# Adverts.ie Removed My Ad At Request Of Forever Living



## rosboy (25 Jul 2014)

Hi all.

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. I'm wondering what my rights are regarding advertising on auction/2nd hand websites.

My girlfriend was a seller of Forever Living products, but stopped selling for personal reasons. I bought the remaining good from her, and am selling them off. I placed an ad on Adverts.ie to sell these off.

Forever Living contacted Adverts.ie and requested the ad be removed. Adverts.ie did this, even though their terms and conditions don't specify anything about Forever Living products.

When I emailed Adverts.ie to request the reasoning, and to argue that it didn't contravene any of Adverts T&C's, I was told :



> You would need to get in touch with forever living directly in regards to this. We have been advised by them to not allow the sale of their products on our site.



When I pushed further to ask which of Adverts terms and conditions does my advert breach, and why they simply did what Forever Living asked, the response I got was:



> Adverts.ie is a private company and we can decide what is allowed on the site.  We have decided not to let these products on the site.



Can anyone advise on what my rights are here, or do I have any?


----------



## Branz (25 Jul 2014)

Its pretty clear from here
http://gallery.foreverliving.com/gallery/FLP/download/Marketing/Co_Policy_Eng_NDP_NAmerica_Feb10.pdf
 for example Section 14.3.3.4 that you are out of order with trying to sell them online so Adverts.ie are not going to expose themselves to a lawsuit.
Equally they can decide what goes for them.
Depending on the scale of what you are at, Adverts may have provided them with your IP address etc so you may not be out of the woods yet


----------



## Time (25 Jul 2014)

As they say, it is a private site, their rules. Did you pay to list the items?


----------



## Time (25 Jul 2014)

ircoha said:


> Its pretty clear from here
> http://gallery.foreverliving.com/gallery/FLP/download/Marketing/Co_Policy_Eng_NDP_NAmerica_Feb10.pdf
> for example Section 14.3.3.4 that you are out of order with trying to sell them online so Adverts.ie are not going to expose themselves to a lawsuit.
> Equally they can decide what goes for them.
> Depending on the scale of what you are at, Adverts may have provided them with your IP address etc so you may not be out of the woods yet



They cannot provide anyone with IP data without a court order.


----------



## rosboy (28 Jul 2014)

Sorry guys, notifications seem to be turned off, so I didn't see any of your messages until now.

Firstly, @ircoha. If indeed I was a seller, those regulations would apply. But that, the  thing...I'm not. My girlfriend was a seller for them so was governed by their rules and regulations. She has ceased being a seller due to personal reasons. She was left with a little stock, so to help her out I bought the remaining stock off her and am trying to sell it to get some of my money back. There is about €450 of stock in total.

So in essence, I have bought these products from a Forever Living distributor (seller). As such, aren't they now mine to do with as I feel fit? As a purchaser, I didn't sign any terms and conditions or a contract of use. So from that point of view, my thinking is that Forever Living have zero ability to dictate what I do with them.

@Time, thanks for the input. No, I don't believe I paid to post the ad. When joining the site, I accepted their terms and conditions, and the list of forbidden items did not have Forever Living products listed.

You are probably right, and they can do what they want, it just irks me that I've done nothing wrong, yet am being penalised because Adverts aren't strong enough to stand up to Forever Living.


----------



## Leo (28 Jul 2014)

rosboy said:


> it just irks me that I've done nothing wrong, yet am being penalised because Adverts aren't strong enough to stand up to Forever Living.



Adverts aren't willing to take on EU law you mean. EU law allows brand owners control how their products are sold. EBay has been fighting that for some time as the premium brands regularly force them to remove items from sale.


----------



## rosboy (28 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> Adverts aren't willing to take on EU law you mean. EU law allows brand owners control how their products are sold. EBay has been fighting that for some time as the premium brands regularly force them to remove items from sale.



Does that law cover second hand goods too?


----------



## Leo (29 Jul 2014)

rosboy said:


> Does that law cover second hand goods too?



Were you selling second hand cosmetics???


----------



## rosboy (29 Jul 2014)

The cosmetics had been bought from the seller (Forever Living). They were unused, and being sold on.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jul 2014)

Slightly off topic but what is the story with this forever living? Friends of mine are involved in it and I now avoid them. Sounds like a cult.


