Reversed transaction – eBay keeps the sales commission despite a full refund. Is this clause in the terms and conditions even valid under German law?
Summary: bricks*import questioned eBay's process of retaining fees even after a full transaction reimbursement, as they encountered a situation where they had to refund a buyer while eBay kept the fees. They expressed frustration with the decision, despite being previously assured by eBay support of their position. petersmodellbahnstuebchen argued that this is standard due to eBay's handling processes. grohbacher pointed out the complexity between having and receiving legal rights, suggesting that legal action or policy review could be necessary. bricks*import shared a resolution where eBay later refunded the fees, indicating inconsistencies in policy application, and expressed a desire for further discussion and clarity on these practices.
Edited: Due to a broken keyboard, the text was summarized by AI and it went a bit too far. It was more along the lines of wanting sound legal opinions. That was never my intention
eBay return: buyer gets everything back, eBay still keeps the fees?
I’ve just got a case that has me a bit puzzled, because I’ve never experienced it like this before.
The buyer opened a return and claimed that when the package was opened, allegedly part of the contents was missing. I believe this claim is false, so I involved eBay.
I then even called eBay support. After reviewing the case, they explicitly told me that I am in the right and shouldn’t worry. Unfortunately, that was only over the phone, so of course I have nothing in writing about it.
Now my complaint was still rejected, or rather the decision in favor of the buyer was upheld. I was told in justification that the buyer had been able to prove that they reported the alleged theft.
But let’s be honest: the fact that someone reports an alleged theft by no means proves that the theft actually happened. At first, it only proves that they reported that claim somewhere.
By the way, eBay didn’t provide me with the alleged proof itself either.
And this is exactly where my actual problem comes in:
The buyer gets the full purchase price back, so for example €31. eBay had previously kept about €6 in fees from those €31. But now, for the refund, the full €31 is charged back to me, while eBay apparently keeps the roughly €6 it had previously withheld.
So in the end I’m left with €0 in revenue from the transaction, plus the eBay fees as a loss.
Is that actually the normal procedure at eBay now?
Up to now I assumed that if a transaction is fully reversed, the corresponding selling fees would also be credited back. That’s how it is at Amazon, at least.
I then read that eBay apparently actually has a rule that if eBay itself decides a case and closes it with a refund, the fees are not credited back.
Honestly, that’s completely new to me.
Has anyone here experienced this firsthand?
Are the fees also withheld from you when eBay decides a return case and the buyer gets the full purchase price back?
And if that really is the case: What do you think of that? I honestly find it pretty hard to understand that eBay keeps its full selling commission on a transaction that has been fully reversed, even though no sales proceeds remain with the seller in the end.
In any case, I’m going to have the matter looked into more closely again, especially the question of whether this rule is even permissible under German law.
bricks*import
OP2 weeks agoBy the way, I filed another complaint directly with eBay. And that after the fees were refunded afterward without any fuss and without discussion by customer service.
So nothing here is actually that clear-cut or legally watertight
grohbacher
·Sep 8, 2026 at 11:05 PMHello, @bricks*import
may I point out the following bit of folk wisdom to you:
“Being right” and “getting justice” are two different “pairs of boots”.
What good does it do you if crowds of ordinary EBAY users all the way up to “mentors” were to confirm here that the clause you object to is invalid. Even if top-tier lawyers of the highest caliber agreed with you, you still wouldn’t have anything from that until you can convince EBAY of your legal opinion, if necessary with the help of a court.
You write at the end of your opening post:
“And that is exactly why I would really like to have this properly and legally clarified, instead of just resigning myself to it.”
Exactly this kind of “legal clarification” cannot be achieved here in the forum. The EBAY users writing here have no decision-making authority in this regard. Even the EBAY employees occasionally present here can only pass your thoughts on to the specialist department responsible for this. If you want it “legally clarified,” then you simply have to involve the courts.
Incidentally, in my completely non-binding opinion, the clause you object to is probably lawful in principle.
After all, there are two legally different situations here, namely decision (= immediate refund) by the seller or decision by EBAY. If EBAY is forced to make a final decision, EBAY should also have the right to impose sanctions for it. After all, EBAY then has extra work. A flat fee might also be appropriate.
Best regards
Manfred
bricks*import
OP3 weeks ago · EditedHello Manfred,
“Being right and getting justice are two different things” — I’m very much aware of that.
