Why Isn't eBay Authenticator Responsible for Claims?

by: Snapped

They got your “back”?  How….hypnotic.

No, what they got is your money, control over the ‘case’ to which they are both defendant and judge embedded in their ‘system’,and now, all the time in the world to feed an insatiable greed driving a need for interest income where all the ethical streams are evaporating.

And you don’t have to do a thing, just like it says.  In fact, you can’t.  

by: pace306

They have your "back" POCKET - cause thats where your wallet is.

This is a known eBay trick to hang on to your funds and make interest off it until they get around to fixing the issue.

You ARENT responsible - its just eBay has no mechanism (or want) to do the right thing up front.

Of course its not your fault, but in eBayland ALL sellers ALL the time are always at stake.

by: comments

I don't know all the specifics of this case but I have to say that ebay has been very fair will me resolving claims since taking over payments from paypal.

One thing you should note is that it is possible that ebay could temporarily hold or even charge back the funds, but will always honor their policies and credit you on "appeal" in the worst case scenario. The quotes were not sarcasm if you call/chat (and make your way though the maze of reps) you will be granted an appeal and reimbursed immediately. There are some areas of grey that need a physical rep to review. I wouldn't assume ebay's intentions before the case is adjudicated, complete, and appealed if necessary.  

by: iheartjacksparrow

@comments - Why would a case as described by the OP need to be adjudicated or appealed? If something went wrong between the authenticator and the buyer, then it's all on eBay. If the buyer is trying to scam the OP, it's still on eBay because they are the who mailed to the buyer and it's up to eBay to prove that the buyer did, in fact, receive the item. If eBay is going to have an authentication department, then they should have the people who can contact the post office and get the information needed to prove the buyer is a liar.  

by: Snapped

“ I wouldn't assume ebay's intentions…”

eBay used up all their benefit-of-the-doubt chits long, long ago.  Arrogant conniving, deflection and feigned innocence is foundational to their culture now.  

Even if that were not so, once they have assumed ‘responsibility’ for the transaction (at the time they shipped it), if not for the undeserved profit to be raked, what possible justification is there to hold seller funds?  

by: Chicago48

OP misunderstood the message: "Your funds are on hold until this case is resolved" and "Until the case is resolved, the case amount will be withheld from future payouts."
Once EB can get the package back and re-authenticate it they will hold your funds.  Period.  If it's authentic then you'll get your funds.  There's nothing about shipping in the message, it's about authentication.
GEEZ!

by: Gumball

If the item was authenticated by Ebay Authenticator Department and mailed to the Buyer, why would the seller need to reauthenticate his item. What comes back may not be his item. Sounds to me like the Buyer is the one responsible in this case if the shipper is showing Delivery. Good luck with getting your money back.

by: Chicago48

@Gumball, the seller doesn't re-authenticate, EB re-authenticates.  maybe I'm reading his message wrong.
IMO EB is simply holding the funds until they can "resolve" the matter, meaning they will ask the buyer to return the item to EB, so they can re-authenticate.  The EB Auth department might have missed something.

by: AllfixElectrical

Simple reason - eBay are crooks and will do anything to rip off sellers to their advantage.
Just look at the recent ex-eBay-executives that have been jailed for harrassing this site because of exposing eBay's criminality.
Left eBay in 2021 after being on the platform since 2002 and have not regretted one single moment.

by: xfilefan

Having encountered this issue previously, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the OP's point.  From a former insurance underwriter's standpoint, the issue is CCC (Care, Custody, and Control).  After the seller sends the item to the authenticator and it is confirmed as being received by eBay (through tracking and other means), CCC takes over.  It is no longer on the seller to see that the item arrives to the buyer, the responsibility lies with eBay to see that it gets to the buyer.  The issue of authentication is a separate (and in this case, irrelevant, since it passed authentication) issue.  Since eBay has made this authentication process mandatory, with no ''opt-out'' provision, eBay is responsible for all actions, INCLUDING SHIPPING, to the final destination since the original seller has no control over the issue.  With that being said, there is NO reason that the seller's money should be held, delayed, or anything....except paid.  eBay removed the seller from that part of the process so eBay (and their insurance, if they are not self-insuring) are wholly responsible for what happens to the package.  There is no legitimate reason for them to retain the money, even if they are in the middle of an ''inquiry''.

by: Snapped

Imagine that.

by: comments

@iheartjacksparrow

I didn't say what ebay does makes sense. They do a lot of "one size fits all" solutions that don't make sense. I am just saying that in the END ebay will generally abide by their own policies. We are also assuming OP is telling the full truth.

I got a chargeback and the claim said the item is covered under seller protection without a hold ever. What ever team opened op's claim probably made an error. It shouldn't have to be appealed and yet it might be required...... so it is what it is.

by: Docinmd

Care, custody and control is generally only enforceable in court cases. As a court recognized expert in transportation, I was part of a court case that involved an antique car that was under restoration when the building was hit by lightning and everything was destroyed. Shop owner had claimed it was an "Act of God", and he had done everything reasonably expected to protect the car, including a metal roof that was correctly grounded and the building was equipped with lightning rods.

Shop liability insurance refused to pay full value for the car as it was only about 1/4 restored. Customer had signed a restoration service ticket that required the car owner to maintain his stated value insurance for this specific reason. Car owner DID NOT maintain his car's insurance policy, along with the vehicle's license plates.

The court ruled that the CCC was in effect.
1. Customer had left the car in the shop owner's CARE.
2. Car was in the shop and in CUSTODY of the shop owner.
3. Car's location was under the CONTROL of the shop owner.

Under CCC, the shop owner was at fault.