Is ebay legally allowed to instantly suspend my account (with no possibility of appeal) without a valid reason? (Actual reason is: AI algo gone rogue) I received an email out of nowhere from ebay claiming that my account has been suspended for selling &quot;prohibited items&quot; and there is no possibility of appeal. The items they identified as &quot;prohibited&quot; were A rare Syriac bible. A vintage keyboard. A Greek new testament. A commemorative physical bitcoin. We are clearly not talking drugs, weapons and child pornography here. I was baffled and contacted ebay via their online chat. The representative was completely unhelpful, refusing to offer any explanation for the suspension and simply repeating over and over again that &quot;I'm sorry, but this suspension is permanent.&quot; This is ridiculous. This is clearly and obviously unfair, unjust, hateful, bigoted, discriminatory and draconian, but my question now is; are they legally allowed to do this? update: I kept talking to chat-help representatives and they literally were copy pasting stock responses at me. Very dehumanizing. Anyway I managed to gather from the representative that my account was picked up on the basis of some artificial intelligence algorithm identifying my account as suspicious, and therefore they don't actually know the exact reason why the account was suspended. Ok, fair enough, but that being the case, why on earth is there no possibility of appeal? Clearly there's a rogue AI on the loose here.
Yes, they are. A business can decide not to do business with someone for pretty much any reason. The obvious prohibited reason is due to your race. But I don't see how eBay would even know your race. Some State laws might protect you, but I don't think there's any that applies in this case. For example, California might give you a means of appeal if someone stole your identity and they performed those transactions, not you. But I don't know of any Federal or State law that would change the very, very basic principle of law that a property owner gets to decide who can and cannot access their property. eBay owns eBay. One key benefit of ownership is precisely that you can make decisions that other people consider to be unfair, discriminatory (other than the specifically prohibited categories) and draconian. Other people don't have to agree with your decisions for them to be lawful.
I will try to answer some of my questions based on recent developments and other information I've seen. Yes. 2. No. On page 23 of this Commerce Dept. memo on TikTok, it describes: This prohibition would remove the TikTok app from U.S.-based mobile app stores, preventing mobile users from being able to download the app to their devices or receive updates. As scoped, this prohibition would only apply to app stores accessible in the United States, thus users would still be able to download the app while outside the United States. On page 15 of this Commerce Dept. memo on WeChat, it describes: This prohibition would remove the WeChat app from U.S.-based mobile app stores, preventing mobile users from being able to download the app to their devices or receive updates. As scoped, this prohibition would only apply to app stores accessible in the United States, thus users would still be able to download the app while outside the United States. 3,4,5. No for WeChat. In letters sent to the opposite party in a lawsuit and filed with the court, the US government has provided assurances that WeChat users will not have any civil or criminal liability for downloading or using the app for personal or business communication. we can provide assurances that the Secretary does not intend to take actions that would target persons or groups whose only connection with WeChat is their use or downloading of the app to convey personal or business information between users, or otherwise define the relevant transactions in such a way that would impose criminal or civil liability on such users. In other words, while use of the app for such communications could be directly or indirectly impaired through measures targeted at other transactions, use and downloading of the app for this limited purpose will not be a defined transaction, and such users will not be targeted or subject to penalties. I'm not entirely sure for TikTok, but the same may be true for TikTok since the prohibited transactions for both are essentially the same. No. The regulations on prohibited transactions do not require the blocking of traffic from the apps. Simply carrying the traffic of the app is not one of the prohibited transactions, as long as the company does not have a contract for internet transit or peering with ByteDance/Tencent, nor are providing hosting or content delivery services to ByteDance/Tencent. On page 23 of the Commerce Dept. memo on TikTok linked above, it says: User data could still be served by data centers, [redacted] operating outside of the United States. On page 7 of this declaration by a Commerce Dept. official further explains that WeChat traffic will still flow through the US: Moreover, this prohibition would not affect Internet transit or peering services in the United States that are not “directly contracted or arranged” by Tencent, and thus would leave the overwhelming majority of Internet traffic, including WeChat data, untouched.
It is cl;early not legal to charge for an optional warranty without ever having gotten approval for it. The customer could simply ask for a refund on teh ground that this was an error, and take it to small claims if that was refused. I am sure it is legal to offer such an optional warranty and point out its (alleged) benefits. I do not know if consumer law forbids making this pitch multiple times in the same selling encounter.
Yes. In the United Kingdom it is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. In other jurisdictions there may not be a law directly aimed at computer crime but if you sell it knowing that a crime is going to be committed with it that makes you an accomplice. Most computer crime is prosecuted under laws not directly aimed at computer misuse.
