[HN Gopher] eBay, Etsy and other marketplaces on brink of having... ___________________________________________________________________ eBay, Etsy and other marketplaces on brink of having to disclose seller details Author : WarOnPrivacy Score : 130 points Date : 2022-12-26 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.eseller365.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.eseller365.com) | charlieyu1 wrote: | I am a long term MTG player. Sometimes I sell on eBay, about once | per two or three years, because I get too many lowballs in other | groups. | | Last year eBay asked me to verify my identity because I was | selling for $260. It was cringe, I had much larger buys or sales | in 2000s but apparently their database don't even have the record | anymore | squeaky-clean wrote: | Probably because the income thresholds for such things were | heavily lowered in 2021. Previously you didn't need to include | the sales on a 1099K until sales exceeded $20,000. It was | changed to $600. | trentnix wrote: | Not only will this give consumers a measure of recourse when they | are ripped off by sellers, it will give vendors and manufacturers | a clearer idea of which of their distributors and retailers are | violating their vendor agreement. Those that wish to better | enforce MAP and other terms of their agreement will have the | information to do so. | | Unfortunately, I'm guessing we'll find out many vendors prefer to | be ignorant (and theoretically powerless) as long as they move | units. | samtho wrote: | It remains to be seen with how much enforcement this will | receive. If the remedy is that Amazon deplatforms the seller | and just gets random, trivial fines now and again, this could | be totally useless. | IncRnd wrote: | And, then there are another 3999 pages in the bill. There aren't | enough hours in the day to read all of these 4k-10k page bills to | learn what they really say. | ryandrake wrote: | Whenever I see that rare consumer-protection or worker-protection | law get passed in the US, I'm always amazed at how timid and | gentle on corporations the law ends up being. I know I shouldn't | be amazed but I still am. I read the bullet point list in the | article and think "Wait, don't companies already have to do these | sensible things?" When it comes to protecting the investor class, | you get giant sledgehammers like SOX. When it comes to protecting | the little people, they put on the kid gloves legislation and | give the company a popsicle if they at least try to follow the | law. | aksss wrote: | TBF, Sox is also protecting the little guy and it has the | effect (for better AND worse) of increasing the cost of doing | business (properly/legally). When regulating small businesses | it's important to be mindful of the overhead inflicted such | that significant barriers aren't being raised to business | creation. Similarly, Amazon doesn't advocate for $15 minimum | wage out of altruism, no matter what your thought on the issue | - they can afford to pay it whereas more local businesses would | struggle and go under. Anti-competitive regulatory advocacy is | a thing, so light touches in the SMB arena represent caution as | often or more than regulatory capture. | ghayes wrote: | I think the sad fact, addressed in the article, is that the | bill wasn't going to pass without industry support. Oftentimes | this means either a) limited recourse for failing to comply, | and/or b) new barriers to entry to smaller organizations. While | this bill is meek, it does seem to be purely a net gain, since | the burden on businesses is low and it gives consumers an | easier recourse in cases of fraud (since the collected | information will now available directly or by a subpoena). | Spooky23 wrote: | SOC was in response from Enron which impacted a lot of regular | people. Enron bought up utilities that were often "widow and | orphan", boring stocks that were held for a long time by | retirees. I knew a few people whose parent or grandparents lost | everything when their ancient electric company stock turned | into Enron, then rode to zero. | | Minus a big story, people aren't in favor of consumer law. | crote wrote: | Seller details of _high-volume business sellers_ , mind you. With | additional provisions to protect the privacy of individuals. | | I generally agree with the law. Marketplaces like this have long | been used as a front for scamming, and with the anonymity | provided there are basically zero repercussions. If i am doing | business with someone I want to know who I am doing business | with, so that there is at least the _possibility_ of taking legal | actions. Now let 's hope we'll soon see similar regulations for | Amazon sellers, ideally with some way to prevent commingling | inventory. | | The only thing which stands out to me is the relatively low | monetary threshold: $5000 might be a lot in revenue if you are | selling something like second-hand clothing, but something like a | single car