A false SNAD claim is not allowed on eBay according to its Buying Practices Policy
. (Not allowed: "Claiming an item isn't as described in the listing when the item condition is consistent with the listing description
But when a seller described a clear case of a false SNAD, an eBay moderator was unsympathetic and said because the seller had a return policy, they should accept the return and eat the cost. The moderator further implied the seller would get a defect if they did not do so. This despite the fact the seller was not refusing the "return," but was fighting the false claim that the item was not as described.
The eBay moderator wrote in part: "we do ask our sellers to be prepared from time to time to take a short term for long term gains. Creating positive and memorable experiences for your customers builds a stronger community and helps increase sales for everyone."
What makes the situation more galling is the fact that the very same day
the moderator was telling the seller to eat costs in order to make the customer happy, eBay was sending an email to sellers
telling them it had made a mistake by undercharging them. Rather than eating the cost itself "in order to make the customer happy," eBay informed customers it would bill them in their next invoice.
The moderator in the SNAD-claim case wrote, "Some sellers I have spoken to added up all the losses they experienced in a quarter to determine how much they would need to add to their prices to cover these losses. Countless sellers only needed to increase their prices by a dollar or less to cover these losses and grow their business."
The posts by the eBay moderator are real head-scratchers - he would not acknowledge the difference between a false claim and a request for a return. "In instances where a buyer opens a return for the wrong reason, we ask that you take ownership of the transaction and work with them on a return as well as cover the cost of return shipping to provide the best experience possible for your customer. Sometimes customers make mistakes and, just like in a brick and mortar store, creating positive and memorable experiences is the ideal resolution."
But as one commentor on the thread wrote, "what's happening to this OP is in direct violation of several stated in writing policies on eBay's own policy pages."
Many believed the buyer had filed the SNAD claim instead of a return request so they wouldn't have to pay the cost of return shipping, which was required of the buyer according to the seller's return policy. Indeed, the seller said the buyer filing the claim was a seller him (or her) self.
is a must-read for every seller. The reader who sent us a link wrote:
"If you read the entire thread you will see that Trinton, an eBay rep just confirmed that SNADs are now being handled in a new way, and the new way violates eBay's own policies.
"If a buyer opens a SNAD and the reps can clearly see that the item is not a SNAD, rather than closing it in the seller's favor, they just keep encouraging the seller to "work it out" with the buyer. This is because even though they know the SNAD is false, they will close the SNAD case in the buyer's favor... Force the BUYER to pay return shipping, and give the SELLER a defect."
Another poster said the new practice by eBay would encourage sellers to change their return policy to No Returns - "If you want all sellers to offer returns, the defend them when the abuse is blatant. You will see the Return policies disappear when you go around them and force your seller to take fraudulent cases and suffer the consequences of such, with no recourse and no backup from eBay."