.mobi Sedo - .Mobi MTLD - Class Lawsuit - Sign-Up

[musicdotmobi]

Hello everyone,

As you may well know I was the original winner of music.mobi with an ending bid proxy of $611,000.

I was emailed by Sedo in 2 occasions confirming me as the winner and was also invoiced and given directions to pay the $66k that I originally won the auction for.

Unfortunately claiming that they could do this, Sedo said that under their TOS they can repeat the closed auction and invite new bidders who were not even involved in the original auction. Both Sedo and the MTLD both sent a bulk message to all their email list claiming that the .mobi auction was such a huge success that their servers went down. The reality of the matter was the servers were slow but did not go down. Also they engaged in an illegal behavior that voids their TOS.

I will be personally be suing SEDO USA and the MTLD and punitive damages resulting in the loss of music.mobi. I also want to sendout a class lawsuit for all you bidders who were outbid by "foreign" bidders in the second auction even though you were the original winners.

Here is the site: http://mobi.music.us

Thanks,

Costa G Roussos

 

[allnicksgone]

The reality of the matter was the servers were slow but did not go down.

The servers were down. Nobody at all could bid in the last minutes. I know I couldn't. Not a single one of the hundred auctions were extended past the original 12:00 closing due to last minute bids. I guarantee there would have been some bids in the last five minutes if the servers were simply slow. The servers were down.

I also want to sendout a class lawsuit for all you bidders who were outbid by "foreign" bidders in the second auction even though you were the original winners.

These mysterious foreign bidders that you and others are referring to are bidders that wait untill the last minutes to place a bid. It is a common strategy that was frequently used during the first two Sedo premium .mobi auctions. The servers were down, so they were unable to bid as planned. The auction resumed later, then they got their bids in. That is why you didn't see them bid in the so called original auction.

I was emailed by Sedo in 2 occasions confirming me as the winner and was also invoiced and given directions to pay the $66k that I originally won the auction for.

Now this is the strongest part of your case. The servers crashed so close to the end of the auction that Sedo probably didn't have time to stop the automated e-mails. It is their fault, though, and they should take some reponsibility for the confusion.

Good luck with your case.

 

[dalem]

Hello
I was the successful bidder for two of the names sportsbetting.mobi and freemusic.mobi. I recieved two emails for both stating I was the successful bidder on both names one being from a broker. I also was shocked to find the auction was going to repeat another 2 hours of bidding though I did bid again and ended up winning the name freemusic.mobi. Though the sportsbetting one went over what I was prepared to pay the second time they auctioned it. I have not sent any money for the freemusic.mobi as yet as I am waiting untill all this mess is sorted and really I want the names I fair and square won! I also have sent a letter to the directors of sedo but have had no reply. I want my names I bid on and won at the price that was the highest bid at the close of auction.(The real auction i.e.THE FIRST ONE)

Also one other thing if their servers had crashed how did it send out the confirmations of the winning bids? At different times!

emails sent to me first at 5.15am for sportsbetting and freemusic
second emails sent 5.16am and 38 seconds for both

 

[bachelor2000]

Maybe sedo auction programe have bug !

 

[cac14850]

Without commenting on what I do for a living, here is a "problem" with the suit. There might be negligence on Sedo's part. Maybe. However, the issue with actually aquiring the domain (as opposed to compensation from SEDO) is that mtld would have just as valid an argument that the terms of the auction they signed up for were not fulfilled and probably would be able to then just go ahead with their sales as planned.

 

[dalem]

to then just go ahead with their sales as planned.

Somehow I dont think so!

 

[rh287]

Face it Sedo needs to be sued. Its been needed a LONG time. All the BS they get away with! Even with small fried parkers like me (.02 .04 clicks)....Go get 'em!!!!! Seems you've got the cash to dish it out to Sedo for once! Great; hope they pay you out the ass and then some. Greedy F***ers.

I may get banned for this reply, but I had to voice my opinion.

 

[TheBaldOne]

cac14850, I have pondered your point for some time before replying. The essence of your point being that as the auction was a farce the auction does not constitute a basis for a legally binding contract as far as mTLD are concerned.

This would be a novel argument, along the lines in the 'real world' of the auctioneer being intoxicated and therefore unfit to auction goods. The problem here is that mTLD would have to show that they were not involved in the auction immediately prior, during, after, and at the second auction. No communication must have existed between Sedo and mTLD during this time.

