Usually when we hear a news story about reality TV and/or tacky, frivolous litigation, we’d pass it up and be on to the next one. But throwing the book at a reality TV “star” to punish them for poorly planned, frivolous litigation? Yes please!
Corri McFadden (who?), star of VH1′s reality show “House of Consignment” (…no bells ringing) received some barbed criticism from Purseblog.com, directed at McFadden’s company eDrop-Off, “the nation’s premier eBay store specializing in reselling high end and luxury items.” According to a press release from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Purseblog.com accused eDrop-off of “shill bidding,” which involves placing bogus bids on their online merchandise to drive up sales prices.
McFadden didn’t take too kindly to the accusations and filed a lawsuit in California federal court against the online forum. However, sometime soon after she must have realized California isn’t exactly keen on silencing or marginalizing “significant public discussion,” McFadden asked the court to dismiss her case so she could move on to more free speech-unfriendly territory (Illinois, apparently).
The EFF will have none of that. In an amicus curiae brief filed on Friday, the organization urged the federal court to make McFadden finish the fight she attempted to start.
“This is a classic SLAPP suit – strategic litigation against public participation – and McFadden should have to face California’s tough anti-SLAPP law, which lets defendants move to strike frivolous lawsuits and recover costs and fees if they win,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “The plaintiffs set the stage by choosing to file their suit in California. The court should finish the case there as well, protecting Purseblog.com’s speech rights by applying California law.”
The digital civil liberties organization wants to make sure McFadden doesn’t slip off the hook, giving her a “second bite at a more appealing apple after being called on their speech-chilling litigation tactics.”
If the California federal court is on board with defending Purseblog.com’s First Amendment rights, not even VH1 phenom Bret Michaels could rescue her (that’s what he’s most famous for, right?).
May 30, 2012 at 8:42 pm, Philip Charles Cohen said:
eBay-Facilitated Fraud on eBay Auctions ….
Yet another example of some interesting bidding patterns on a major eBay seller’s auctions. Now, these patterns could not possibly be an indication of shill bidding because eBay has “proactive” and “sophisticated” systems for detecting such criminal activity, or so it claims, and if it was shill bidding they would have detected it and done something about, now wouldn’t they?
Unfortunately, contrary to their disingenuous claims, eBay has no systems in place to detect the rampant shill bidding fraud that so obviously exists on the auctions of many of eBay’s “professional” sellers; indeed, eBay has been knowingly aiding and abetting, and in effect encouraging, such criminal activity since the year dot.
Take a tour of the below-linked Excel spreadsheet analysis of about five percent of this particular merchant’s recently completed auctions; form your own opinion as to whether or not shill bidding fraud is involved and whether or not, given eBay's Van Wagoner's involvement in the matter, eBay is knowingly complicit in such criminal activity ….
Spreadsheet: http://bit.ly/MJlM6b
"Reality TV Star Accused of eBay Shill Bidding Sues Her Accuser".
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y12/m05/i18/s01
"eBay Account Rep Defends Reality TV Star Accused of Shill Bidding".
http://blog.ecommercebytes.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.pl?/comments/2012/5/1337308248.html
eBay introduces absolute anonymity for (shill) bidders.
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=21894
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #1.
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22659
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #2.
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22904
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #3.
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22986
eBay-Facilitated Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay Auctions: Case Study #4.
http://forums.auctionbytes.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23540
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
May 31, 2012 at 11:18 am, NARU Messengers Blog and Forums said:
Maybe Judge Judy should preside over this case.
June 02, 2012 at 9:24 am, Philip Charles Cohen said:
Rampant Shill Bidding Wire Fraud on eBay Auctions.
Who would have believed it?
eBay is supposed to be a technology company. If I can manually produce a report (spreadsheet/notes at link below) that demonstrates—beyond any doubt to a reasonable person—that a seller is shill bidding, then eBay could quite easily do the same, programmatically. eBay deliberately chooses not to do so because to be “finding” the rampant shill bidding “wire fraud” that exists on probably the majority of eBay “professional” nominal-start auctions and then actually doing something about it, would negatively affect eBay’s bottom line—it could well halve their FVF revenue from such auctions—if there were indeed any scrupulous professional auction sellers at all left standing.
eBay claims to have “sophisticated” and “proactive” systems in place to control shill bidding. Of course, that claim is either a lie or they ignore what they find. To all intents and purposes, they have no such systems in place, and such a claim is therefore a “false representation” and that is, effectively, a criminal fraud on eBay users, a deliberate and outrageous deception on the great many naïve eBay users, leading those users to believe that their warm woolly coats are safe on their backs when, in fact, they are being led, by eBay, to the shearers.
Regardless, eBay’s Van Wagoner’s contribution of a patently false certificate in the current eDropOff matter makes it clear that eBay is apparently prepared to perjure itself in an attempt to protect its valuable sources of revenue; although I would wonder if Von Wagoner ever expected that his faux certificate would be presented to a court of law.
The unprincipled will say, oh well, the buyer has paid no more than they were prepared to pay. Well, try yourself reselling at auction that item you bought (without the aid of shill bidding) and see what it its “market value” really is.
The fact is, auction shill bidding is a deception for the purpose of obtaining a gain and that is fraud, criminal fraud; on eBay it is “wire fraud”, a US Federal crime punishable by large compensatory fines and up to twenty yeas in prison. eBay’s patently obvious and knowing facilitation of such “wire fraud” activity is likewise a Federal crime.
In the final analysis, this current eDropOff matter should not be simply about this one particular rampant shill bidding eBay seller—eBay is literally awash with them. This matter should now be about eBay (aka “the eBafia”), the greatest and most outrageous criminal “wire fraud” facilitator on the planet.
The Mafia of old would be proud of eBay’s business model…
The facts of the matter are in the latest Excel spreadsheet at: http://bit.ly/MJlM6b.
eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
October 25, 2012 at 4:02 pm, Philip Charles Cohen said:
And the ugly reality for consumers dealing with the eBafia/PreyPal complex (and eDropOff)…
“Shill Bidding Fraud on eBay: Case Study #5”…
http://bit.ly/N1nTlc