----------



## Janet (29 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> Slightly off topic but what is the story with this forever living? Friends of mine are involved in it and I now avoid them. Sounds like a cult.



I wasn't sure what the products were so I googled (they're aloe vera based drinks mainly), the wikipedia article is very short but mentions a report on the company comparing it to a pyramid scheme. In general it seems to be a similar set up to Tupperware or (the now-defunct in Ireland, I think) Avon parties. You can only buy the stuff from the parties/sales rep and they make more commission by bringing in other people to sell. Although from my own experience with Tupperware in Ireland, recruiting other people was never pushed on you and you could still make money just by doing parties and selling product.


----------



## rosboy (29 Jul 2014)

@Janet, ya that's pretty much it. What you do is buy the products at a discount (which increase the more sales you make), and sell them on to customers. If you recruit people to sell for you, you get a commission off their sales. It's not really a scam, in that you are only supposed to buy product yo order. You get bonuses if you make targets, but are not penalised if you don't meet them.

The only way you lose money is if you buy stock without a customer already identified, and then can't sell the stock. That shouldn't happen though if you have a few customer built up, and most people buy the same stock.

The problem my girlfriend had was that she bought stock for set up a stall at a Christmas market. She sold a lot, but due to personal reasons had to stop selling. She hadn't a large base of customers, so wasn't able to offload the stock to them...hence she's left with it.

So not a scam, but tough to make money in as there are so many people doing it, and the products are expensive enough.


----------



## Leo (30 Jul 2014)

rosboy said:


> The cosmetics had been bought from the seller (Forever Living). They were unused, and being sold on.



So then the law applies. They are entitled to stop you selling their products.


----------



## rosboy (31 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> So then the law applies. They are entitled to stop you selling their products.



What's the rationale for that Leo?

The seller bought the products from Forever Living. At that point they are governed by the sellers regulations. I then bought the products from the seller.

Wouldn't this be the same as the following situation:

A local electronics shop buys a Sony TV from Sony to sell. I buy the TV from the shop.

I can't see how either situation is different. In both situations I'm a customer who bought a product from a retailer. In both circumstance, after buying I chose to sell them on.


----------



## Leo (31 Jul 2014)

The rationale that they are allowed under law to control who sells their products. I really can't say it more simply than that.

If you set yourself up online selling new Sony TVs, they are likely to come after you. If you sell a second hand Sony TV at an appropriately marked down price, then they'll leave you alone.


----------



## rosboy (31 Jul 2014)

Thanks Leo, but my problem is that I see a contradiction between your first and second paragraph there.

Your first sentence is that a manufacturer can control who can sell their products. The second is that I can sell them if they are marked down and being sold as used/preowned.

I'm not setting my self up to sell their products. I bought some of their products, and am selling them unused at about 50% of cost. That's below what an official reseller sells them for, so it's making a loss...not really sustainable business model 

I think it's down to semantics really. I understand the point you are making, and I think that what I am doing falls under the category of selling them second hand.

Either way, I'm fighting a losing battle, and won't be able to get my ad placed.

Thanks for you input though. I appreciate it.



Leo said:


> The rationale that they are allowed under law to control who sells their products. I really can't say it more simply than that.
> 
> If you set yourself up online selling new Sony TVs, they are likely to come after you. If you sell a second hand Sony TV at an appropriately marked down price, then they'll leave you alone.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 Jul 2014)

rosboy said:


> Either way, I'm fighting a losing battle, and won't be able to get my ad placed.



Try Done Deal.


----------



## RainyDay (31 Jul 2014)

I wonder if the Competition Authority would have a view on this, though I guess it is unlikely to be top of their priority list. In principle, the idea of limiting or taking action on who can sell your product sounds anti-competitive to me.


----------



## markpb (31 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> So then the law applies. They are entitled to stop you selling their products.



What law is that?


----------



## Leo (31 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I wonder if the Competition Authority would have a view on this, though I guess it is unlikely to be top of their priority list. In principle, the idea of limiting or taking action on who can sell your product sounds anti-competitive to me.



I would have originally thought so too, but Tesco Vs Levi back in 2002 is an example of where a brand exercised their control over distribution.


----------



## Leo (31 Jul 2014)

markpb said:


> What law is that?



EU Trade Mark Directive / Community Trade Mark Regulation


----------