However, if the above were to be argued in court and substantiated it would not negate the contracts formed between the winner of the initial auction and mTLD, it would though allow mTLD to sue for damages against Sedo and ask the court to wave any TOS or Terms and conditions that existed between Sedo and mTLD on the grounds of unprofessional conduct. This would allow for mTLD to go after substantial damages against Sedo.

Crux of the matter is though that the contracts formed at the close of the first auction would still stand between vendor and purchasers.

 

[cac14850]

cac14850, I have pondered your point for some time before replying. The essence of your point being that as the auction was a farce the auction does not constitute a basis for a legally binding contract as far as mTLD are concerned.

This would be a novel argument, along the lines in the 'real world' of the auctioneer being intoxicated and therefore unfit to auction goods. The problem here is that mTLD would have to show that they were not involved in the auction immediately prior, during, after, and at the second auction. No communication must have existed between Sedo and mTLD during this time.

However, if the above were to be argued in court and substantiated it would not negate the contracts formed between the winner of the initial auction and mTLD, it would though allow mTLD to sue for damages against Sedo and ask the court to wave any TOS or Terms and conditions that existed between Sedo and mTLD on the grounds of unprofessional conduct. This would allow for mTLD to go after substantial damages against Sedo.

Crux of the matter is though that the contracts formed at the close of the first auction would still stand between vendor and purchasers.

You are right to some degree but the argument being made in this thread is not a legal one. First, Sedo can argue they had technical problems resulting in the need for the extension. The only issue, legally (and again I am not talking about right and wrong) they have a major problem with in my view are the winning notes going out. HOWEVER, they are part of a system that I am sure SEDO will argue are technically part of the problem. Now, onto the mtld point. You are wrong in the statement that they need to have not had any contact. I said IF SEDO had allowed the auction to proceed as was THEN mtld had a case against them. Clearly this didnt happen. BUT if SEDO now goes against any agreement they may have made before during or after the sale then mtld has the breech of contract argument. The whole argument here rests on the assummption the auctions were closed and all SEDO needs to show is that they legally were not.

All of that being said, the other major question is who gets to sue? First, there are not enough damaged parties to be able to effectively navigate a class action suit. The only people who even have any basis for an argument are those who were winning and ultimately did not win their names after the reset. Further, the only ones with really any chance are those who after the auction ended DID NOT bid or sign in again because they can make the argument they had assumed they won. As much as others continued to bid, they document they were not impacted by the close of the sale in that they found out that it had been restarted. Finally, even if they show they were damaged what can they reasonably be expected to get? With the exception of the huge names, not very much.

Now, all is this is not to say what I believe to be right. SEDO certainly screwed up but legal case versus screw up are two different matters.

And a caveot, none of this is legal advice, it is my own musings about uncertainites that would likely play out very differently depending on the venue where the case was heard

 

[TheBaldOne]

Cac, well argued.

The situation in seperating the winners into two (or more) categories depending on their actions and knowledge of events after the first auction is well founded. However, even if a person did start bidding in the second auction having won the first this could easily be argued was done under duress. (This point I think would stand better chance in a US court than a European court.) If this were accepted by the court then that would negate the arguement that the winners who took part in the second auction have accepted it as a continuaation of the first auction rather than a seperate auction.

I agree that mTLD as vendors in this auction are the ones who ultimately must be sued foe possession of the domain names by the purchasers. However Sedo must also be sued as co defendents in the claim as it was their actions as auctioneers that created the problem. Technical difficulties are expressly exempted by Sedo as being a reason not to accept the outcome of an auction in their TOS (all certified buyers are required to fill out a 'click box' to indicate that they have read and understood Sedo's TOS and accept them).

It must be remembered that Sedo professed their competency to run the auction, but they chose to ignor many warnings from many people about combined end times, also they have had server problems before and it would seem they did not pay sufficient heed to the likelyhood of such technical problems arising. In such they are negligent, in my opinion, in providing the professional service the vendor could expect (and no doubt was led to think would be provided).

The best venue for this case as far as the purchasers are concerned is undoubtedly in the US courts.

Right and wrong do rarely swing legal cases, it is argument and counter-argument that matters. I will think about your points later and give a response in more detail then.

Welcome to the debate Cac.

 

[danmanmktng]

musicdotmobi - I sympathize with you, and wish you had won the name - since you had development plans for it and the other guy does not.

But, at the end of the day, the domain was being sold by auction and someone was willing to pay more than you were for it. It's pretty clear that their bid was prevented because of a SEDO server crash or slowdown or whatever. I don't believe that someone goes from no intention to bid, to a bid of $616k in the span of time it required SEDO to get their servers back up and going.