In all likelihood, the judge's order related to data collection and reselling is not legally enforceable. They weren't parties to the expungement action, so the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. And, the First Amendment protects the right to say truthful things pretty absolutely. Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up. The language in the order might cause sites to comply out of not legally justified concern, or just a desire to be accurate, even if it is not enforceable. So, it doesn't hurt to bring that information to the attention of such sites and ask them to take down the information. But, when push comes to shove, I very much doubt that you would prevail in court enforcing that order against them. Certainly, if you do nothing, they will do nothing, because they are not psychic and have no idea that the court order related to those records has been entered. Even a valid and enforceable order directed at a party over whom a court has jurisdiction is not effective until the person ordered to comply with it has notice of the order. And, there is no system that gives sites like that notice without you taking action to inform them of an order.
When does it become illegal to exchange bitcoin for cash? When the transaction purposefully skips the controls in place regarding anti-money laundering. Generally speaking, the issue is not the mere involvement of cryptocurrency in a transaction, but the crimes a wrongdoer seeks to camouflage or conceal by means of cryptocurrencies. Such crimes typically involve money laundering, identity theft, stolen card numbers, and the like. As quoted in one of the links you provide, "[t]he use of bitcoins in the transactions is a new technological flourish to this very old crime". Is there any direct source or any laws with numbers? Apropos of your first link, mentioning that "a Florida judge threw out money transmitting charges against a bitcoiner" (see also here), I will point out that the court's dismissal of charges against that defendant has been reversed early this year. See State v. Espinoza, 264 So.3d 1055 (2019). Although the judges' narratives of a case are questionable and/or sloppy and to be taken with a grain of salt, the appellate decision cites language from Florida legislation as applicable to virtual currencies (and, impliedly, cryptocurrencies). You will notice that the focus in the Espinoza decision is the interpretation of Florida Statutes in its sections 560.125(1) and (5)(a) (regarding unauthorized vendors), and 560.103(21), (29) (defining monetary value as "a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency"). As usual, each legislation may present subtle and/or fundamental variations. For instance, the court in Espinoza at 1065 identified that federal law is inapplicable there in that 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) contemplates that "the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means" (emphasis added), and Espinoza's transaction(s) did not involve a third party. By contrast, the Florida statute does not allude to third parties in that transmission of monetary value, hence preventing the statutory sanctions from being preemptively foreclosed in the matter of Espinoza. What about when someone buys with stolen money or money from illegal proceeds. Did you commit a crime if you sell bitcoin to someone and the money is stolen, or the gift cards are stolen? That also depends on the jurisdiction and the facts of the case. In Espinoza, he was allegedly informed that the cash he received (or was about to receive) in exchange for bitcoins "derived from engaging in illegal activity and that [the buyer] was planning to use the bitcoins to engage in further illegal activity", Espinoza at 1058. The court highlighted the State's argument that "dismiss[ing] a charge of money laundering is improper because money laundering requires intent" (emphasis added), which is sanctioned by section 896/101(3)(c).
In the United States, no. For something to be illegal in any meaningful way, you have to be able to point to a law that makes it illegal. If there's no law to break, it's not illegal. I would wonder if your colleague was thinking about question of whether cryptocurrencies are legal tender. For something to be "legal tender," there would need to be some kind of law or regulation requiring people to accept them as payment. There is no such requirement in the United States, so Bitcoin, for instance, is not legal tender. But that doesn't make it illegal tender; it just means that people can decide whether to accept it or not.
It isn't necessarily "illegal" (in the sense you are committing a crime) but you may be in violation of a verbal contract (which would fall under tort law). Let's take this a bit further. Perhaps Joe Schmoe gave you his debit card information so that you could make deposits for him and he said you could take $5 out for yourself for the trouble. This is a contract between you and Joe for a service. You can't extend Joe's offer to Jane Doe by saying "here is some debit card information, take $2.50 out for yourself". You have no right to extend your contract with Joe to somebody else. Now specifically for passwords it basically boils down to the same thing. Unless Joe gives you explicit permission to give that to somebody else, you can't just decide to unilaterally give what Joe gave you to somebody else. This may be different if Joe said "here, I'm buying you a subscription to service XYZ because you are a nice guy", this may be construed as a gift which transfers ownership. At that point you have control over what is or isn't done with the account. As another example let's say Joe let you borrow his car. You can't turn around and say to Jane, "here's a car you can use", Joe did not extend the offer to Jane, nor did Joe give you the right to extend the offer to another person. It's a moot point though, in the original context of this question, Netflix does restrict you from sharing your passwords "outside your household". Almost every paid service has some restriction against sharing with others. In the end Netflix may shut off Joe's account and Joe may sue you for damages, but you aren't going to be thrown in jail for this. This would be a civil case (tort) which you may be liable for monetary damages.