3 ms·

What law was broken?

ryanbertrand 8y ago
Yeah, I was trying to understand this too. Seems like the Amazon employees broke the EBay terms of service and general business ethics but which law?
- jethro_tell 8y ago
  It's a civil suit, so you don't have to have broken the law. Breaking a contract or ToS is enough.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It's a civil suit, so you don't have to have broken the law. Yes, you do. > Breaking a contract or ToS is enough. Breaking a legally binding commitment in a contract is breaking the law which makes it binding, and breaking a contract otherwise isn't sufficient for legal recovery; breaking a ToS is only sufficient for success in a civil suit if and to the extent some law makes it so.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    No, this is not at all how civil law works. The main difference between a criminal offense and a civil offense is that a criminal offense will be pursued by the government, whereas pursuing a civil offense is the burden of the 'victim'. And civil cases tend to involve relatively small sums of money where the defendant will often just have to pay off the suffered loss - jail time is not a possibility, whereas criminal cases often involve punishment which can include jail time. And most importantly, civil law is still a series of well defined laws. You can't pursue a civil case on a whim, there needs to have been some law that was broken. As somebody else also mentioned breaking a contract or a ToS would only be a civil violation if breaking the contract or ToS specifically violated some civil law. There is no civil law that makes breaking a contract or ToS inherently unlawful.
    - eiaoa 8y ago
      > And most importantly, civil law is still a series of well defined laws. You can't pursue a civil case on a whim, there needs to have been some law that was broken. Can't you sue civilly for breach of contract? I don't think many people would consider breaking a contract to be breaking the law, even though there are laws governing contracts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        Only if it broke a relevant law. And each state's laws contract law tend to vary and are generally very obtuse. Here [1] for instance is California's state laws on contract. And even then you generally need to show damages, or a failure to deliver on a contractual obligation that resulted in less than promised. [1] - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=CIV&division=3.&title=&part=2.&chapter=&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...
        derefr 8y ago
        So, for a term of a contract to have force, is it necessary to have some sort of penalty in the contract for breach-of-contract, involving e.g. some required payment, so that you can then sue for failure to pay the penalty? (Which I would assume is mostly equivalent to e.g. failure to pay for goods transferred or services rendered.)
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        No. Contracts typically do not have penalties. Civil cases are about lost value. The typical example is we agree for me to install copper piping in your house. Instead I install lead piping. Lead pipes cost $40, while copper pipes cost $60. I'd be liable for the $20 of lost value. Interestingly enough you generally could not even recoup the cost to remove and reinstall new piping. It's precisely about provable and direct lost value.
kylnew 8y ago
Maybe violating the eBay terms of use? They are pretty explicit about not trying to lure people to buy from you outside of eBay, iirc. What happens when a corporates violates another companies terms of use aggressively to promote competition?
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Yes, this is the accusation in the court docs. They agreed to eBay terms knowing they were going to violate them by soliciting other users to sell off platform.
- twblalock 8y ago
  The eBay terms of use are not law. Breaking those kinds of agreements is a civil matter. The lawsuit is alleging serious criminal things, like fraud, in addition to breaking the terms of use.
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    Fraudulently creating accounts for the purposes of performing activities known to be against the ToS prior to even creating the account. "The Amazon employees acknowledged they were breaking eBay’s rules and actively tried to avoid detection, the lawsuit says."
    - twblalock 8y ago
      Yeah, but is that actually criminal fraud according to the law?
      - jdmichal 8y ago
        As debacle notes [0], the CFAA is a hell of a drug. [1] I could certainly see a case that this is "exceeding authorized access", with "authorized access" being defined by the rules established by the ToS when the account granting access was established. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250970 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Criminal_offenses_under_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...

Yeah, I was trying to understand this too. Seems like the Amazon employees broke the EBay terms of service and general business ethics but which law?

jethro_tell 8y ago
It's a civil suit, so you don't have to have broken the law. Breaking a contract or ToS is enough.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's a civil suit, so you don't have to have broken the law. Yes, you do. > Breaking a contract or ToS is enough. Breaking a legally binding commitment in a contract is breaking the law which makes it binding, and breaking a contract otherwise isn't sufficient for legal recovery; breaking a ToS is only sufficient for success in a civil suit if and to the extent some law makes it so.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  No, this is not at all how civil law works. The main difference between a criminal offense and a civil offense is that a criminal offense will be pursued by the government, whereas pursuing a civil offense is the burden of the 'victim'. And civil cases tend to involve relatively small sums of money where the defendant will often just have to pay off the suffered loss - jail time is not a possibility, whereas criminal cases often involve punishment which can include jail time. And most importantly, civil law is still a series of well defined laws. You can't pursue a civil case on a whim, there needs to have been some law that was broken. As somebody else also mentioned breaking a contract or a ToS would only be a civil violation if breaking the contract or ToS specifically violated some civil law. There is no civil law that makes breaking a contract or ToS inherently unlawful.
  - eiaoa 8y ago
    > And most importantly, civil law is still a series of well defined laws. You can't pursue a civil case on a whim, there needs to have been some law that was broken. Can't you sue civilly for breach of contract? I don't think many people would consider breaking a contract to be breaking the law, even though there are laws governing contracts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      Only if it broke a relevant law. And each state's laws contract law tend to vary and are generally very obtuse. Here [1] for instance is California's state laws on contract. And even then you generally need to show damages, or a failure to deliver on a contractual obligation that resulted in less than promised. [1] - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=CIV&division=3.&title=&part=2.&chapter=&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...
      - derefr 8y ago
        So, for a term of a contract to have force, is it necessary to have some sort of penalty in the contract for breach-of-contract, involving e.g. some required payment, so that you can then sue for failure to pay the penalty? (Which I would assume is mostly equivalent to e.g. failure to pay for goods transferred or services rendered.)
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        No. Contracts typically do not have penalties. Civil cases are about lost value. The typical example is we agree for me to install copper piping in your house. Instead I install lead piping. Lead pipes cost $40, while copper pipes cost $60. I'd be liable for the $20 of lost value. Interestingly enough you generally could not even recoup the cost to remove and reinstall new piping. It's precisely about provable and direct lost value.

kylnew 8y ago

Maybe violating the eBay terms of use? They are pretty explicit about not trying to lure people to buy from you outside of eBay, iirc. What happens when a corporates violates another companies terms of use aggressively to promote competition?

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Yes, this is the accusation in the court docs. They agreed to eBay terms knowing they were going to violate them by soliciting other users to sell off platform.
twblalock 8y ago
The eBay terms of use are not law. Breaking those kinds of agreements is a civil matter. The lawsuit is alleging serious criminal things, like fraud, in addition to breaking the terms of use.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  Fraudulently creating accounts for the purposes of performing activities known to be against the ToS prior to even creating the account. "The Amazon employees acknowledged they were breaking eBay’s rules and actively tried to avoid detection, the lawsuit says."
  - twblalock 8y ago
    Yeah, but is that actually criminal fraud according to the law?
    - jdmichal 8y ago
      As debacle notes [0], the CFAA is a hell of a drug. [1] I could certainly see a case that this is "exceeding authorized access", with "authorized access" being defined by the rules established by the ToS when the account granting access was established. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18250970 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Criminal_offenses_under_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...