Maybe legally you're in the right, this is to be determined and I'm not a lawyer. Good luck with the case.

DA

 

[dag]

But, at the end of the day, the domain was being sold by auction and someone was willing to pay more than you were for it. It's pretty clear that their bid was prevented because of a SEDO server crash or slowdown or whatever. I don't believe that someone goes from no intention to bid, to a bid of $616k in the span of time it required SEDO to get their servers back up and going.

:bingo: There's no way the auction would have ended where it was prior to the system overload, had things gone smoothly...

 

[Napkin.com]

sad situation, hope it works out for you.


I do agree though...

Had the auction ended smoothly (first time)

the prices would be strikingly similar to where
they actually ended up (second time).

 

[cac14850]

Cac, well argued.

The situation in seperating the winners into two (or more) categories depending on their actions and knowledge of events after the first auction is well founded. However, even if a person did start bidding in the second auction having won the first this could easily be argued was done under duress. (This point I think would stand better chance in a US court than a European court.)

I agree completely. In this case the damages though woud only be equivalent to the difference in price paid. If they lost this is not an issue. Further, there are only a few cases where the dollar amount is substantial enough to make it worthwhile in court and I think, given that we know who won the highest price set, there are not likely to be many if any people in this situation.

[/QUOTE]

If this were accepted by the court then that would negate the arguement that the winners who took part in the second auction have accepted it as a continuaation of the first auction rather than a seperate auction. [/QUOTE]

Again, no, because they didnt win the auction. They knew about it, bid and still lost. Damage only occurs, in this scenario, if they won.


[/QUOTE]
I agree that mTLD as vendors in this auction are the ones who ultimately must be sued foe possession of the domain names by the purchasers. [/QUOTE]

This is key, many people do not realize this. As much as SEDO may be the one who screwed up, ultimately the lawsuit needs to be addressed to mtld saying they sold the names to another party unlawfully. HOWEVER, given that SEDO basically gave them two sales contracts, mtld then by default can't fulfill both and I think are cleared here.

[/QUOTE]

However Sedo must also be sued as co defendents in the claim as it was their actions as auctioneers that created the problem. Technical difficulties are expressly exempted by Sedo as being a reason not to accept the outcome of an auction in their TOS (all certified buyers are required to fill out a 'click box' to indicate that they have read and understood Sedo's TOS and accept them).[/QUOTE]

Yep but one, see above argument, mtld has two contracts, which do they fulfill. It should not have to be up to them to decide. Also, we don't know what contract SEDO and mtld had in place but I bet it was not the typical one we all fill out .[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

It must be remembered that Sedo professed their competency to run the auction, but they chose to ignor many warnings from many people about combined end times, also they have had server problems before and it would seem they did not pay sufficient heed to the likelyhood of such technical problems arising. In such they are negligent, in my opinion, in providing the professional service the vendor could expect (and no doubt was led to think would be provided). [/QUOTE]
Agree, SEDO is screwed no matter what.

[/QUOTE]

The best venue for this case as far as the purchasers are concerned is undoubtedly in the US courts. [/QUOTE]
Yes but where will it ultimately land? Both mtld and SEDO are EU countries

[/QUOTE]

Right and wrong do rarely swing legal cases, it is argument and counter-argument that matters. I will think about your points later and give a response in more detail then.

Welcome to the debate Cac.[/QUOTE]

I am just glad I am not one in the middle of this...

 

[TheBaldOne]

Very quickly, just got in front of the computer again.

Cac, you say mTLD have two contracts, then in this instance the law is very clear, it is the 'original' (first) contract that must be satisfied.

To try and bring an easy understanding of why this should and indeed has to be let us look at a man or woman who has committed bigamy (well it will lighten up the debate a little for people). When the man or woman marries their first spouse no law at all has been broken, it is only the second, third, fourth, etc. marriages when bigamy has and is being committed if they are still married to a previous spouse. (Think of all those mother-in-laws! ) In law the original contract of marriage still stands and is considered whole, the first spouse is entitled to all benefits and claims due to a legal spouse. Unfortunately all the subsequent spouces, no matter how innocent and duly deserving have no legitimate claim as a spouse because their marriage contract is nullified by the bigamists first and lawful contract of marriage.