or camera can easily put you over that limit already. | The bill refers to "high-volume sellers", and defines that as a) | 200 orders, or b) $5000. It does make sense to protect high-value | sales too, especially considering that the information only needs | to be disclosed to the marketplace at that point - providing the | information to the buyer only needs to happen at $20.000 and at | that point you are _definitely_ a business - but it is | interesting that they do not seem to explicitly state so. | mike_hock wrote: | > The only thing which stands out to me is the relatively low | monetary threshold | | Which is typical for laws like this. Make the essence of the | law something most people would agree with ("disclose high- | volume sellers"), then define some ridiculous numbers so what | the law _actually_ means is disclose the details of anyone who | does any semi-serious business there and doesn 't just sell the | odd used sweater. | sokoloff wrote: | I've bought two cars on EBay that were more than $20K each, | neither from a business. I felt like I could already get as | much info as I wanted to go through with the sales (both of | which went smoothly), so I'm not sure a single transaction of | $25K (or even perhaps any amount) means I need this additional | policy. | | Single transactions the buyer is more likely to bother to go | chase if they go sideways anyway. | fgsgfsdgfdg wrote: | [flagged] | matthewmacleod wrote: | Nobody said that - in fact, they explicitly stated concerns | around this issue - and this is a bad-faith comment. | fgsgfsdgfdg wrote: | Why is it bad faith? | | "In addition, marketplaces would have to disclose a | business seller's full name, address, phone number, and | email address, only allowing for some limited protections | for home-based businesses." | jakear wrote: | This doesn't apply to Craigslist, it only applies to | marketplaces (where the platform is in charge of | collecting and distributing fees). | | Regardless, for personal sellers the only required | disclosure is country and state of operation. | dang wrote: | Could you please stop creating accounts for every few | comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is | in the site guidelines: | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. | | You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to | be a community, users need some identity for other users | to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames | and no community, and that would be a different kind of | forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all& | type=comme... | AussieWog93 wrote: | >Marketplaces like this have long been used as a front for | scamming | | Commercial eBay seller here. | | Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone via | eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008, when they | introduced mandatory PayPal payments by default. Managed | Payments (rolled out during the pandemic) makes it even harder | to scam as a seller. | | There's still the perceptions that hang around from the early | days, but buyer protections and reversible payment methods | controlled by eBay themselves have successfully scared away the | scammers. The only fraud you still get is friendly fraud from | buyers. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > The only fraud you still get is friendly fraud from buyers. | | I've been bitten by this. I thoroughly tested a PC part, | packed it in original anti-static packaging, packed that | inside of an excessive amount of packaging and a thick box, | and then shipped it all via a well-tracked shipping method. | | Buyer waited until a day before the end of the claim period | and then insisted the part didn't work. Wouldn't cooperate | with any debug questions so I grudgingly authorized a return. | Buyer never returned anything, never even provided return | tracking info. Yet he's been escalating this to eBay and now | filing a chargeback with his credit card company. | | After less than 10 minutes with eBay support, they admit that | this buyer has a pattern of doing this exact scam. Just | follow the steps and provide the requested info and I'll be | fine, they said. | | I'm blown away that they know a buyer has a habit of doing | this, yet continue to let them operate on the platform. | Losing the couple hundred dollars wouldn't be the end of the | world, but I'm deeply frustrated that eBay is so heavily | tilted toward the buyer that someone can develop a pattern of | fraudulent chargebacks and false complaints with apparently | no consequences. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Support's right, you'll win the case. If they open a return | case, they need to send the item back. Happens all the time | to us. | | >I'm deeply frustrated that eBay is so heavily tilted | toward the buyer | | Their answer to this criticism is that siding with the | buyer by default creates trust, which encourages more | buyers to use the platform and therefore increases sales | volume for their seller. I'm honestly inclined to agree. | I'd much rather lose 1% of our revenue each year to fraud | and unnecessary returns than 50% through buyer hesitation | because they're not sure their items will work or even | arrive. