The problem is with Paypal. Any buyer could do this to anyone at anytime apparently regardless of their feedback. The moral of the story is an even scarier one than to watch for low feedback buyers...it's that you aren't completely safe in any designer item transaction through Paypal EVER. All you need is a buyer with poor motives supply a letter stating the item is fake (they can have a similar but fake item authenticated instead of the real one), paypal will have them destroy it, and they will take your money without even giving you a chance to fight. An even better scam than the rocks in a box we have been hearing about for years....this is not good for anyone no matter how careful they are.
WARNING, Paypal just made me lose $20 THOUSAND dollars from a scamming buyer
- Thread starter kristie
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
- Status
The problem is with Paypal. Any buyer could do this to anyone at anytime apparently regardless of their feedback. The moral of the story is an even scarier one than to watch for low feedback buyers...it's that you aren't completely safe in any designer item transaction through Paypal EVER. All you need is a buyer with poor motives supply a letter stating the item is fake (they can have a similar but fake item authenticated instead of the real one), paypal will have them destroy it, and they will take your money without even giving you a chance to fight. An even better scam than the rocks in a box we have been hearing about for years....this is not good for anyone no matter how careful they are.
Oh right, I see what you mean.
Yes, it would certainly tend to suggest that she probably received the bag originally shown in the listing pics (or one very similar).
Although, from a legal perspective, I'm still really not sure that it would be viewed as concrete evidence, in court?
As someone could claim they just, very quickly, looked at the bag, before rushing off to work, or whatever and didn't really have a chance to check properly.
Thing is, though, I tend to wonder why a scammer would email to say that they loved the bag, if they then intended to, almost immediately, file a false claim, anyway?
Rather odd behaviour, to say the least, isn't it?
You'd think, if the intention had been to scam from the get-go, they'd just keep quiet and get on with it?
Well, this is the thing, isn't it?
She actually only submitted evidence that a bag in her possession (or that had been in her possession) and/or shown in her listing pics was authentic.
Similarly, the buyer only submitted evidence that a bag in her possession (whether the one shipped from the seller, or not) was a fake.
The rest was taken on trust, because only the buyer and the seller ever really know what has happened, in a situation like this.
This is true, but there is no equivalency here in terms of credibility, which is implied in your statement. One has a known and provable track record in the marketplace, and the other has none at all. To award the trust to the latter, as Paypal did, is obviously a pretty peculiar call.
someone at PP made a mistake based upon the info that the buyer provided..
before instructing the buyer to destroy this bag, it should have been taken
to a third party for proof of authenticity.. this was a very high ticket item
and who made that decision at pp... did the buyer speak with a supervisor.. the
legal dept? the OP needs to find out who exactly made that determination and what
was it based on...
before instructing the buyer to destroy this bag, it should have been taken
to a third party for proof of authenticity.. this was a very high ticket item
and who made that decision at pp... did the buyer speak with a supervisor.. the
legal dept? the OP needs to find out who exactly made that determination and what
was it based on...
Wow, Kristie...I don't even know what to say. This whole scenario is just terrible. I still find it so hard to believe that there are awful people like your buyer out there, who can do things like this to numerous people and still sleep at night. I really, really hope you are able to get something done about this! It's so unfair. I wish you the best of luck with this!
I think that was a bad idea as well. I understand that PP claims they can be sued by the manufacturer if fake goods are not destroyed, but they really shouldn't jump the gun like they did here when they knew full well that the seller does not agree with their ruling and is looking at other avenues in which she could attempt to get the money owed to her back in her account. I don't think they should tell anyone to destroy that quickly.
Isn't that the truth!
I think that was a bad idea as well. I understand that PP claims they can be sued by the manufacturer if fake goods are not destroyed, but they really shouldn't jump the gun like they did here when they knew full well that the seller does not agree with their ruling and is looking at other avenues in which she could attempt to get the money owed to her back in her account. I don't think they should tell anyone to destroy that quickly.
Isn't that the truth!
Hi all. I am new here...
One thing that may have been overlooked here is:
This case appears obviously to be a he said she said. In a court of law it would come down to:
A. Evidence B. Intent and C. Character of the individuals.
I believe the ebay listing and photos definitely would count and any correspondence between the two parties. Especially the email sent from the buyer after receiving the item stating their pleasure with the item.
