| Antidepressant Medications Handle stress, elevate the mood, treat anxiety disorders. | Weight Loss Supplements Natural supplements that burn body fat, suppress appetite and support a healthy diet. | Casino Classic Best Online Casino! Get $500 free on the house! | Shared Movies Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows No Charge per movie, No download limit! |
|
Posted at December 31, 1969, 6:00 pm: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Form 10-Q EBAY INC 10-Q filed on 05/10/2004 In February 2002, PayPal was sued in California state court (No. CV-805433) in a purported class action alleging that its restriction of customer accounts and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimate accounts violates California state consumer protection laws and is an unfair business practice and a breach of PayPal’s User Agreement. This action was re-filed with a different named plaintiff in June 2002 (No. CV-808441), and a related action was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in June 2002 (No. C-022777). In March 2002, PayPal was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. C-02-1227) in a purported class action alleging that its restrictions of customer accounts and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimate accounts violates federal and state consumer protection and unfair business practice laws. The federal court has denied PayPal’s motion to compel individual arbitration as required by the PayPal User Agreement and has invalidated that provision of the User Agreement. PayPal has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The two federal court actions have been consolidated into a single case, and the state court action has been stayed pending developments in the federal case. In September 2003, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. In November 2003, the parties tentatively reached agreement as to the monetary terms for settlement of the disputes, and we fully accrued for this tentative settlement amount in our income statement for the three months and year ended December 31, 2003 as the amounts are considered both probable and reasonably estimable. The amount was not material to our results of operations or cash flows. The parties have notified the court that they need time to negotiate and document other terms of any resulting agreement, and the class certification hearing has been rescheduled for July 17, 2004. If PayPal is unable to prevail in these lawsuits or settle them on acceptable terms, it may have to pay substantial damages and change its anti-fraud operations in a manner that will harm its business. Even if PayPal’s defense is successful or if it is able to settle the lawsuits, the litigation could damage PayPal’s reputation, require significant management time, and require changes to its customer service and operations that could increase its costs and decrease the effectiveness of its anti-fraud program. Source Of Information: Form 10-Q http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ipage=2780773&doc=1 ============ Please quit shooting the messenger. ============ Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I like ebay and paypal (the sellers, buyers and the concept of ebay and paypal). But what ebay's management has done negatively to the site in the last couple of years is NOT all our imaginations. It's NOT our cache or stale cookies, our computers or our inability to comprehend the direction ebay has been heading for some time now. As far as paypal. See ebay's own statements above. Ranger you brought up paypal. On a side note take a look at this: http://wcbs.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=6485& You think I'm making all this stuff up? This artical is all too common.Tim Original of the message was taken from http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/ Previous Post: The service called ACH. Next Post: The PayPal suit was 3 years ago. |