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone | via eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008, when they | introduced mandatory PayPal payments by default. Managed | Payments (rolled out during the pandemic) makes it even | harder to scam as a seller. | | This seems like a fairly important facet of this discussion. | brudgers wrote: | The current scam on eBay is to provide a tracking number to | the same Zip Code as the purchaser. | | These tracking numbers are attached to the sale after the | tracking number shows delivery. | | By default eBay will close undelivered item cases because the | tracking number shows the item was delivered. | | Appealing the closed case is possible, but the link to appeal | is difficult to find and the level of proof required is high. | | I know because it happened to me and it took going to my | local post office, talking to the postmaster, and getting the | USPS internal tracking log. And that required convincing the | postmaster I would not try to recover the package from the | home where it was delivered. | | I assured the postmaster that this was a scam, and it helped | my post office serves an affluent zip code, | | It was a ridiculous amount of time and effort for the amount | involved. | | This is not to dig on eBay. I still prefer it to Amazon. But | that's the scam you can use if you are so inclined. | | Not that I am suggesting you are. | NavinF wrote: | Yeah I don't understand how it's even possible to get | scammed. eBay always sides with the buyer and refunds them if | the seller doesn't do it first. In the extremely unlikely | chance that a buyer somehow loses an eBay dispute, they can | still file a chargeback with their credit card. | dataflow wrote: | > Honestly, it's been damn near impossible to scam someone | via eBay (as a seller, at least) since around 2008 | | This is not true. Several sellers sent me broken version of a | device I was looking for recently. In fact, it turned out | that, for the device I was seeking recently, pretty much | everyone who was selling around _slightly_ (say, ~25%) below | what I thought was the market price (for a used item!) was | selling broken versions of it. The ones that were slightly | more expensive actually worked. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Go to your purchase history here (substitute .com.au for | your local site): | https://www.ebay.com.au/mye/myebay/purchase | | You should see a button that says "Return this item" for | your faulty product. Click it, go through the prompts and | complain that it wasn't as described. In the description | field, write "broken". If the seller hasn't set up a proper | RMA process, the system will automatically generate a | return label. Once you lodge the return using that label, | you win the case (regardless of hwo well the fault was | described by the seller). The seller will also be billed | for the label. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | It's plenty easy to scam people on eBay if you're smart. | | I collect movies - and eBay has sent me bootleg DVDs and box | sets countless times. They're pretty convincing - even with | stickers on the shrink wrap - but they are bootlegs | regardless (sometimes poor printing, single instead of dual | layer discs, no copy protection, etc.). eBay almost always | makes me send them back despite my evidence, so I | unfortunately know someone else will get scammed next time, | but what else can be done? | | Counterfeit Nintendo 64 cartridges are also becoming very | widespread. eBay also sent me counterfeit AirPods Pro once. | Very convincing box and look and feel, but the atrocious | noise cancelling was the giveaway. It even made the little | AirPods pop-up on your iPhone. | AussieWog93 wrote: | This is fair - they don't fight counterfeits as well as | they possibly could (and frankly never have. 15 years ago | it was the same thing with counterfeits). | | That's not normally what people are talking about when they | mention online scams, though. | scarface74 wrote: | How does this stop someone from setting up a virtual address, | phone number, EIN, etc to hide behind? | Scoundreller wrote: | Or the classic: a corporation or LLC. | cobertos wrote: | You have to provide government issued ID if you are a high | volume seller that is a business and not an individual. | There are also different rules about address disclosure for | corporations. Per the blog post | scarface74 wrote: | This from the article | | > However, sellers that are not individuals (businesses) | must provide a valid personal government ID on behalf of | the seller (business) _or provide a valid government- | issued record or tax document that includes