Shilling - What do I do?

dmg24

As a Law graduate, I can confirm that shill bidding is illegal. I am not aware that it has ever been tested in the English legal system, but in principle it is prosecutable.

I think some people (Moglex) have forgotten the point of MSE: to get consumers a fair deal. If someone is scammed, putting aside the legalities of the matter, it is not fair. The majority of people post on here to help, not to point fun at those who have been scammed.

Hintza

Just to add to this debate (tin helmet firmly in head)

I don't think you can call this shill bidding against the buyer (as such).

The buyer bid and bought in the dying seconds of an auction where the seller (allegedly) had used two ID's to ramp the price. Therefore the price was already standing at £64 before the buyer bid therfore there is no shill bidding against this buyer.

There might have been against previous bidders but not the buyer.

Personally I think the buyer has got a result for alleged actions that were carried out prior to their entry into the auction. Take refund and say thank you!!

Hintza

Just another point potential buyers should rake through a sellers auctions/ID's etc prior to bidding not after the event.

Most problems on EBay are when folk find and bid on a perceived bargain in the last seconds without reading the listing or checking out the seller. If the item looks cheap there is normally a good reason. Better to miss an item than doing your research post auction.

Moglex

dmg24 wrote:

As a Law graduate, I can confirm that shill bidding is illegal.

Great. I was wondering.

What is the particular statute that defines the offence?

I shall be most interested to read up on it.

I think some people (Moglex) have forgotten the point of MSE: to get consumers a fair deal.

Actually, I haven't.

One of the things that I hope would come out of this is that people who use sub-optimal bidding techniques are far more likely to fall prey (at least in their eyes) to shillers.

If you adopt what is considered, I believe, the best bidding method: Decide what you are prepared to pay and put that bid on at the end of the auction, your decision cannot be affected by any shilling that might have been going on.

If someone is scammed, putting aside the legalities of the matter, it is not fair.

It's only a scam on a technicality, though, isn't it?

The buyer made a completly free decision about what they were prepared to pay, and paid that amount or less.

They got what the wanted for a price they were prepared to pay (assuming the goods were correctly described).

A pretty poor sort of scam, really.

The majority of people post on here to help, not to point fun at those who have been scammed.

I'm not 'pointing' fun at them. I'm just lamenting the fact that people are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions.

Altarf

Moglex wrote:

What is the particular statute that defines the offence?

I shall be most interested to read up on it.

Actually, I haven't.

Sums you up really.

Moglex

Altarf wrote:

Sums you up really.

Thank you.

I'm glad you appreciate it when someone actually wants to check on the facts. So many people are happy to work on wild assumptions.

In fact, I'm still very doubtful that it is specifically against the law.

Anyone can have an opinion that it's theft, or fraud, and hence illegal, but I'd be very surprised if a prosecution would be mounted on those terms.

And as ebay is not legally considered to be an auction since there is no auctioneer present even a prosecution brought under some legislation relating to auctions is likely to fail.

I very strongly suspect that any case would be thrown out of court since the supposed victim made their own decision about the worth of the item.

If and when dmg24 provides us with notification of the statute s/he believes covers shill bidding on ebay it will be interesting to read up.

Until then, I believe that assertions that it's illegal are nothing more than wild speculation.

Edit: Just to flesh out the reason why it's unlikely that a prosecution under (obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, Section 16(1) of the Theft Act 1968) would succeed, think about the implications.

The majority of commercial brand advertising is about getting people to believe that things are worth far more than they actually are. If you could prosecute an ebay shiller on those grounds, you'd be able to throw almost the whole of the advertising industry in the clink.

rdwarr

There have been 57 posts in this thread up until now. Lots of the same arguments that we see every week from the same people but only one undisputed fact.
Shilling is against eBay rules.

Moglex

rdwarr wrote:

There have been 57 posts in this thread up until now. Lots of the same arguments that we see every week from the same people but only one undisputed fact.
Shilling is against eBay rules.

And if they think they are loosing more money from the resulting listing fee avoidance than they are making from the FVF's generated by the shillers, they will do something about it


Oh, and there is another undisputed fact: Nobody is forcing the whiners to bid on anything.

Learn to take responsibility for your own decisions!

Altarf

Moglex wrote:

I very strongly suspect that any case would be thrown out of court since the supposed victim made their own decision about the worth of the item.

You really don't understand do you. No matter how many times it is explained you have your own justification.

Moglex wrote:

Edit: Just to flesh out the reason why it's unlikely that a prosecution under (obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, Section 16(1) of the Theft Act 1968) would succeed, think about the implications.

The majority of commercial brand advertising is about getting people to believe that things are worth far more than they actually are. If you could prosecute an ebay shiller on those grounds, you'd be able to throw almost the whole of the advertising industry in the clink.

The most spurious analogy I have ever heard being used.

Moglex wrote:

Oh, and there is another undisputed fact: Nobody is forcing the whiners to bid on anything.

Oh and constantly insulting people just makes you look silly.

Moglex

Altarf wrote:

You really don't understand do you. No matter how many times it is explained you have your own justification.

You see, you really haven't read or understood what's been written, have you?

I've stated on more than one occasion that I don't agree with shilling.

It's just that in the general scheme of things I don't see it as being all that important.

If people would just grow up, stop whining and learn to take responsibility for their own decisions.

The most spurious analogy I have ever heard being used.

Probably because you don't understand it.

People are whining that they've been made (:rolleyes:) to believe that something is worth more than it is by the action of the shiller. The whole point of brand advertising is to make the feeble minded pay more than something is worth by manipulating their sense of value.

Oh and constantly insulting people just makes you look silly.

Suggesting that people learn to take responsibility for their own decisions is not insulting them.

It's paying them the compliment of believing that they can.

Or you can just keep whining about how unfair it all is after you've freely made a decision that you later come to regret.