Charges Brought Against eBay UK Over Illegal Contact Lens Sales On Its Site

[mandy]

The internet auction website, eBay, has had charges brought against it by the General Optical Council for allegedly allowing the illegal sale of contact lenses without the involvement of a qualified optician.

At the hearing next month the council will argue that eBay is responsible for preventing unsupervised sales of contact lenses via its website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...ebay29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/29/ixhome.html

[mandy]

Another story on this case.  EBay is now threatening to file a libel suit against the UK's General Optical Council unless the charges are dropped.  :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/ebay_goc/

[mandy]

...Contact Lenses.

EBay Inc....denied charges it broke U.K. law by allowing the sale of contact lenses on its Web site.

The General Optical Council, which regulates U.K. opticians, is prosecuting EBay's U.K. subsidiary on 10 counts of aiding and abetting the sale of contact lenses ``not effected by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or registered optician,'' according to court documents.

EBay pleads not guilty to all 10 counts,....a lawyer for the company, told a hearing at the City of London Magistrates' Court today.

full article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=ainBW_z4O1.w

[mandy]

Update:

eBay has been found ‘not guilty’ of aiding and abetting the unlawful sale of contact lenses on its web site this morning, after the General Optical Council offered no evidence this morning at the opening of its prosecution of the internet company.

The GOC said its failed prosecution highlighted a 'problem' with laws on auction web sites. It said it brought the prosecution in the belief that eBay should actively monitor its website and de-list contact lenses that were being offered for sale unlawfully.

The case reinforces eBay’s position as an ‘information society service provider’ that hosts third-party content and does not have any obligation to monitor its site for illegal content.

full article: http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2...ution.html

[iron_chick]

The case reinforces eBay’s position as an ‘information society service provider’ that hosts third-party content and does not have any obligation to monitor its site for illegal content.

But apparently does have an obligation (to itself) to monitor the site for the dreaded words "cash" or "bidpay" . . . .

[bargainbloodhound]

an ‘information society service provider’ that hosts third-party content

I consider the eBay message boards and their review section to be "content", but I have a problem with the products for sale being described as "content".  When the laws that pertain to the Internet were written I think the intent was to protect the hosts and content providers of written work and ensure the free flow of information and ideas: online magazines, books, news, the exchange of ideas on forums, etc.  I don't think the laws were originally meant to protect product providers/sellers or their hosts...but the ecommerce industry used its financial muscle to push/bully the courts into expanding the definition of "content".