the business | name and physical address._ | | This is easy to do. | | https://ipostal1.com/virtual-business-address-plans- | pricing.... | | I use 1Postal as my "virtual mailbox" now that my wife | and I fly across the US six months out of the year and | our "home" the other six months is a unit in a "Condotel" | in Florida that we own that doesn't accept mail. | | It specifically shows up as a physical address for post | office coding and lookup purposes and not a PO Box. | | Setting up an LLC is also easy to do and relatively cheap | using sites like nolo.com. | charlieyu1 wrote: | Most regulations just screw up average people while being | completely toothless against the actual criminals. | googlryas wrote: | Will Amazon 3P sellers be subjected to this? It will be | interesting to see how many of the made up brands like HORDUSY | and ASCALFT are backed by the same parties. | richbell wrote: | Relevant discussion: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32195987 | hooverd wrote: | If you can bear the shipping times, the same crap is a lot | cheaper on AliExpress. | jorvi wrote: | But without the regulatory shield. | | If an AliExpress-ordered charger burns your house down, good | luck getting any money from the seller based in Asia. | | If a dropshipped charger burns your house down, the European | 'entity' (usually just some dude in Europe making a buck) is | on the hook, and either his legally required liability | insurance makes you whole, or you can garnish his income for | decades. | kristopolous wrote: | In this case, the premium you pay for is service, warranty | and returns. | | Sometimes you don't care. Choose wisely. | Scoundreller wrote: | I just self-warranty and self-return AliExpress items into | the garbage can. I assume that will happen ~10% of the | time, which is much less than my savings. | | Ok, I'll admit, sometimes I warranty claim and get a | refund. | | What I like about aliexpress reviews is that they seem to | mostly be by well-intentioned Russians evaluating purchases | on a strictly technical basis. Ali's auto-translation is | sloppy but it's nothing like the wasteland that is most | Amazon reviews. | Animats wrote: | Well, yeah. That should have been required years ago. In general, | you're not allowed to run an anonymous business. Arguably, it | already was in the EU, under the European Electronic Commerce | Act. | | If Amazon doesn't like this, they can be the seller themselves, | and take responsibility for product liability. They've fought | that in court. They lost in Pennsylvania, appealed, and then paid | off the plaintiff to avoid an adverse decision on the record.[1] | | [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and- | toxics-l... | ChuckMcM wrote: | This was what I was thinking as well, the whole freight | forwarded "fulfilled by amazon" thing where a "company" is none | existent so that liability is not a problem (if anyone gets | serious in their complaints the company goes "poof" and a new | version shows up). | crote wrote: | How could the company be nonexistent? Does Amazon not check | that the company you claim to be actually _exists_? | Animats wrote: | No, they don't. In the Pennsylvania case, Amazon claimed | they were unable to find the seller. That's why they | couldn't pass the buck to the seller. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Animats is correct, ask yourself the other question "Do I | need to be an 'official' company to do business as one on | Amazon?" The answer is no, very little data has | traditionally been required to be presented as a business | on Amazon and that practice has been copied to Walmart, | Newegg, and elsewhere. | | All Amazon needed was for you to ship product to their | warehouses, and a place for them to send payments. In the | US there is something called a "DBA" which are initials for | "Doing Business As" and you can register it with the county | and then use that name to create a bank account. There were | a number of tutorials out there about how to create a | "company" where you wired money to some factory in China | that would then drop ship your "product" to Amazon, set up | a DBA and a checking account, and then create a bunch of | ads for AdWords/Twitter/Facebook etc to sell your gizmo for | 5 - 10x what you paid for it. Amazon handled all the | logistics, you collected cash, and when your stock ran low | you wired some more cash to the factory to send more | product. Instant side hustle that brought in revenue. | | There are literally thousands of these companies out there. | | Because Amazon wasn't required legally to validate you were | officially a business, they don't. This tries to plug some | of that loophole with the trick that when you buy your | product they have to tell you to whom the money is going. | With that, a private investigator, and $10K you can often | get to the individual involved. Now whether you can recover | any money from them? That isn't really answered. | | It