The user may change his/her mind about posting a' negative report if they may receive some legal burden or be sued. Moreover, another obstacle comes from the characteristics of a ‘virtual community' of the online auction. Similar to the real world; users may hesitate to post negative comments because there are fears of revenge from upset members who receive negative feedback on the system⁶⁰ Another factor that can affect the reliability of feedback’s results is that there are unclear and unfair procedures in order to remove negative feedback in online auction websites. Therefore, it can be argued that the feedback system may not be an efficient method for preventing fraud in online auction websites.

Failure of fraud prevention schemes on the online website
fraud that While the fraud protection schemes have been exploited by the website and other parties to resolve fraud or scams on online auction websites, there are still some arguments with regard to their efficiency of those fraud protection schemes. The first argument is placed on insurance schemes. Insurance schemes cannot secure the whole area of the product on online auction websites. A good example can be seen in eBay Protection Program. This `Protection Program' offers maximum reimbursement only for 120 ?.⁶¹ In other words, this program does not cover the full value of the transaction. As every one knows, the biggest market of eBay and online auction website nowadays is the automobile market which generates huge amounts of value in transactions. Therefore, the automobile market or other expensive items are not protected from fraud by insurance schemes on online auction websites. So, the argument is that insurance schemes do not protect online. auction participant against fraud if they purchase more valuable items. The online auction participant still has to take additional risk.

Secondly, the argument is about the service like verification service. Until now, there are no regulations or a code of practice that shows clear procedures in recording verified information on the online auction website. This is, because, there are serious protection of privacy law in order to protect sensitive data of online auction participant. For example, eBay never sees sensitive data of the user and Equifax who operates this scheme does not retain a record of the sensitive information of those users.⁶² From this point, the scheme cannot protect against fraud if the identity of the user is changed or identity fraud by fraudulent practice like the 'phishing fraud' as said above.

Lastly, the argument is about `escrow service'. One argument regards the burden of cost to participants and the complexity in procedure of the service. In this argument, the escrow service can delay an online auction transaction which contravenes the nature of this C2C transaction in a rapid transaction. Another argument is the reliability of the `escrow service'. Also, the complexity and cost impedes the growth of using this method. Escrow service attracts only a few number of online auction participants. Of course, this make escrow service not be an efficient safeguard to any fraudulent practice on online auctions.⁶³ In addition, nowadays, there are huge amount of suspected fraud on escrow website.⁶⁴ These fraudulent websites scam the online auction participant to wire money through by using their website in online auctions. Of course, these online auction participants never receive any goods and also lose their money in transaction.⁶⁵ For these reasons, it can be argued that the escrow service is an inadequate method in dealing with online auction fraud.

            2) Difficulty of legal solution
With the existing legal solution, there are questions that arise regarding the legal solution about whether the existing solution provides enough security to the consumer in protection and also in enforcing their rights. Here, it is about an issue arising in legal prevention of fraud in online auction websitquo.

Too much protection for the online auction website.
The online auction websites generally know that they should avoid any legal or financial  burden on the online transaction. A. good example can be seen on the user agreement term in online auction sites like eBay which limit themselves as only venue' or facdftator.⁶⁶ Of course, this will affect the legal status and liability of online auction websiite. Otherwise, it makes online auction websites to be Internet Service Provider(ISP)⁶⁷ and receive legal immunity in their liability. With the benefit of this status, online auction websites have been completely immunized from both common law and a number of statute around the world in terms of immunity. For example the US court in Zeran v Americanonline,⁶⁸ the court state that;

"if computer service provider were subject to distributor liability, they would face potential liability each time they receive notice of potentially defamatory statement from any party, concerning any message"

Definitely, this is clever strategy for the eBay or online auction website in pushing the financial and legal burden to online auction participants. In other words, the eBay and other auction websites avoid any liability that could happen to them by limiting themselves as venues. One argument is that this protection may create an insufficient legal incentive on online auction websites in their duty of monitoring fraudulent practice on their website. And also this may be the reason why the self-policing measure is a failure. This is because the online auction sites control every procedure in place on their sites. Online auction websites hold a good position to prevent fraud and to indemnify defrauded participants for their failure to do so.

In realising this, there are many attempts arising in many jurisdictions to make the online auction websites more liable for fraudulent practices occurring in their website. The first interesting case is the US. Case in Gentry v eBay.⁶⁹ The claimant in this case filed action suit against eBay alleging that they had purchased counterfeit or fake sport memorabilia advertised on the website. The claimant argued that eBay should take responsibility for false advertising in the item description provided by the third parties, for not providing any sort of certificate of authenticity and also by giving false information in the shape of the customer feedback rating. However, this attempt failed to get a response from the court. In this dictum, the court still based their decision with influence of landmark case like Zeran v American Online⁷⁰ in which the intermediary was immunized from the information originating from third parties. The court gave the reason that the feedback system was provided by the third party not the eBay itself and eBay only served as facilitator in this communication. So., eBay will not be liable for this claim.

Another interesting case that shows attempts to make online auction more liable for fraudulent practice on its website is German Case in Rolex SA v eBay GmbH.⁷¹ However, this case is different than previous case. This case is successful to bring online auction more liable for fraudulent practice on its website. As can be seen, in this case, the court held that the online auction website cannot take immunity from the statory right defense on their liability if they knew that counterfeit goods were being offered on their website.⁷² The court gave the reason that the online auction website already knew the infringement of trademark by notice, which was send from the rights owner. This means that the online auction websites actual knows there are counterfeit goods on their site.Therefore, the online auction operator cannot bring benefit as a facilitator of the communication. As a result from this case, the case can alert an online auction industry in response to counterfeit product on their website. For instance, eBay issue the new prevention scheme for counterfeit goods such as VeRo (Verified Right Owner Program).

60..See above n Mary M Calkins feedback Richmong Journal 96.
61.. See Help, eBay Standard Purchase Protection Programme : Coverage and Eligibility at http://pages.ebay.co.uk/ help /tp/esppp- process.html> access on 3/7/2005.
62 . See Meriam R. Albert E-Buyer Beware : why online auction fraud should be regulated (2002) 39 American Bussiness Law Journal 575, 620.
63. See above n. 45 Weisse 219.
64. See <http://www.escrowfraud.com/services.asp> this website provide full list of fraud escrow service website.
65. See <https://www.escrow.com/fic/index.asp>.
66. Ebay user agreement.
67. Interner Service Provider is the sercice that provide internet access service to customer in exchange for a fee.
68. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). at 333 See also Mincheal L Rustad, Thimas H Kornig, Rebooting Cyber Tort (2005) 80 Washington Law Review 355, 375.
69. Gentry et al. v eBay Inc., Super Ct. No. GIV746980 (Cal Crt. App June 26, 2002).
70. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
71. Rolex SA v eBay GmbH Bendesgerichtshcf. I ZR 304/01 (Unreported, March 1 1, 2004).
72. In Germany, online auction prevent from liability to third party from section 1 1 Teleservice Act 2002 and Article 14(1) of E-Commerce Directive. See also Christian Ruetz, Germany : Trademark-Auction site liability for countefeits (2005) 27 (3) European Intellectual Property Review 67-68.