## Facts

- eBay operated an online auction platform where third-party sellers listed items and buyers bid; eBay did not take title to items or sell them directly.
- Plaintiffs bought autographed sports memorabilia through eBay auctions and later alleged the signatures were forged.
- Plaintiffs claimed eBay qualified as a “dealer” or “auctioneer” under California Civil Code § 1739.7 and was required to provide certificates of authenticity and statutory warranties for autographed collectibles.
- Plaintiffs also asserted negligence and unfair competition claims, alleging eBay promoted a “safe” marketplace through features like user feedback and “power seller” designations and failed to detect or stop sellers of forged items.
- eBay demurred; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed eBay from the case.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim under Civil Code § 1739.7 by alleging eBay “sold” or “offered to sell” autographed collectibles as a statutory “dealer” (including as an auctioneer).
2. Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230 bars negligence and unfair competition claims that, in substance, seek to hold eBay liable for third-party sellers’ allegedly fraudulent listings and representations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
- eBay was not liable under Civil Code § 1739.7 because the pleaded facts showed eBay did not sell or offer to sell the collectibles; third-party sellers did.
- Plaintiffs’ negligence and UCL theories were barred by CDA § 230 because they would treat eBay as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by third parties.
- General promotional statements about marketplace safety and feedback did not supply an independent basis for liability where the alleged injury flowed from third-party misrepresentations.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 1739.7 liability requires that the defendant be the party who sells or offers to sell the autographed collectible; providing a venue for third-party sales does not make the platform a statutory “dealer.”
- An online platform qualifies for CDA § 230 protection when claims would impose liability for publishing, monitoring, editing, removing, or failing to remove third-party content.
- Plaintiffs cannot avoid CDA § 230 by recasting publication-based theories as negligence or unfair competition when the asserted wrong is the platform’s failure to police third-party misrepresentations.

## Conclusion

The court held that an online auction platform that does not itself sell the goods is not a “dealer” under California’s autographed sports memorabilia statute and, under CDA § 230, is immune from negligence and unfair competition claims that effectively seek to hold the platform responsible for third-party sellers’ fraudulent listings.


Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)