If this were not a case of where prime contract is the lawful contract and takes presidence over all subsequent contracts can you imagine the situation, a person or company could repeatedly sell their goods until they got the price they wanted no matter how many contracts they have entered into previously. This situation would be totally absurd in the extreme.

It makes no difference in international law that the two companies are European (Irish and German). The plaintiff can start proceedings in his/her ccountry of residence or business, can start proceedings in any country where the defendants have a presence (office, etc.), or in any country where the sale occured or transmitted through (for the US see the 'Wire Act' or something similar, the one used to stop gambling by the US government). Now as we all know that Sedo has offices in the US and indeed the US office was instrumental in this fiasco, then obviously the plaintiffs can choose to sue in the US. (I think though much effort may be expended by both Sedo and mTLD to try and discourage the plaintiffs from doing this and then in the US courts to try unsuccessfully and get it ruled as not in their jurisdiction.)

This will be a long and cumbersome affair as both Sedo and mTLD fight like cornered cats in an effort to not hand over crucial evidence of their businesses to the defendents (another major reason why it should be heard in the US courts).

As for bidders who won the first auction and then continued to bid on the second auction. I pointed out this could easily be argued as 'under duress'. Cac, you reply that 'no because they did not win the first auction'. Well they did win the first auction because it had completed. They then went on to bid again in the second auction because they 'feared' they would lose their domain names which they had entered into a contract to buy previously in the previous auction! It is timing that is important, the first auction ended, the second auction then begun. (On this point it should also be pointed out, as I am sure it will be to the court, the second auction did not just run the time that was supposedly lost in the first auction but for some multiple time of that claimed as lost. Further more the original winners were not directly contacted but instead Sedo invited other new bidders to join.)

Everything is to do with timing.

Now the question arises should the winners of the second auction pay for the domains. As I have said in previous posts I would urge the winners of the second auction to immediately seek their own legal advice on this matter, that would be the prudent thing to do in my opinion.

N.B. Just re-read your post Cac and I have to disagree about the level of damages. Damages could also include loss of profit, all expences involved in the lawsuit, duress to the plaintiffs and also of course punitive damages. This will end up in the millions if not tens of millions of dollars if it goes the whole hog. In the end whether it is mTLD who initially pay the claimants should they win or Sedo or some split between the two in the end it will be Sedo who pays because they appear to have acted incompetantly and negligently therefore mTLD could claim against Sedo. (Caveat: If mTLD were involved in the decision to run the second auction then their claim against Sedo could be seriously affested unless they did so at Sedo's bequest. But we do not know the situation here as neither of these parties is saying a word as they batten down the hatches against the brewing storm and tidal wave that looks like engulfing them.)

 

[Keith]

There was only one auction held by sedo, not two :imho: I don't see how one can argue that they won initially when so many bidders were not afforded the right to bid. These were the people who really got cheated.

Cac and baldone have made great points in the above posts. My feeling is that the highest bidders (when all was said and done) have won the names fair and square.

Instead on suing how about taking that money and obtaining some solid mobis!

 

[dalem]

keithmt-Do you work for sedo?

 

[Keith]

keithmt-Do you work for sedo?

No I do not. Just giving my opinion on the situation. I was not bidding at the end of the auction but did try to access sedo 5 minutes before the auction was set to close. I could not gain access along with countless others. This to me is as unjust as having the high bid at the initial close and then finding out the auction was extended.

I understand that people would like to obtain names for much less than they are worth. It seemed for a minute like that might happen but there were legitimate bidders who could not bid and that was wrong. The names went to the highest bidders in the end and that's how an auction should work.

We are dealing with machines in all of this and machines are far from perfect. The crash or whatever it was, happened because of something beyond sedos control. Like they said, this has never happened before so how could they anticipate it.

I wish everyone the best of luck in getting your auction issues resolved

 

[tophatter]

Hi, I seriously think a class action suit is not a proper way to go for the simple reason that in a class action suit there needs to be a lead person to bring the suit(in this case musicdotmobi) and also a slew of other complaitants..This is definatley an issue that only a qualified attorney can offer the proper format & procedures.I seriously don't think that having a small group of people voting on a class action suit would ever bring one.
Don't get me wrong ,I am also very upset with this because I had my disappointing story with this auction also.
I wish you the best musicdotmobi because I think you can bring this domain to a high level of development.

Good Luck

 

[TheBaldOne]

Dot mobi has just retracted there earlier press release saying that there had been record sales at the Sedo auction.

The knives are out now dissecting what went wrong. Winners of the first auction have glimpsed the first blood on .mobi/Sedo.