just ups the risk for the "fly by night" vendors. | nonethewiser wrote: | And FB marketplace and craigslist? | rootusrootus wrote: | I'd expect FB to be affected, since they're acting as | intermediary. CL doesn't do any payment handling though. | | Although the volume requirements may moot that. | NullPrefix wrote: | Fb marketplace and cl only list ads, the transaction itself | happens offsite | rootusrootus wrote: | CL yes, FB Marketplace no. FB handles the payment for | things you sell on Marketplace. | colinsane wrote: | and so does the seller here act as the "anonymous business" | (OP's words)? cash transactions w/o asking for ID or | anything isn't uncommon on CL. and there are CL users out | there making a living from it (admittedly, they're usually | multi-platform sellers). at what point are such sellers | breaking the law? | charlieyu1 wrote: | And why are we trying to invade the privacy of the | sellers? They are as much as ordinary people as you and | me | Animats wrote: | Craigslist doesn't act as an intermediary. They never handle | the money. They just put you in direct contact with the other | party. Amazon doesn't want customers and sellers to | communicate directly. | notjoemama wrote: | I just want country of origin listed somewhere. There's a big | difference between shipping from Michigan to California versus | Hong Kong and California. Shipping estimates have been really | wrong since before the pandemic. | | Maybe put flags next to brand nanes in filters? I don't | recognize 90% of the brands on Amazon and that filter is | useless to me, unless I could tell is was a domestic or foreign | brand. Again, just trying to determine if I can wait 2 weeks or | 2 months for things like birthday gifts. | charlieyu1 wrote: | Not sure why you are bringing up Hong Kong on this, most | unknown brand names on Amazon are Chinese companies selling | Chinese products marked up by 300% to Western customers who | are unable to notice the red flags. | | Then again, it is not so different for Chinese companies to | register in US and continue their scam anyway. | fgsgfsdgfdg wrote: | [flagged] | nexus7556 wrote: | That is not at all what this law does unless you're selling | more than $20k of goods via Craigslist. | fgsgfsdgfdg wrote: | [flagged] | borski wrote: | " Also, the language in the bill continually refers to High- | Volume Sellers. The bill defines such sellers as having at | least 200 or more discrete transactions, totaling $5,000 or | more in gross revenues over any continuous 12-month period | during the previous 24 months." | | "Individuals that are high-volume sellers will only need to | provide their name. However, sellers that are not individuals | (businesses) must provide a valid personal government ID on | behalf of the seller (business) or provide a valid | government-issued record or tax document that includes the | business name and physical address." | | " There are exceptions to the contact disclosure requirement | if the seller does not have a dedicated business address. | That means sellers that only operate out of their residential | home address or have a shared residential/business address | will only have their country and state (if applicable) | disclosed. However, shoppers will be informed that no | business address exists for this seller and the only | communication available between the two parties will be | through phone (personal numbers exempted from disclosure - | again shoppers will be told), email, or the platform's | messaging system." | | Literally all of the concerns you keep bringing up are | addressed in the bill. | etchalon wrote: | The high-volume requirements sort of kill the intent of the bill, | since scammers will just jump to new profiles once they've hit | certain thresholds. | | I assume 3P "mule" accounts will become a thing too, with | individuals recruited, or their PII stolen and used, to act as | the seller. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | (OP) I'm reading conflicting articles on how available seller | details will be. | | Going by this quote from eBay, it seems that seller info will be | very available: " _And if you reach an annual total revenue of | $20,000, we're required to include your name (or company name) | and full physical address in purchase confirmation emails and | order details, but there are some exceptions._ " ref: | https://www.valueaddedresource.net/what-sellers-need-to-know... | | Meanwhile Etsy was warning it's sellers that they would be at | some risk. Etsy users on Reddit were wondering if Etsy was | overblowing the issue. ref: | https://old.reddit.com/r/EtsySellers/comments/nilj9n/the_inf... | | Lastly: A June analysis of IA considered how the bill's language | will aid small minded autocrats seeking to unearth people they | don't like. ref:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743375 | Scoundreller wrote: | Article says that if it's your home address, only your | state/country would be published. Boohoo. | | And it doesn't have to be in the listing, it could just be on | your order confirmation. