Recently I’ve been trying to sell a few older laptops that I have lying around on eBay, and have run into problems with what eBay calls “rogue bidders.” Basically, a rogue bidder is one that simply creates a throw-away account on eBay in order to bid and win auctions and then attempt to defraud the seller through various means in order to receive the auctioned item without ever paying for it. While you would think that this is something that eBay would combat ferociously, it doesn’t seem, at least to me, as if there doing a very good job of it. While they say they are constantly after these “rogue bidders,” they are still consistently letting them on their system, and the protections that they offer sellers do not prevent rogue bidders from registering, bidding, or winning auctions in most cases. I’ve recently been fighting with their corporate office regarding this, and they don’t seem to care much about this whole “rogue bidder” situation, or pay it very much attention. As a result, a thought occurred to me, and while I’m not sure it’s all true, it’s an interesting hypothesis. Before I go any further though, I hope that posting this on my blog won’t result in eBay assassins coming after me in a Pelican Brief manner 
It would seem to me that it would be beneficial for eBay to actually allow “rogue bidders” on their system given their current one-time-only free re-listing policy and only make a half-hearted (though appearing strong publicly) showing of attempting to oust these “rogue bidders” and prevent them from interfering with legitimate auctions and bidders. The reason for this, obviously, is that given the policies of eBay, these “rogue bidders” can actually increase eBay’s revenues. I’m not sure if a lot of you out there are familiar with how eBay works, and I’m not incredibly versed in all the ways eBay makes money, but I do know how they make money from me (an occasional seller). They charge me to list an item (insertion fees – based on things such as starting bid, reserve price, Buy It Now price, any bells and whistles my listing has, etc.) and then they charge me a percentage of whatever the item sells for (final value fees). If the auction ends with a “rogue bidder” as the winner who never pays me, I can final an unpaid item request to receive a refund of the final value fees. However, this still leaves me hanging out to dry with respect to the insertion fees, especially if there were legitimate bidders who would have completed the auction and actually paid me if not for the “rogue bidder.” As a result, eBay allows you to re-list the item, and if it sells the second time around, they will refund that listings insertion fees. However, you can only do this once. What this means, unfortunately, is that if the second time around, your auction is once again completed by a “rogue bidder” even when it is obvious that there are legitimate bidders who are interested in your auction, you will not be able to re-list the item again without having to pay additional insertion fees (which generates more revenue for eBay). I can completely understand this being a legitimate policy if “rogue bidders” did not exist, since then the only worry is whether or not there is sufficient interest in your auction to generate a winner, and if there isn’t, that’s not eBay’s fault, but simply the marketplace as a whole not having any demand for your item (or perhaps you listing too high a starting bid, reserve price, etc. – which would be your own fault). In that case, you should still, of course, be obligated to provide payment to eBay as they did render a service to you (and if you re-list and again there is no demand, once again provide payment). However, when there is obvious demand for your item, and your auction would obviously result in a legitimate winner if not for these “rogue bidders” that eBay doesn’t seem to do enough to keep off their systems, then you as a seller should not be held financially responsible. The fact that you are, however, financially responsible in this situation makes one wonder if perhaps eBay tailored its policies towards “rogue bidders” and their prevention with their free re-listing policies in some sort of semi-conspiracy to gain more revenue in an illicit and dishonest manner. They could consistently remove “rogue bidders’ from their systems right after auctions are completed (thus securing their additional revenues), and yet also allow “rogue bidders” to get back onto their system more easily. And the rogue bidders themselves have an interest in continuing to attempt to defraud sellers since occasionally their methods work and they receive the auctioned items without every paying for it. Who knows…maybe eBay is even in cahoots with these rogue bidders. All I’m saying is that its questionable that eBay seems so committed on its face to removing such “rogue bidders” and yet the record shows otherwise, their protections aren’t very good at protecting against “rogue bidders” winning auctions, and their policies seem to support “rogue bidders” as it generates more income for the company. Perhaps if eBay isn’t truthfully encouraging or at least silently condoning “rogue bidders” then they should seriously re-examine their “rogue bidder” prevention methods, seller protection methods, and re-listing policies when “rogue bidders” are in the equation.
Now, if for whatever reason I mysteriously disappear in the next few days…well, I think we’ll all know what happened to me hehe…