eBay PayPal Only Policy

This post was written in August 2008. Information may be out of date.
Red Ink Diary has moved lock stock and barrel (including this post) to HERE where you can read the latest eCommerce, Bonanzle, PayPal and eBay news.


It is hard to pick a single subject when it comes to writing about eBay, they have outraged so many of their customers they may well be the most hated corporation in the USA. It is very hard to remain objective about anything when it affects the way you earn your living. It is hardest of all to change the way you do business after years of learning that 'this' is the way it is done; but change we must if we are to survive as sellers with or without eBay.

eBay has asserted there is no PayPal Only in the USA policy. The reason for this is that we have laws preventing it. There may be no such official policy at eBay but we have now reached a point where there is a de facto policy, and this is open contempt of the law.

Here is a link to the relevant eBay page.

All new sellers must offer PayPal as a payment option.

I received this document last night from a colleague. I urge you to read, cut and paste anything that reflects your opinion and then forward a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and to the Attorney General of the state in which you live and do business.

I would like to point out that I do not personally have a problem accepting any kind of payment, even PayPal. I am infuriated by eBay's open contempt both for the law of the land and their customers. It is a corporate disease and the only cure for that disease is legal action. I realize that almost nobody has both the desire and the financial means to take eBay to court but what you can do is make noise. Look at the example of what the Australian sellers accomplished, eBay backed down but is trying the same back door policy there as they are using here, clearly expressed in the Discouraging Payments Policy.

You have three choices. Accept everything eBay does to you, quit or fight back.
What will your choice be?

Y'all come back!

Then eBay . . . Blinked

eBay Australia has announced that it is withdrawing its application for a waiver from the Trade Practices Act 1974. eBay has apparently realized that despite all the bluster, threats and arrogant statements, in Australia the law is the law and it applies to eBay too.

It is my opinion that eBay is concerned that the current accepted payments policy

eBay requires all sellers to offer PayPal as a payment choice on eBay.com.au along with other permitted payment methods of their choosing.

together with the Misleading and Discouraging Payments Policy might be ruled contrary to the Act and is hoping to avert this unintended consequence by withdrawal.

On calling the ACCC Thursday afternuoon (their time) I was informed that anyone can file a complaint and that the ACCC will investigate. The ACCC has the power to prosecute when it finds violations. The complaint form is here

Any complaint should reference:
1. eBay supplies services (listings) on condition that the purchaser (eBay seller) buy financial services from a third party (PayPal) and refuses to allow listings if the seller will not agree to that condition.
2.This appears to be third line forcing contrary to Section 47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974

eBay originally stated that the PayPal only in Australia Plan would be implemented in two stages. From their notification:

Specifically, under the Project it is proposed that:
(1) effective on and from 21 May 2008, eBay will amend its User Agreement and alter the functionality of the eBay Site such that all sellers (including both new and existing sellers) will be required to offer PayPal as one of their accepted payment methods;

Here is the definition of third line forcing from Section 47 of the Act:

Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act. It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test. It involves the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party, or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not agree to that condition.

What do you think?


Y'all come back