Good.
55 million is an insane amount.
What Ebay did was reprehensible…but the Steiners were biased against Ebay for a very long time before this happened. However, this wasn’t the smart way to deal with that on Ebay’s part.
Neither party is portrayed in a good light here…
Irrelevant.
Having an opinion, even an incorrect or offensive one, does not excuse threats, harassment, stalking, or any of the other criminal actions taking by some of the former ebay employees. The Steiner’s stance re: ebay is not a justification, mitigating factor, or consideration in judging these actions. What they did is reprehensible, full stop.
Absolutely, never said it did. However, both things can also be true. Again, neither party looked good in this situation.
I mean I and a lot of people here have been critical against Amazon for a very long time but…
The “smart way” was to be a big corporate machine and IGNORE IT.
I’m not belittling your opinion here, but I see nothing the Steiners did as “wrong.” They used words to express frustration and disappointment. Words. That’s all. Last time I checked we are allowed to use words to express opinions. If ebay responded with words written publicly stating how the Steiners were wrong MAYBE I could say both sides look bad, but they broke the law, not once but many times in many ways here.
The official statement on EcommerceBytes Blog:
And the official statement from ebay:
A company NEVER admits fault in a statement unless they are so wrong that not even a pardon from the Pope would help. This statement says some things, very loudly.
Ebay’s position has been from the beginning that these were rogue employees who were not acting on behalf of the company and to try to establish as much distance as possible between the company and the individuals. People are already in prison, hard to pretend nothing happened.
Well, except maybe on the Amazon NSFE. They have slapped me with a couple of “time outs” over the years for using such offensive language as ‘snowflakes’ and one I never did figure out what I said wrong.
If eBay felt they were wronged they needed to go to court. Calling in Uncle ■■■■■ Vinnie (since “■■■■■” is apparently offensive) is never a smart move.
We are taking a couple days off so you all won’t be too offended until late tomorrow or Friday! 
Good recommendation!
I looked and found THIS sentence to be an interesting disclosure –
“As set forth in the agreement, eBay issued the following statement:…”
The eBay attorneys couldn’t find a way to weasel/waffle their way out of issuing the ‘apology’.
I mean they also couldn’t force the standard NDA, that is huge honestly
I wish more people had the courage and resources to allow them to refuse NDAs. Our rugs have far too much dirty laundry swept under them already.
Sadly, even when they are actually prohibited by various regulatory bodies SOME large companies still do them to hide their lies.
When I got escorted out the door and let the (then) NASD know about what a certain huge insurance company was doing I only focused on the sales side in my letters. That cost them a LOT (to me) of money and embarrassment since they were actually not able to keep it buried despite being extremely well connected.
Now, many years later, I am wondering if it is worth bringing up the use of those prohibited NDAs just for my own peace of mind. Not to mention that, YES, I do hold grudges…
Not belittling your opinion, either. Totally get where you are coming from.
For reference:
Lol but the statement did include: “We continue to extend our deepest apologies to the Steiners.” Does that count? 
I am certain that eBay regrets how the Steiners were treated, especially thinking about how putting the force of the Goliath of eBay is just plain dumb.
But I just wish that some of the non-incarcerated/criminally responsible ex-employees had any (more) real consequences. This whole ordeal, from summer of 2019 to this week, has been a drastically unfair burden to the Steiners.
I mean…
But I did also appreciate this cherry on top for the First Amendment, which is taking its own beating these days, especially “Take her down” Wenig having to add his own personal $1M for the right to be criticized without criminal harassment.
The company is required to issue a strongly worded statement condemning the actions of the former employees who were involved.
I suspect ebay was delighted to do so, and would have done so anyway, since it gives the appearance of the guilty parties being separate from the company.
Don’t be mad at us, we just sell you broken crap as “slightly used!” Be mad at them, those dirty criminals, those loose cannons, those awful people, they did the bad things, so bad, not us!
The jump across the legal “river” happened when they changed from online messages (I mean I’ve gotten way more then a few, even some about SAS) to the physical deliveries. That’s where it became criminal, illegal and honestly undefendable.
I am not supporting digital bullying/harassment in any way but, there is a difference.
So my Ruindays shipments to fraud customers should probably stop I guess.
Just pay with an offshore bank account held by a subsidiary of a shell company and be sure to use a burner phone that you had a shill buyer get for you from the corner bodega in a questionable neighborhood.
AND be sure enough time has evolved that it would no longer appear obvious. Problem solved.
I just watched the docu on prime, very well shot, edited and told. Good telling of the story from both sides too (as much as they could)