from each pot that goes to the house). It was very easy to demonstrate that this was not happening and that it would be extremely stupid for them to even try, yet if you were to poll 100 random online poker players, you would probably find that at least 30% of them believed the decks were in fact stacked against them.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Don't underestimate the money to be made in an opaque setting where nobody can access your data without a subpoena. This doesn't make the expenses less, it just makes the upside greater.

LOL

Point taken!

We're just all speculating at this point. As time goes by and things happen (or not), we may eventually learn more facts and details we're only guessing about for now.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Didn't specifically address your point about "nudging" before, but can definitely see (and know) that can happen. Would have thought the government could have just gone in and got any records and data they would need, but maybe they didn't have enough to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant?

I think it's entirely possible that the FBI came sniffing around for exactly these records. Search warrant or not, I'm not sure it would matter. If the feds contacted eBay, asking about records pertaining to PWCC, then that very well could have prompted a response like this. And they wouldn't have even needed proof of PWCC themselves doing the shill bidding to want to cut ties. They already know that the consignors shill those auctions. That's all they needed to craft the email they sent out. Cut ties and blame it on the "individuals associated with PWCC". I think there is certainly a strong possibility that this is precisely what happened. What leans me more toward the other theory though is just the timing of it all. It's been years since the FBI opened its investigation against PWCC. Perhaps they're just this far behind because of covid, but as others have recently pointed out, they did not have a presence at this year's National. And it might not be entirely coincidental that this email came on the heels of PWCC having successfully launched their competing auction platform. Or perhaps it's actually a combination of both. Perhaps they were contacted by the FBI quite some time ago and PWCC was just on their last straw, and the fact that they were so brazen to now want to take eBay's business away from them and bring them to their own new platform was the straw that broke the camel's back and they just thought, enough is enough. We're done with these clowns. Or perhaps it was something else entirely. Perhaps someone slept with someone else's wife. It wouldn't be the first time lol.

[Republicaninmass]

Oh yea, PWCC said "we dont need Ebay anymore".

But what about the millions of dollars in PWCC 'Ebay sales' you're quoting?


Keep trying, you're not changing the PWCC sentiment here on N54.

Just devil's advocate here with a lot of time on his hands

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Oh yea, PWCC said "we dont need Ebay anymore".

This is pretty well documented though. I don't think anyone is contesting that PWCC was already planning to leave eBay and create their own platform prior to the email blast.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Keep trying, you're not changing the PWCC sentiment here on N54.

Just devil's advocate here with a lot of time on his hands

That's perfectly fine with me. I'm under no illusions that I'll change anyone's mind about PWCC. I'm not sure that I even care to. I just want to challenge people to think critically and to not draw conclusions based on assumptions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, "individuals associated with PWCC" does NOT plausibly mean people in an arms' length relationship such as consignors. And I don't think that was the intent. I think they meant a closer relationship than that. No inside knowledge, just my reading of the language.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, "individuals associated with PWCC" does NOT plausibly mean people in an arms' length relationship such as consignors.

Again, herein lies the problem. "NOT plausible"? This is precisely the kind of reasoning that leads to false conclusions. Of course, it's plausible. That's a completely ridiculous claim to say it's not even plausible.