Banning bidders - could it sometimes be illegal?

Michigan

This quote coming from another forum:

Auctioneers may ban bidders only for limited reasons, underage, non payment of outstanding invoices or if a bidder is disruptive. Denying bidders for other reasons becomes questionable. The Sherman Antitrust Act provides for free and fair competition and excluding qualified bidders from a public auction may violate this Act.


Just throwing this out here for discussion. Sometimes bidders are banned due to negative feedback
put up by others but not from the experience of a seller actually selling to that person.

Russ

Link?

Russ, NCNE

poorguy

I wonder if eBay's blocked bidder list would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. I'm sure the swarms of lawyers there already figured a loophole around that.

dbldie55

Who decides what a "qualified" bidder is? I take it you are referring to individual sellers on Ebay. I suspect they can deny anyone they want for any reason. All they have to do is say they did not pass their background checks. Negative feedback would probably be a justifiable reason anyway, if they have a problem, they would have to go after those who left the feedback.

flaminio

Can I sue ah-collectibles for blocking me from his auctions?

Michigan

<< <i>Who decides what a "qualified" bidder is? I take it you are referring to individual sellers on Ebay. I suspect they can deny anyone they want for any reason. All they have to do is say they did not pass their background checks. Negative feedback would probably be a justifiable reason anyway, if they have a problem, they would have to go after those who left the feedback. >>




It could be Ebay or an in person auction. I'm thinking more of people selling on Ebay, not Ebay itself.

I wonder if you can legally ban someone just because someone else said they had a bad experience with
them? Are other persons opinions in legal terms a background check? I don't know. I know a lot of
people are banned just by word of mouth (or message boards if you like) without actually seeing any
negative feedback on Ebay.

dbldie55

A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case.

PerryHall

<< <i>A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case. >>



So you're against the Civil Rights Act?

kimon1230

What about those signs I see where it says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
?

ArgentumRex

oops

Longacre

Hopefully there is an antitrust attorney in the house. This is an interesting question. It doesn't seem right, but I would like to hear from someone who can substantiate an answer.

jgrinz

Ebay lets you decide who you want to deal with by setting a feedback rating BEFORE his bid is accepted.
So the loophole would be a bidder is not 'experienced' enough in the bidding process to be able to bid on your auctions.
Lest he is blocked ...


Sounds good anyway hehhe

StrikeOutXXX

<< <i>What about those signs I see where it says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
? >>



In a nutshell, they mean very little - the same policies apply whether you have this sign or not.

Great link that sums it up here:

Restaurants right to refuse service

The condensed version is:
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service.

Unjustified is the key word there - there are some exceptions (below), but you can't just invent a reason or deny service "Just because"

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

keets

A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case.

Holy Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you think before you typed that brainstorm that sent race and religious tolerance back a couple hundred years??? i'm sure glad i live in a somewhat tolerant state.

Ronyahski

My understanding of Sherman, and subsequent amendments to the Act, is that they deal with a contract or conspiracy entered into in the restraint of trade amongst States or Nations. They address situations concerning trusts, monopolies, price fixing, etc. Banning one individual from a coin auction is something else.

dbldie55

<< <i>A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case.

Holy Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you think before you typed that brainstorm that sent race and religious tolerance back a couple hundred years??? i'm sure glad i live in a somewhat tolerant state. >>



Yes, it is quite clear and has nothing to do with race religion or anything else. A person has the right to not do business with anyone for any reason. It should go both ways.

Michigan

<< <i>A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case.


Denny's and Peanut Barrel restaurants learned an expensive lesson that this is not a wise thing to do.

keets

Brian, you have no clue whatsoever.

ksteelheader

<< <i>Brian, you have no clue whatsoever. >>



He has been referred to at times as dbldumb.

Coxe

I had thought about this too. eBay selling and bidding is a game with a lot of games being played. Sometimes you have to look deeply into the feedback and make correlations. Suppose you are selling a five figure coin and the lead bidder has only been buying used clothing or something cheap and has a history of leaving negative feedback for silly issues on cheap stuff in cases where the seller left feedback first? So you ban them on those bases. What is your burden legally? What if the username suggests a commonly discriminated ethnicity and they claim the ban was racially motivated or based ofn stereotypical distrust? It could get ugly in a case like thta. Most of these are such low $$$ where it wouldn't be worth the effort, but a ban would be more likely on the bigger stuff one would think.

bhartman35

I really don't think Ebay sellers have to worry about the same rules as restaurants do. If Ebay banned someone, that could cause problems, but individual store proprietors throw people out of their stores for various reasons all the time, don't they?

