Can a public website selling item select their customers?

[Aqua Pro Builder]

I want to hear your opinion whether a "public" website selling stuff has the right to select who can or cannot buy from their website, provided that there are no criminal record of anything? For e.g. can Amazon says you are not welcome to buy in Amazon or eBay tells you that you cannot buy in their website?

Also does anyone know whether we are considered a merchant of VISA/Master when we have accepted VISA/Master Card payment thru Square NOT the old days merchant services? I will re-read the Merchant Fee Anti Trust Class Action info page again to find out the answer. But if you already know the answer, please shout out, so that we can file for compensation ASAP.

 

[skene]

Could it be quite possible that there are rules/policies set up on the card itself for purchases made on the internet?

So the only way to purchase is by swipe.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Could it be quite possible that there are rules/policies set up on the card itself for purchases made on the internet?

So the only way to purchase is by swipe.

I have rephrased the question to better reflect what I actually mean.

My question is more about the legal aspect than the technical part.

If I am not mistaken, when we open door for business physically, we cannot select who the customers are if they are all legal. The most we can do is to encourage or lure the type of customers we like.

 

[tosiek]

Legal customer? Is this a post pertaining to fraud or your preventing something different? The question is very general Wingo and the law is a little loose.

Amazon, ebay, ect do block members from using their site through their member logins but that member can also make another alias account and continue using their services. Its also after the fact, meaning they can't deny anyone until they do something wrong. I know ebay has/had issues with people not paying their seller fee's and these people continued to sell under different accounts and just kept doing the same. But there has to be a reason, you can't block people because you think they are going to do something you don't want with your product/site. Ebays case or amazons its usually through nonpayment or selling items not appropriate through their TOS. Someone has to actually do something wrong on your site to block their services, you can't actively screen anyone.

Legally, you have ever right to deny a customer service. They also have every right to sue you for whatever they feel like for denying them your services, be it descrimination or bias or whatever. It all depends on why you denied them services if your liable for any compensation on their part.

Heres some legalzoom stuff. I know restaurants have a major issue with service denial.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

@tosieK
I agreed to some of your points but not all. Before I discuss those points, I have to crack up on this statement of yours

Legally, you have ever right to deny a customer service. They also have every right to sue you for whatever they feel like for denying them your services, be it discrimination or bias or whatever.

because I am waiting for something like that to happen. I am expecting eBay will be sued(mostly in class action) in the future for many denial of service they are putting in. Kind of like what happened to the Visa/Master case where the part that they force merchants to charge same price to customers not using the cards is being struck down in the latest anti trust case. I have been arguing all the time that part is illegal but just that no one is big enough to sue them until now. I am putting my opinions about eBay or other public online merchants in time capsules for others to hunt. Strangers(time capsule hunters) who hunted my time capsules could have a fun story to tell their kids, if law suit against these giants due to the legality of denial of service, does happen, say, in 30 years,

 

[lnevo]

Thats my understanding as well. A business has no obligation to serve everyone. What they cannot do is discriminate based on race, sex, creed, and all the other blah blah blahs that go alone with that.

As a customer you have a right to sue them for not serving you but most likely its your own fault...

 

[d5332]

This is correct

Case in point, bar restaurant in Mid Town that was selecting its customers based on ethnicity. Business is Asian, they got cute and would deter others from patronizing by forcing non Asians to buy really expensive liquor bottles or no seating or enforcing dress codes at the door that were unfair, such as non Asian wearing sneakers not being allowed inside yet Asian with sneakers yes.

Attorney General put a stop to that

Apple is another case. Iphone was big in China black market, selling for $1000.00 or more, talking about 4s model not 5.

Apple is liquidating 4s phones and who lined up to buy them Asians, to sell in China Town and send back to China for profit. Apple attemped to restrict sales in USA to only non Asians and again attorney general smacked them.

Its illegal to not serve everyone that can pay. You can setup rules to discourage but you cannot refuse to serve a customer regardless of where they are from if they have the means to pay and are of sound mind.

 

[lnevo]

What about past history, disruption, non payment, etc. ie non discriminatory...

 

[beerfish]

Its illegal to not serve everyone that can pay. You can setup rules to discourage but you cannot refuse to serve a customer regardless of where they are from if they have the means to pay and are of sound mind.

Ever see the sign, "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service"?

You can't discriminate based on specific criteria, like race, but otherwise you don't have to sell anything to anyone if you don't want to. Websites are even more loose. Generally in order to use a site, you agree to a ToS that basically says that you have no rights.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Ever see the sign, "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service"?

You can't discriminate based on specific criteria, like race, but otherwise you don't have to sell anything to anyone if you don't want to. Websites are even more loose. Generally in order to use a site, you agree to a ToS that basically says that you have no rights.

That's a good point on the TOS. Generally, TOS is written so that the contract receiver has no rights at all. The terms are signed by both parties but the court has a final say on whether they are legal or not. Of course, the government generally would take any action until some one big enough to challenge these big giants as in this case of Merchants vs Visa/Master.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

...
... but most likely its your own fault...

Note:This is not to challenge you. I am just interested in how your assumption arises.

Any supporting arguments that it's usually the customers' fault?

 

[lnevo]

It was a generalization not fact...i meant it for what might be valid reasons a company might refuse service...(no shirt, no shoes, no service) past history, non payment whatever. Obviously it can go both ways.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Oh, please try to keep this topic with larger institutes, that's why I put in the word "public." I think a lot of legality issues has to deal with difference between private vs public, small institutes vs large corporate that has become a monopoly or utility in life.