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | Disclosing seller details is a great idea, but "disclosing buyer | details" would be, too. | | If you put an item up for sale on craigslist, you're fairly | likely to have someone say "Your price is acceptable. My agent | will pick it up tomorrow and give you a cashier's check." | | There's a time window of a few days in which the bank _seems_ to | have accepted the cashier 's check, but then they discover it's | fraudulent, and by then you've already given away the item. If | you fell for it. | mgliwka wrote: | The DAC7 directive mandates a similar thing in the EU starting | next year: | https://home.kpmg/mt/en/home/insights/2021/04/dac7-new-repor... | jacquesm wrote: | It's pretty weird how they were able to _not_ do this so far. | Think about it: company presents shop front, sells you goods, | handles the payment and instructs some nebulous third party to | ship goods (or sometimes they ship them from their central | warehouse). Goods arrive, or not, and quite frequently are either | broken or in some other way deficient, not the article advertised | or they don 't arrive at all. | | And then ... _poof_ legal magic ... the company that presented | the shop front and sold you the goods, handled the payment and | probably instructed the nebulous third party says they have | nothing to do with the whole matter and the nebulous third party | - assuming they exist in the first place - disappears only to | reappear a day or so later under a different name. | | Either the company (Amazon, Ebay, Etsy and many others) should | accept responsibility for any merchandise where they handle the | transaction or they should get out of the loop and allow you to | transact with the third party directly, so Amazon would only | serve as the means of discovery. | pishpash wrote: | Means of discovery like Google Shopping? They are getting more | into the intermediation also, where do you draw the line? | squeaky-clean wrote: | If I use Google Shopping to search for something, all it does | is redirect me to the actual retailer, there's no way to | purchase from Google themselves. Retailers might pay for | priority placement in the search listing, but that's the | extent of Google's financial involvement in the transaction. | It's not like I pay Google and they hide the details of the | seller from me. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | Actual Title: _eBay, Etsy and Other Marketplaces on Brink of | Having to Disclose Seller Details with INFORM Act 'Hidden' in | 4,000+ Pages Federal Spending Bill Before Congress_ | | The bill passed since publication and I changed " _on Brink of | Having to_ " to " _Now Have to_ " (and trimmed the end to fit). | csande17 wrote: | I wonder if this creates an opportunity for "seller privacy" | services to establish the minimum viable LLC, PO box, etc on | behalf of sellers. Like domain privacy, but with more paperwork. | kube-system wrote: | These services have existed for a very long time already. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | I am just concerned about the privacy implications we do not see | yet. | | I am also super confused by the definition of "high-volume"... | | > any continuous 12-month period during the previous 24 months, | has entered into 200 or more discrete sales or transactions of | new or unused consumer products and an aggregate total of $5,000 | or more in gross revenues. | aksss wrote: | What's confusing about that? | | * you sell new or unused products, | | AND | | * you have more than 200 transactions in any prior 12 month | period within last two years, | | AND | | * you have gross sales GTE $5000. | lstodd wrote: | Anyone saying that 20K year revenue is a "high-volume business | seller" is out of his mind (this might be sponsored though). | tptacek wrote: | Presumably the distinction is between people who use eBay like | a virtual garage sale (selling only sporadically) and people | who use eBay as an ongoing source of income. | lstodd wrote: | Etsy isn't a garage sale. | | When we with my ex started selling handmade stuff there, we | had revenue above 20k in the first year knowing almost | nothing about anything. | | Mind you, handmade isn't IT, margins are thin. | | Yes, we had that as an ongoing source of income. Why is this | a reason for doxxing us? | squeaky-clean wrote: | Etsy can be a garage sale. It may be dominated by | dropshippers at the moment, but the average person selling | real DIY things on Etsy is not making anywhere near 20k/yr. | You two must be very skilled at your craft to be able to do | that within your first year, even if revenue != profit. | Either that or you're selling a couple things that cost | 10k+ to make (Which actually wouldn't count as high volume | because you also need 200 sales) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-26 23:00 UTC)