FatMan

OK, here is what I have been told by my attorney concerning my choosing with whom to do business with. By the way, it is the same with who I choose to hire.

I have the right to choose who I do business with as long as my decision is not based in any way on sex, race, religion, national origin, color, creed, or old age. That is what is outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as amended. Age was added later on in the Age Discrimination act of 1973(?). Certain handicaps may also apply, however, my understanding is that I must make my place of business accessible to handicapped individual but it is not so clear as to whether I am mandated to do business with them. Some states have added other classes such as sexual preference, marital status, etc.

But here's the rub, Title VII is one of the rare laws in the US that if someone makes a charge against me I am guilty until I prove myself innocent. Therefore, if I choose to not do business with a Hindu I better be able to back up my choice with some reason other than their religion. And even if I can, if I have excluded several Hindus from my business even with good cause it is likely that my actions will be perceived as discriminatory. Since discrimination is by nature a mental covert activity it can never be absolutely proven without admittance. Therefore, if it looks discriminatory, it is.

bhartman35

I think if you show a clear pattern of discriminating against certain groups (i.e., there's no other overt reason for the exclusion). If all the Hindus who came into your store also happened to bounce checks, you'd probably be okay excluding those individuals. If there wasn't anything else you could point to, though, you'd be screwed.

Frankcoins

<< <i>A private person/business should be able to deny their services to anyone for any reason or no reason. It is very sad that this is not the case. >>



So do you whip your slaves daily or every other day? People like you are a disgrace.

Frankcoins

<< <i>This quote coming from another forum:

Auctioneers may ban bidders only for limited reasons, underage, non payment of outstanding invoices or if a bidder is disruptive. Denying bidders for other reasons becomes questionable. The Sherman Antitrust Act provides for free and fair competition and excluding qualified bidders from a public auction may violate this Act.


Just throwing this out here for discussion. Sometimes bidders are banned due to negative feedback
put up by others but not from the experience of a seller actually selling to that person. >>



An auctioneer has wide discretion on what makes a "qualified" bidder. People are denied credit all the time for their
experience with others.

MikeKing

As a Physician, we were taught/trained in Ethics meetings that as a Private Practioner (not all MD's are private practitioners), you have the right to turn patients away for 'legitimate' reasons that need to be succinctly spelled out in a letter to the patient (certified reciept requested) and in that letter, offer your services for x amount of time for emergencies, until they find (with your help offered), another physician.

I would never go over to reject a patient based on sex age creed politics or sexual orientation or disease state. Not that these horrible things haven't happened in the past, that practice is shunned by all major Medical Societies I've ever dealt with and is considered shameful and negligent.

The patient who is disruptive may be exhibiting symptoms that require diagnosis and treatment, so you can't just say 'your'e disruptive go away', But that's Doctoring, which brings the privilege of rejection to a much different level because it is not a physicians right to treat, it is his privilege to treat. But there are situations where you know that the personality clash could be so bad that the patient would best be served by someone else, and it is the duty of the physician to understand this and treat it in as fair and safe a way as is humanly possible.

For example, a point came in my practice that it was about to go under financially. I had to turn people away that had a certain insurance. Something I previously willfully took, but the reality was my practice would no longer survive, and then I wouldn't be able to treat anyone.

So, it's different with life and death situations, but the business ethic, in my opinion should be the same. You need to determine 'valid' reasons for dissmissing someone such that it is not discirminatory. If that is done, one becomes a very good...and honorable...business man/woman. In my humble opinion. Selling cheaper merchandise at higher prices to an armless man because it freaks you out and you hope he won't come back is a reflection of your personality, and thus, such low level behavior will further reflect in your personal life, your family and those you think you care for. That care is tainted, otherwise you wouldn't have screwed the one armed man, you would have treated him fairly.

Not everyone is at that level, and that's why there are laws to protect minorities.