For example, many options are left to the two parties to determine when there are many choices to choose from, unless they are already outlawed such as selection base of color skin.

When the providers have become so big and monopolize in the field, customers has no other services to go to. This will a be main concern I think we have encountered nowadays.

For example, we have no "real" auction site other than eBay

 

[lnevo]

Gotcha...but sign some bad checks at Walmart and you'll see how quickly your picture ends up in security...and they chase you out the door for showing up...

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Gotcha...but sign some bad checks at Walmart and you'll see how quickly your picture ends up in security...and they chase you out the door for showing up...

Haha, good that Walmart loves me even though the community generally hates them

 

[beerfish]

For example, we have no "real" auction site other than eBay

So develop one. Not many sites that I know of have tried competing with them. Additionally, an auction site is not a necessity. Heating oil, gas, electric, etc are the types of things that the feds or state will regulate. They don't keep used lunch boxes high on their priority list.

 

[d5332]

In this Country and a few others it is against the law to exclude people by such things as gender, religion, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, body type, nationality, ethinicity basically anything that qualifies as descrimination period, public or private, large or small.

You can create rules, TOS, little dumb signs that indicate "we reserve the right".

If you select your customers based on descrimination criteria you open yourself to lawsuits.

You can setup TOS that measure on qualifications and that is it.
Credit
Income
Education
Affordability
Reliability

Should a company have a right, no, they should not. If you want to elevate a brand to a certain level or market it to a certain audiences there are ways to do that, legally.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

In my opinion, a public website owned by a private corporation has a right to exclude certain consumers from access to their website. There are multifarious considerations involved, be it contractual language between user and the site or statutory requirements dealing with intrastate and interstate commerce (certain fungible products may not be legal in certain states/countries). As long as we're not dealing with constitutional arguments e.g. bias concerning race, gender, s. orientation etc.
If however, we're specifically concerned about a delinquent account history, why should a company allow access to a user that has a past history of failing to comply with their rules. This is analogous to a credit score, why would a lender accept a high risk loan? The real question to ask is: 1. Who owns the consumer electronic data and; 2. What constitutional limits stand as far as reformations on online tracking?

In your answers, there is a very interesting point-consumer electronic data. In one case, the website I have in mind expelled an old user while continuously spying on ALL his computers. The website have already sent a formal email to tell the user that they should part ways in any internet business. But as of today every device the user logs in, it sends back user info, including browsing history, mac address, ip address and EVEN the very invasive CPU serial no. from his computers to the website. The website I am talking about is a very big one. They get the money and technology to easily spy, or stop spying, on unaware users(including expelled users.) I am sure, if the website is run by moral people, they would also cut all spying software and such when they expelled an user, especially after they replied to the expelled user that they should part ways in ANY internet business. Clearly stealing information over the internet is an internet business. WHY DO THEY LEAVE electronics spying devices behind???? My assumption is that they know they can continue to spy, technically and financially, plus they also know MOST US users are inert to malpractices by the big guys. They know this tendency, so they continue to abuse it until a class action in place. By then all the responsible players are already billionaires and no need to worry repercussion. The worse scenario for them is to send all there money to off shore accounts to avoid accountability. Furthermore, you see, even class actions need the plaintiffs to be at least of certain importance in the financial world before they can bring the case to the attention of courts.

Don't take the word literally-monoply or not, is not determined whether there is at least one or two competitors. It's about the market share and practices. Or else, NONE of the anti trust case in US would ever have been won. AT&T was not the only telephony company at the time of law suit, Microsoft is not the OS company at the time when they got hit by anti trust law, nor was Walmart the only supermarket in US.

 

[Jenna X]

I'm speaking as a layperson, and very generally but in a suit or claim against a company, an individual or class must show harm. Is there redressability/justiciability? That's why I disagree with your statement that class actions need plaintiffs to have "certain importance in the financial world", there's a legal threshold for that. Politics is a whole different story, but I digress.

Businesses don't practice based on moral compass, they're looking at the bottom dollar (I agree that there should be higher ethical considerations for some, but again if you step back and look at the larger issues involve statutes and judicial rulings, that shield certain conduct). Remember FB and privacy concerns we had some months back?

I'm aware of what a monopoly is, the only reason why the word monopoly was brought up is because of the comment that there was no other real auction site, (it seems like there's an underlying issue there).

To be honest, the person being barred/excluded from membership or tracked as you mentioned, should be seeking legal consultation because it deals with complex matters that really should be addressed in the courts.

Unless of course I'm reading this incorrectly.....then we're just having a lively discussion about our rights online.

 

[beerfish]

In your answers, there is a very interesting point-consumer electronic data. In one case, the website I have in mind expelled an old user while continuously spying on ALL his computers. The website have already sent a formal email to tell the user that they should part ways in any internet business. But as of today every device the user logs in, it sends back user info, including browsing history, mac address, ip address and EVEN the very invasive CPU serial no. from his computers to the website.

First of all, unless he's entering credentials to their site, or has software installed on his devices that transmit data, it is impossible for a website to collect data like you described. (Unless the site belongs to the NSA)

Second, if you continue to be vague about the circumstances that you're trying to get answers / opinions on, the answers / opinions will be equally vague and not mean anything to anyone.

Did you get banned from eBay for a ToS violation?