Suing an Online Marketplace Over Counterfeit Coins

Attorney Answer

Suing eBay is the weakest of the paths in front of you, and a claim that it should have authenticated your coins the way it authenticates sneakers is the weakest version of that. Your realistic routes to money are the payment dispute and a claim against the seller — and one of those has a clock on it.

Why the claim against eBay is hard. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) bars treating a provider of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider. A claim that eBay is answerable because a third-party seller described the coins as authentic runs straight into that provision. Two things it does not do: it does not immunize a platform for its own conduct or its own representations, including promises the platform made directly to you, and § 230(e)(2) provides that nothing in § 230 limits or expands any law pertaining to intellectual property — which matters when the goods are counterfeit.

Why the "they should have authenticated them" theory is the weakest one. In Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit affirmed judgment for eBay on direct and contributory trademark infringement, holding that for contributory liability "a service provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods. Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary." General awareness that counterfeits circulate on a platform, and a failure to proactively police or authenticate, did not create liability where the platform removed listings it was told about. Be precise about what that case is, though: it was a trademark owner's Lanham Act suit, not a defrauded buyer's suit for a refund. It does not decide your contract, warranty or state consumer claims. It does tell you that "you should have had an authentication program" is a losing frame.

Where the real claim is. The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110b, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Advertising counterfeit coins as authentic is a textbook deceptive practice, and CUTPA is the state-law vehicle for it. Whether it reaches the marketplace as well as the seller depends on eBay's own conduct and its own promises to you, not on the seller's listing.

What you can do

1. Get the authentication in writing — a grading or authentication report from a recognized service identifying the coins as counterfeit. Without that document you have an opinion; with it you have evidence. Everything else depends on it. 2. Dispute the charge with your credit card issuer or PayPal now. Their windows are set by network rules rather than by eBay's 30-day policy, and issuers have granted disputes on "item not as described" well past a seller's return period. This is your fastest realistic route to the money. 3. Preserve the listing: full screenshots of the description, the photographs, the seller's profile and location, and every message. Listings vanish. 4. Report the items to eBay through its counterfeit and intellectual-property channel, separately from the money-back-guarantee claim you already lost. That is a different process with a different standard. 5. Read eBay's own promises to you as written — the authenticity guarantee terms, the money-back guarantee terms — and note anything eBay said directly rather than anything a seller said. A claim based on eBay's own representations is the one § 230(c)(1) does not automatically defeat. 6. File a complaint with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center and with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. Neither refunds you, but both create a record. 7. Weigh a CUTPA claim against the seller realistically. The deception is clear; serving and collecting from a seller in Asia is the practical obstacle, and that is worth an honest conversation before you spend money on it.

⏱ Time limits apply. CUTPA carries a three-year limitation period under General Statutes § 42-110g(f). Because you only learned the coins were counterfeit after a delay, when your period began to run is a fact-specific question tied to your purchase date and to what you knew and when — do not assume you have time, and do not assume you do not.

Even if you are handling this yourself, you would be best served by a brief phone consultation with a local Connecticut attorney before you act. Most lawyers offer a short initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts — and on how your court and judge actually handle this — is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.