Please go look at eBay auction number 250258219915
and then scroll to the bottom of the page and report it as you leave. The reporting process is so 'convenient' it will take you longer than to read this entire blog post.
This Buyer will not be delighted, he or she thinks they are getting a new Apple 16GB 3G iPhone, that is probably why bidding is up to $400 with 36 bids.
What they are in fact bidding on is an email address.
In this listing, You are bidding / purchasing / buying the following email address: iPhone.3G.Unlocked.SALE@hotmail.com
This deceptive and misleading auction, which has been reported innumerable times, and is still not removed by eBay is precisely the kind of delightful experience which will guarantee that buyer never comes back.
Wake UP eBay. You have less than 24 hours to prevent this.
UPDATE: FINALLY this rotten fraudulent listing got pulled. 2 days after the initial report. Now the question is "Did the zero feedback seller get NARU'ed?"
Y'all come back
4 comments:
Good for you, Henrietta, for watching out for unaware buyers, even though you aren't still selling on eBay.
You report and report and nothing happens. It is misleading and deceptive. It will be 'delivered by the eBay message system' this is a violation in and of itself.
We have plenty of time to go change neutral feedback into negative but none to actually take care of the poor dumb buyer.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Meanwhile, they have plenty of time to punish others who have played by the rules....like thos that sold digital downloads and are having their feedback removed. Of course, that is much more important than preventing someone from buying a $400 email address.
I reported it also, but only because of the delivery method which I think is clearly against the policy rules. And, is this not digital delivery?
But, I disagree that the auction is totally against the rules. It does very clearly state twice that the auction is for an email address and not the phone. I can see from a marketing viewpoint having such an address or URL. But this is really pathetic. Just proves Barnum's (or was it Bailey, or both) theory.
TomH
Post a Comment