eBay Seller Sues Buyer for Leaving “Neutral” Feedback
Thursday, April 24th, 2008;
-- Andy Beal |
Living in a Radically Transparent world is, it seems, not without risk. Apparently a Seattle man was recently sued for $10,000 because he left a “Neutral” rating for an eBay seller from North Carolina.
Sued! For $10k for using a system that eBay implemented to encourage feedback!!!
Shellhorn bought some Morgan silver dollars from a man in North Carolina. The price was fair, but Shellhorn says the coins were packed poorly.
“The coins were hanging out of the envelope, loose, with no packing whatsoever around them,” he said.
The seller wanted feedback. Shellhorn couldn’t honestly say the deal was good or bad so he took the middle ground.
“This is neutral feedback, not even negative feedback, but neutral. He sued me for $10,000,” he said.
The judge in Buncome County, NC did dismiss the law suit, but it still raises a serious question about the future of consumer feedback, if the consumer is fearful of leaving any feedback at all.
It’s amazing that someone would sue an individual for one “neutral” rating, but that goes to show just how important ratings are on eBay. It’s also scary that an attorney was willing to take on the case. What if the judge hadn’t shown any common sense? What if the court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff?
It may not have happened this time, but you can bet that this case will inspire someone to think they can remove legitimate negative (neutral?) customer feedback by taking them to court. And it will be a scary time for all, should a naive judge rule in favor of the company.
(via)
** Are you the next big name in search marketing? Enter our SEM Scholarship Contest & you could win $10,000 in prizes!
Similar posts you may like...
Save & Share: 
Category: Legal, Reputation Management
Forward: Email This Post
April 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This is kind of scary. To think you can get sued simply for offering an opinion. I’m glad the judge did have common sense in this case and something tells me even if one judge didn’t a case like this would get thrown out on appeals.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone would ever win a case like this. Still it’s troubling that someone would even think to sue because someone else left them neutral feedback.
Steven Bradley’s last blog post..Update On Domain Move
April 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I had a seller leave me negative feedback for leaving him neutral feedback as well. The item I received was not what was advertised.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
even better the ebay seller was a wanted sex offender, watch the video: http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=238749
William Tildesleu’s last blog post..Microsoft cracking up?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
[…] pm on April 24, 2008 | # | A man was sued for $10,000 USD because he gave a seller on eBay neutral rating (even better, the eBay sell was a wanted sex offender). Of course the judge dismissed the case and […]
April 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
The suit is crazy, but some may say Ebay is pushing sellers to this type of behaviour. With the new Ebay “Best Match” criteria, if your feedback is not up to par, it affects what you pay to list and where your listings show up.
Poor feedback = poor rankings.
In this case, it does seem like a “neutral” rating was appropriate so not sure why the seller would get so upset?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This is kind of scary. What if the review had been extremely unfavorable (even scathing) resulting in a loss of business and therefore ‘emotional’ suffering? Would the judge have been so quick to dismiss it then? Do we have to be careful about how we word the truth now?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[…] marketingpilgrim.com […]
April 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Wow, seriously?
That’s rediculous. That’s borderline a better story than McDonald’s getting sued for coffee being too hot.
But in all seriousness, there are some serious whack-jobs out there, even on eBay.
Jonathan Dingman’s last blog post..Stalking People with AdWords
April 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
This just proves that we’re in a sue-happy world. People need to take a step back and think about things before wasting our courts time.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
You can sue for anything these days huh. I can’t believe that an attorney would even take on his case because of how ridiculous it is.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It will be interesting to see how things go when the feedback system changes and sellers are restricted.
I have had one negative that has spoilt my previously unblemished 453 positives. I tried to resolve that through eBay because the buyer was giving false information (and had said so in eBay messages) but they wouldn’t do anything.
I was then told to get the comment removed under defamation rules. Did that, but it is just the comment (and my response) that gets removed, not the rating.
Now buyers can see I have a negative but have no idea why! Thanks eBay!
April 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
How about outing who the seller is? eBay handle?
April 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Woow. I’m just never going to leave any feedback for anyone. What a ridiculous case. Must have been taken on by some desperate lawyer who just wanted publicity. Same old story…
Paul Baranda’s last blog post..Bond No. 9 and Swarovski Team Up In Time For Mother’s Day
April 25th, 2008 at 1:27 am
WHAT - WHAT
This is simply retarded. Yes, as you mentioned, ebay ratings are near priceless but 1. it’s a neutral rating and 2. it’s a rating
Did they try to settle out of court or talk about it or was it just straight to court?
April 25th, 2008 at 2:34 am
The guy suing is a sex offender. Go figure! LOL
April 25th, 2008 at 2:59 am
[…] eBay Seller Sues Buyer for Leaving “Neutral” Feedback Yikes. That’s really all I have to say about that. eBay seller (and wanted sex offender) gets mad because a buyer left him neutral feedback, turns around and sues the buyer for $10k USD. Ugh. […]
April 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am
The plaintiff should have had to have paid court fees all-around for something like this, plus the penalty being sought in my opinion.
