Sneaky fees banned in the UK from today

[andha-21]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/06/uk-bans-22bn-sneaky-fees-and-fake-reviews-for-online-p...

The CMA are in charge of the crackdown

Fingers crossed. We may have some light at the end of the tunnel now.

[andha-21]

They have to be upfront about all costs now.

So the first price people see has to be the final total with full breakdown.

Offer section may have to go bye bye now.

I'll have to check if the guest buyer (logged out) are still seeing things the same way.

[andha-21]

Thinking this through, even Auctions could be in trouble with this.

I'm not certain though.

The way it works now is if we bid say £100, eBay then reduce our maximum bid to include the BPF.

I don't remember ever asking them to do that or them explicitly telling us that would happen.

Multiple thread/post examples of that here.

Not sure if that is "sneaky" enough to fall under the CMA's remit but doesn't it make sense to let them decide that.

Yay or nay, we lose nothing. It's already here.

eBay UK, this may be your House of Cards moment.

[lucy_farmer]

Just read that one myself, andh!

 It does leave a slightly more optimistic view of the future of online financial goings-on....🙂

[andha-21]

This is our opportunity.

We were never going to stop this ourselves, we always needed a regulator to wade in.

[*vyolla*]

I think you might've misunderstood that feature in the Guardian - there is absolutely nothing in the updated Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 that applies (or could apply) to eBay.

[andha-21]

@*vyolla* 

Out of curiosity. How do you get to that reasoning?

From a legislation stance, all an online company needs to do to fall under UK law is try to trade with habitual UK residents. That's it.

The BPF is proof of that all by itself. 

[akemp1]

---

@lucy_farmer wrote:

Just read that one myself, andh!

 It does leave a slightly more optimistic view of the future of online financial goings-on....🙂

---

Are you persuaded to join us in filing a report with the CMA about SD yet?

I don't see how the RM+ pricing that ebay are charging with SD is anything other than a hidden fee as it's mandatory, more expensive than RM themselves and its the seller doing all the packing and dropoff in the item price. Its just a big ugly undeclared fee on buyers (and sellers who offer free postage).

[*vyolla*]

Can you explain to me how and why, exactly, you believe that eBay could be affected by the update to the updated Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024?

You can post this on any one of the eCommerce sites and they'll also explain that you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[andha-21]

@*vyolla* 

So you can't explain your reasoning or don't want to?

[*vyolla*]

---

@andha-21 wrote:

@*vyolla* 

So you can't explain your reasoning or don't want to?

---

Eh?

You haven't understood the article, there's nothing in the updated act that relates to eBay (the only way it would relate in any way would be if buyers could leave reviews without making a verified purchase, which they can't), there's nothing else there.

[andha-21]

Umm, no. I think it may be you that didn't read the article.

The title/direct page link and content of that article refers to SNEAKY FEES and Fake Reviews.

You are focusing on the Fake review part.

Considering how many threads/posts here are of people asking for explanations regarding BPF,

regarding why they lost auctions when their maximum bid was higher than the winning one,

regarding the fact that Simple Delivery is always more expensive than buying postage yourself,

that people keep asking how it is 20% cheaper and there's probably more not springing to my mind right now.

I think it's fair to say that eBay have not been that forthcoming with clear and transparent information (another legal requirement). If it's not clear and transparent, then they are trying to hide things.

That could be described as sneaky.

My thread title didn't mention the fake review part of that article, neither did any of my posts. Almost like I knew that didn't apply. 

So out of curiosity, why are you trying to switch it that way?

& the CMA are also in charge of monitoring competition regulations. & the forced mandate of only 2 couriers almost certainly falls under their remits.

[*vyolla*]

I've very familiar with that update actually, I helped campaign for it. 😀

I cannot stress enough that the article you've referred to there has ZILCH relation to any aspect of eBay.

I mentioned fake reviews because if eBay allowed them, that would be the only aspect that would apply to them (and Vinted, Depop, Etsy etc). I'm trying to explain in simple terms, that there is nothing applicable to eBay there.

Please stop posting misinformation. 

Seller Central is just getting bonkers now, no doubt it will go the way of the Vinted forums as a result. 

[fantailsforme]

Check out the last paragraph

New laws set to ban mandatory hidden fees from online shopping, saving money for consumers - GOV.UK

[andha-21]

@*vyolla* 

So in 4 posts here, you have failed to mention the Sneaky Fees part of that article once.

Yet I'm the one spreading misinformation?

Interesting perspective.

[andha-21]

@fantailsforme 

Did you mean this part?

"In addition to fake reviews and hidden fees, the DMCC Bill will also look at other consumer issues including subscription traps, and will provide the CMA with stronger tools to investigate competition problems and take faster, more effective action, including where companies collude to bump-up prices at the expense of UK consumers."

[papso22]

The BPF is not 'sneaky', nor is the way it's been introduced.  I agree with @*vyolla* that these new laws do not impact ebay in any way.

You quite clearly have an agenda and are therefore looking at everything in a way that suits that agenda, no matter how much you have to skew it to fit.  Your 'contract law analysis' being an example. 

Why don't you report ebay to the CMA?  If you do, please let us know how you get on with that.  By the way, how did it go when you reported ebay to TS, or had a conversation about ebay's practices with a qualified legal professional?

[fantailsforme]

Andha-21

Yes thats the part.  That was from Gov.UK

I would say that the postal companies and ebay are colluding.

[*vyolla*]

---

@andha-21 wrote:

@*vyolla* 

So in 4 posts here, you have failed to mention the Sneaky Fees part of that article once.

Yet I'm the one spreading misinformation?

Interesting perspective.

---

Oh ye gods, the 'sneaky fees' you want to relate to eBay cannot relate to eBay. 

Just because you see the phrase 'sneaky fees' does not mean that it's some universally vague 'sneaky fee'. 

The law and it's update contains NOTHING that can relate to eBay. 

I'm not going to keep trying to explain this, you can check out the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 yourself or ask one of the eCommerce sites to explain it to you.

It will not affect eBay in any way, shape or form.

[andha-21]

@papso22 

So 2 Mentors saying it doesn't apply and one saying the BPF is not sneaky.

I wonder if that is something shared by the userbase.

& that's the nature of a forum, to share information. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. Not forcing them to follow my viewpoints. I'm simply giving them information so they can decide for themselves.

& I've been waiting. I knew our best chance in this was always to wait for them to unveil everything they announced to us. Once it's all active together that's when people start seeing the real picture and the issues it creates.