It seems that the seller in this case would provail. It would almost certainly be decided by a judge; merited on instincts as well as A,B and C.
I sell a lot of designer goods on ebay and have mostly been lucky.
I read a post about videotaping; I actually did videotape packing an iphone as the buyer had few feedbacks. The buyer filed a dispute SNAD and won sending the item back for a refund. So all I lost out on was postage and ebay fees. But it shows videotaping does not count for anything either.
After reading about this terrible situation I will definitely be more cautious in the future.
I really am so sorry this happened to you and everything you are feeling is justified. You know what is right and will come to the right conclusion on what is best for you.
I wish you all the best.
One thing that may have been overlooked here is:
This case appears obviously to be a he said she said. In a court of law it would come down to:
A. Evidence B. Intent and C. Character of the individuals.
I believe the ebay listing and photos definitely would count and any correspondence between the two parties. Especially the email sent from the buyer after receiving the item stating their pleasure with the item.
It seems that the seller in this case would provail. It would almost certainly be decided by a judge; merited on instincts as well as A,B and C.
I sell a lot of designer goods on ebay and have mostly been lucky.
I read a post about videotaping; I actually did videotape packing an iphone as the buyer had few feedbacks. The buyer filed a dispute SNAD and won sending the item back for a refund. So all I lost out on was postage and ebay fees. But it shows videotaping does not count for anything either.
After reading about this terrible situation I will definitely be more cautious in the future.
I really am so sorry this happened to you and everything you are feeling is justified. You know what is right and will come to the right conclusion on what is best for you.
I wish you all the best.
I completely agree!
I'm still in shock that PP could demand that someone destroy an $11K item based only on 'documentation' provided by the person who would benefit the most - the buyer.
It also does seem odd that the buyer would have sent the email to the buyer stating that she loved the bag. It's almost like she was trying to get the seller to let her guard down so she could completely blindside her with the PP claim.
I'm sorry if this has been discussed already I did not read all 21 pages but I thought once the transaction goes OFF eBay the buyer loses their buyers protection from paypal
the whole buyer response is out of order... first, she e-mails
and says she's happy and then does this complete 360 degree
turnaround... something is very wrong here... personally, think
this buyer has done this before and probably knew pp would tell
her to destroy the bag and all she had to do was sign an affadavit..
no communication to the seller that their might have been a problem
w/ the bag no nothing to the seller at all (from buyer).pp contacted the
seller and told her what happened....the seller didn't have a chance
for anything to be reconsidered or re-evaluated.. poof.. that bag
was destroyed....
I only read the first page but I am so so sorry that this happened to you. With all the proof and the e-mails from the buyer saying she loved it and this and that, I really feel this should have been clearly ruled in your favour, or at least, that she should have given you back your original bag and then the money be refunded. Really and truly, this is why there are so many scammers online because they know they can get away with it again and again 
Paypal User Agreement said:
OP has to sue Paypal in Santa Clara County, CA or Omaha, NE. California law will apply, which may actually be good for OP because California's consumer protection laws are pretty robust.
OP, I hope you sue the everloving sh!+ out of Paypal. At the very least, Paypal was negligent in ordering your property destroyed without having a neutral, trusted third-party authenticator declare it ("it" = the actual bag you sent the buyer, with your security tag attached) counterfeit. In my mind, Paypal is just as much at fault as the scheming scammer. It's downright APPALLING how Paypal operates.
I think others have already pointed this out, but there is nothing the seller could have done in this situation to protect herself from Paypal deciding in favor of the buyer. Even if the seller had filmed a UPS employee packing the box and obtained affidavits from the employee vouching for the packed bag being the same item as the bag that had previously been authenticated, we know--based on what Paypal representatives have told various sellers on tPF--that Paypal only "may consider" such evidence. Which virtually guarantees that Paypal would still decide in favor of the buyer even in the face of such evidence. It might help the seller prove her case in court--where evidence presented by both parties is actually considered--but as far as Paypal goes, it's just a waste of time and money.
Last edited:
I'm thinking that this policy could bite PP in the butt. When is it ever acceptable to pre-determine the winner of a dispute by category?
- Status