There are poor cases to take to court, and there are utterly frivolous cases. This falls into the latter category.
If you think this is outrageous, a group of Chinese lawyers are trying to sue CNN over Jack Cafferty’s description of the Chinese government being a “bunch of goons and thugs.”
Why do we even allow this sort of crap into our legal system? How can we even grant “lawyers” from a country where there are few standards of law access to our system to attempt to punish a member of the Fourth Estate from exercising his Constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment Rights?
Anyone feel like joining me in a counter-suit to reclaim American tax dollars being pissed-away over this sort of nonsense?
April 25th, 2008 at 8:18 am
That’s ridiculous, I’m glad it was dropped.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
You know what’s really crazy? That there are actually people posting comments about this ridiculous case. So some guy goes to court and the judge boots him out for being an idiot. So what? Why does that get you people to talk about being “scared to leave feedback” or get some of you to debate the merits of ‘what would happen to the world if he actually won?’ Who cares!!! Who really gives a crap. Please, all of you, go back to work, do something useful with your life and stop worrying about some idiot in hillbilly land suing someone else over nothing.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
@Chris,
I think the larger picture is that even in the most trivial situations, what you do online can have unintended consiquences and this case is a good reminder.
Even though the case was tossed, there was still time, energy, and I am sure some level of stress involved for the person being sued.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I aggree.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I did know one seller who had to ditch a whole account with over 500 positive feedbacks after someone (she suspects a competitor, but has no proof) decided to ruin it. All of a sudden, people were bidding on her items and leaving negatives without any good reason. She talked to eBay and they were completely unresponsive, to the point that she decided it would be easier to open a new ID with her sister’s address and a new credit card.
I wouldn’t have blamed her one bit if she had sued. She relied on that income and a string of negatives took that away from her. The person in this story, however, is a nut job.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I guess customer’s right is minimized everytime…Weird world.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
As I do agree with everyone else that this was a frivolous lawsuit, many of you do not understand how Ebay ratings affect a Seller’s account. I have 1100+ positive ratings with 6 negatives and 11 neutrals. What nobody knows is that while neutral ratings are explained to the public as having no effect, Ebay views anything different that positive, as not positive. Even a neutral rating counts the same as a negative to a Seller in Ebay’s eyes. If you receive >5% neutral or negative comments in any 90 day period you will be suspended from selling on Ebay for 30 days. If you try and argue your case, they will extend it to 60 days. Now along with being charged more in fees, you can be restricted from even using their site. Now while I do believe this protects buyers from unscrupulous sellers, it can wrongly persecute honest sellers as well. Of my neutrals and negatives, half of them were in spite, and the other half were by newbies who think they are supposed to examine a .99 cent item with a fine tooth comb and post feedback accordingly. I even had one guy leave me neutral and in his comments he even stated that he has to curb his Ebay purchases due to his impulse buying habits. I am glad this will be reflected in my rating forever. I had another guy buy a radio which I stated was untested due to no power cord and was won for $1.04 and the guy was upset that it did not work. He then threatened to leave negative feedback unless I purchased the stereo manual for him on Ebay (which he conveniently gave me the item number for)and have it mailed to his house. Anyways, sorry for the rant and hopefully more people realize that sellers have to bend over backwards for buyers to avoid feedback woes which ultimately cost the seller more money.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:27 am
This new system is flawed!!!!
If you receive >5% neutral or negative comments in any 90 day period you will be suspended from selling on Ebay for 30 days. If you try and argue your case, they will extend it to 60 days. Now along with being charged more in fees, you can be restricted from even using their site.
I was recently left 8 negative feedbacks from a non paying ebayer. I thought I was protected by the new feedback policy implemented by ebay. Turns out because I filed an unpaid item dispute and they replied “don’t have money to pay for items” it gave them the right to leave me negative feedback. These threw me into the new “bad seller percentage” The feedback was then removed but it still has my account with 21 day hold on paypal money!!
So sellers beware do not leave negative feedback for non paying buyers if you plan on filing a non paid item dispute!
Now I have over 80 auctions that just ended that I have to pay for personally then wait 21 days or until buyer leaves positive feedback>> You would think they would at least allow those funds to be used for click and ship purposes. You would think that would encourage sellers to ship super fast.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
>>>That’s rediculous. That’s borderline a better story than McDonald’s getting sued for coffee being too hot.<<<
You should read your own link. The McDonald’s suit was anything but frivolous. Here are some facts:
As a matter of policy, McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds.
McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years—the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail.
McDonald’s admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk.
McDonald’s witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat.
The 79 year-old woman (Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico) was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car (not driving, as commonly reported) when she was severely burned by McDonald’s coffee in February 1992.
She suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
The treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
The medical bills were $11,000. She offered to settle the case for $20,000. McDonalds offered her $800, so the case went to court.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. (This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill.)
The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald’s coffee sales.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald’s had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:13 am
@ PB:
Really if people are going to order heated coffee, you use some foresight (just as if you ordered a highly heated meal at a restaurant). Let your item cool off rather than “playing with fire” and then crying foul about it later.