My post, however, was phrased a bit too legalistic. My puppy spilled liquid on my keyboard, and some keys haven’t worked properly since then. Since I haven’t replaced the keyboard yet, I used AI assistance while writing — unfortunately it overshot the mark a bit this time. Sorry about that.
But I see your assessment differently in terms of content. The argument that eBay incurred additional work and costs by handling the case is also questionable from a layperson’s point of view. If you follow that logic, then in principle every online platform, in the event of a reversal, should be able to charge the person who is disadvantaged by it additional processing fees. But that is by no means common practice and it is not permissible.
I could understand a certain processing fee for a case decided by eBay. But here the entire sales commission is being withheld, even though the transaction was fully reversed and the buyer has received the full purchase price back. To me that is not understandable and, legally, at least highly questionable.
By the way, Amazon doesn’t even do that. There, a fee is charged on the sales commission in the event of a refund, so much less. They don’t simply keep the entire commission. I’m mentioning Amazon here as a key example because the platform is many times larger and has far more often and far more quickly been the target of state or EU measures.
And on “getting justice”: I’ve known for over 30 years that a forum doesn’t replace a court. 😉 But especially with online platforms, there are definitely now ways, alongside the courts, to have such business practices reviewed by the relevant authorities or at EU level. A lot has happened in consumer protection in recent years, and it can happen pretty quickly too.
One more note: I’m explicitly not concerned with what eBay can put into its terms and conditions, but with the fundamental question of whether, under German law, it is even permissible to withhold the full sales commission in a transaction that has been fully reversed.
The buyer gets the full purchase price back, so the seller is left with no sale proceeds, but eBay keeps the full commission. To me, that is an extremely customer- or seller-hostile rule that should at least be legally reviewed with regard to Section 307 BGB (unreasonable disadvantage) and Section 310 BGB. Section 812 BGB also seems to me at least worth examining in this context.
On top of that: I contacted eBay myself, and after reviewing the case I was expressly told over the phone that I was in the right and had nothing to worry about. Unfortunately it was only a phone call, so I don’t have any written proof of that.
All the less understandable to me, then, is that eBay subsequently still ruled in favor of the buyer and also kept the full sales commission.
For that reason, I consider this approach at least legally in need of review and extremely hostile to sellers. That is exactly what I’m talking about — not about getting a legally binding decision here in the forum.
grohbacher
·3 weeks agoGood day,
just to your last paragraph:
What do you expect from this forum?
Once again: the EBAY users writing here are all, like you, just EBAY users and subject to EBAY's terms and conditions; we have all accepted these, including you, when selling and buying.
If, in your opinion, "such business practices through the responsible authorities or at EU level" are to be reviewed, then someone has to initiate that. This forum cannot do that; so you are the one who has to demand it, and that can only happen outside this forum by you and any "fellow campaigners".
"Consumer protection"??? In this matter you are affected not as a "consumer" but as a "seller".
bricks*import
OP2 weeks agoConsumer protection, of course quite questionable terms and conditions
more correct: Federal Network Agency or Competition Center
And even if I repeat myself, a little tip for you, even if you accept some terms and conditions, if they are legally invalid they stay invalid. That's basic knowledge, really.
By the way, I filed another complaint directly with Ebay. And that after the fees were reimbursed afterward without any hassle, without discussion, by customer service.
So nothing here is all that clear-cut and legally watertight
grohbacher
·2 weeks agoHello,
"Consumer protection, of course quite questionable terms and conditions"
But only if dubious terms and conditions can have a negative effect on consumers (not on sellers).
Of course, invalid terms and conditions are invalid; but what are you going to do if the person who wrote the terms insists that they are legally valid and should be applied to the specific contractual relationship.
bricks*import
OP2 weeks agoHello,
I am well aware that as a commercial seller I am not a consumer.
I did not mention “consumer protection” as the final point of responsibility, but as one possible place for discussion. And that is exactly what one can discuss.
If questionable terms and conditions are only supposed to be a consumer protection issue when they disadvantage a consumer, then conversely the question arises: On other platforms, private users also pay fees – does that mean there is then no protection against possibly impermissible terms and conditions?
Regardless of that, this is precisely about the relationship between eBay and a commercial seller, which is why I also mentioned the P2B regulations.
But.
What matters to me above all is discussing the issue here and not having someone in the forum make a legally binding decision.
And eBay itself apparently does not seem to see the matter quite so clearly either. See refund.
