Ebay was unsuccessfully sued a couple years back for refusing to remove negative ratings posted by a user. Now a seller is suing a buyer for posting negative comments about their transaction.
It’s hard to believe that such a precedent (if successful, which is uncertain) could ever touch our little community given the very nature of it’s purpose (entertainment only, etc.)
Still, It’s interesting, given that from time to time (noted below) that pressures are brought to bear from the potentially affected side.
eBay buyer faces libel action after leaving negative feedback by Kaya Burgess
A man is facing legal action for libel after leaving negative feedback for an item he bought on auction website eBay.
When Chris Read received the £155 mobile phone he had purchased from Joel Jones on eBay, he found it was the wrong model and was not in good condition, as advertised.
The 42-year-old mechanic from Kent returned the phone, and, on October 3, used the feedback facility on the website, designed to warn other buyers of potentially untrustworthy sellers. He wrote: "Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised on Mr Jones's eBay account."
Mr Read subsequently received an e-mail from Mr Jones, a 26-year-old businessman from Suffollk who deals in second-hand electrical goods, saying that his comments were damaging his business, and threatening him with legal action unless he deleted them from the site.
the seller can sue for libel but it would cost alot in court fees. Plus, if he didn't prove libel, the buyer could, in turn, sue him for any number of things, such as harassment. It's only libel if what was written is not factual. Ebay won't get involved.
I don't think anything would get that ugly here. What would you write in court documents..."the model was not the model advertised". And, unless, you had physical evidence....
Plus TER even says on their enter page that what is written within is for entertainment purposes only. not actual or factual.
I think there is nothing to worry about. And I think the ebay seller is just blowing smoke. It would cost alot of money, especially if they lived in different jurisdictions.
The law also provides some protection for opinions, specifically in reviews, though this does not extend to an opinion based on incorrect facts. Therefore, "I thought she was one of the ugliest girls I have ever seen" would be legally sound (if somewhat rude). On the other hand, "She was as flat as a pancake - a B-cup at most" may be actionable if the girl could demonstrate that she was a C.
Actually, who is responsible for the content of online reviews is an interesting question to which case law has yet to provide a clear answer. The internet is a relatively new phenomenon and the way online publishing differs from print publishing and broadcast presents complex problems. For example, if a defamatory statement appeared in the letters section of a magazine, the defamed party could sue both the writer of the letter and the publication which published it. However, the pace and nature of online publishing complicates the issue substantially. For example, whether a site which provides an unmoderated online message board would be responsible for the messages posted on it (i.e. whether hosting those messages constitutes 'publishing') has not yet been fully addressed.
There was an interesting case in the UK recently on this topic - here's a link to an article about it: http://www.out-law.com/page-8040
As others have pointed out, I think the debate is likely to be academic in relation to this site as many girls and hobbyists would not want to take such an issue into the public domain and/or risk creating other legal problems for themselves.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