If eBay were completely convinced of its own legal view and the matter were actually as clear-cut as it is partly portrayed here, it would at least be interesting why in one case the full refund is made without any problem and in another case the issue of fees is suddenly handled differently.
I find precisely this different treatment worthy of discussion.
grohbacher
·2 weeks agoHeading ??? EBAY what's this new change supposed to be?
@bricks*import As you can see yourself, there is huge interest in the discussion you wanted.
What is there to discuss? Either this clause is unlawful or it isn't. EBAY, as is well known, isn't influenced by discussions like this anyway.
Be that as it may, I'm glad you got a refund in this case as an exceptional gesture of goodwill. That says absolutely nothing about its legality.
mullewapp
·Sep 7, 2026 at 7:59 PM@bricks*import looks like no reply from eBay is to be expected here. By now they have so many inquiries because of all the junk that they don't know where to start first. With my not-helpful answer, I'm at least bumping the question up a bit again. Good luck....
bricks*import
OPSep 7, 2026 at 8:21 PMI called support again, but after 8:00 p.m. They were probably overwhelmed, and although they promised to pass it on, nothing has happened to this day. If they even understood that, that was home office, well, I don't think they understood me, if you know what I mean
petersmodellbahnstuebchen
·Sep 7, 2026 at 8:52 PMHi @bricks*import
here in the forum, you won't get a legally binding answer from either us or the eBay staff, since in Germany this is only permitted by certain groups of people.
However, when you registered on this platform, you agreed to eBay's terms and conditions and thereby entered into a legally binding contract that you now want to contest retroactively.
You're welcome to try that after getting legal advice outside of eBay.
So far, I have always received a refund of the selling commission myself, because I always responded within the specified deadlines and eBay itself didn't have to intervene in such a case.
And this is regulated not only in the terms and conditions, but also in the policies, e.g. on eBay Buyer Protection, which you should know as a seller, whether commercial or private.
bricks*import
OPSep 7, 2026 at 9:16 PM · EditedSo my text here is simply both information and a complaint. I don’t expect anything from eBay here.
I also recommend that you read the text again and urgently inform yourself about the law: just because you have accepted something does not mean it is legally valid. This applies especially to terms and conditions.
Likewise, you clearly did not read the text, because it says that I brought eBay in and that they sided with me on the phone. But even here it should be known that eBay.de and eBay.com have different legal interpretations
Edit, and thirdly, since you didn’t read it: the buyer opened a return, but the item was stolen. That means eBay demanded a return label from me. Now please explain to me how you would like to have solved that without having extra costs. In other words, label plus full refund is, in my opinion, no cheaper than full refund and fees
petersmodellbahnstuebchen
·Sep 7, 2026 at 9:28 PM · EditedHey @bricks*import ,
what makes you think that I didn’t read / understand your ridiculously long test?
Despite 8 semesters of law as a minor, both BGB and HGB, during my studies, I’m not allowed and don’t want to give legal advice, since I’m not a licensed attorney. I only do something like that in private, not in public.
Feel free to share your legal opinion with other readers / writers here in the forum, but I’m out.
I wish you good luck
bricks*import
OPSep 8, 2026 at 7:51 PMSeriously? I already named you at least two points where you’re clearly making a false statement. That, even though my text says the opposite. 8 semesters. Did it bring anything? Others become successful millionaires in online retail without semesters.
By the way, it’s general basic knowledge - even without semesters - that accepted terms and conditions that are not legally valid are generally invalid too. It should also be known that this is not legal advice either.
I’m not around here that often. But your name has already caught my eye once when it comes to knowledge and logic. Whether positively or negatively, I’d have to look that up first.
petersmodellbahnstuebchen
·Sep 8, 2026 at 8:13 PM@bricks*import
again, even if I haven’t become a millionaire in online commerce at least, you can’t get legal advice here in the forum. Unless you give a lawyer a paid mandate.
By the way, feel free to check whether you like my opinion on certain topics or not and form your own judgment
I’m trying here, within my means, to support other eBay members, but legal advice is beyond the scope of what I’m allowed to do here.
petersmodellbahnstuebchen
·Sep 8, 2026 at 8:32 PMJust as a supplement, the answer to your headline in the opening post:
Reversed transaction – eBay keeps the sales commission despite a full refund. Is this terms-and-conditions clause even valid under German law?
It is not for me or for other writers here in the forum to answer that.