A seat reserved for Jamie Iannone

20 August 2026 | Letter | Status: Circulated

From: Robert Nikic, Advisory Council Chair, Reseated Councils

Subject: Transmission of the Platform Fairness Standard, RC/PL/RES/2026/1

Dear Mr Iannone,

1. I write on behalf of the Platform Council of Reseated to transmit the Platform Fairness Standard, adopted by the Founders Assembly on 13 August 2026 as RC/PL/2026/1. This letter requests that eBay consider adopting the Standard and taking the CEO seat reserved for your organization. It does not make an allegation about eBay’s practices, nor does it presume a response or commitment.

2. Reseated is a global assembly of small-business owners, organized through seven councils. Its work is to collect members’ reports, test whether reported problems form a recurring pattern, develop proposed fixes, consult publicly, and submit resolutions to an Assembly ballot. Following adoption, the Assembly writes to the chief executives who can choose whether to implement the standard. The process makes both the proposed practice and the response—or absence of a response—visible without treating silence as agreement.

3. The Platform Council’s mandate concerns business owners’ experiences when they rely on online platforms to reach customers, list goods or services, receive payments, or manage business accounts. eBay operates platforms used by small businesses in many

countries. That international reach makes it appropriate to invite eBay to consider a common, understandable baseline for business users, while recognizing that each company remains responsible for its own decisions and obligations.

The adopted Standard

4. The Standard asks a platform, before suspending an account, removing a listing, holding a payout, or changing a fee, to provide the affected business with written notice, a specific reason, review by a person, and a time limit on any payout hold. It calls for the same protections in every country where the platform operates. The full text is in RC/PL/RES/2026/1.

5. These requirements are intended to establish a usable process, not to prevent platforms from enforcing rules or responding to risk. The Standard does not require a platform to retain a listing or account that violates its terms, or to release funds where a lawful reason prevents payment. It asks that a business user be told what decision has been made and why, have access to a meaningful human review, and know when a payout hold will end or be reconsidered.

6. The Assembly adopted the Standard with 86.4 per cent voting in favour on a turnout of 58 per cent. The vote followed a public consultation on the draft and its revision. The consultation period ran from 2 June to 2 July and received 487 comments. Those figures describe the Assembly process; they are not a claim that every commenter supported the final text.

Evidence and pattern review

7. Reseated’s method separates individual accounts from the conclusion that a recurring problem exists. Members submit reports; the Council reviews them against five tests: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. A finding that the pattern test is met is a

threshold for drafting and consultation, not a finding about the conduct or legal responsibility of any particular company.

8. As of 20 August 2026, Reseated had 1,366 seated members in 49 countries and had received 4,065 reports across its councils, from 50 countries. The Platform Council recorded 410 members in 48 countries and 1,764 reports from 50 countries. The median amount reported at stake in Platform cases was approximately US$4,107. These are member-submitted reports, not independently audited incidents or a measure of the prevalence of any practice across all platform users.

9. The international evidence is visible at country level. Among the countries with the highest reported counts in the Platform Council’s 20 August snapshot were the United States (210), Brazil (101) and Mexico (95) in the Americas; Germany (101), Spain (88), the United Kingdom (82) and France (81) in Europe; and the Philippines (91) in Asia-Pacific.

10. These are selected country counts, not regional totals. The country figures above do not account for all 1,764 Platform reports, and Reseated does not present them as a complete regional distribution. They show that reports are not confined to one national setting: the Council’s recorded evidence spans 50 countries, with reported cases in the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific. We would welcome the opportunity to provide a fuller anonymized breakdown, subject to the protections described below.

11. The five-part test was certified as met for PL-001 in RC/PL/2026/N.2 on 12 May. The interim pattern review, RC/PL/2026/N.1, documented the Council’s review of volume and frequency. The Council then developed

a draft, sought public comment, revised the text and submitted it to the Assembly. This sequence is important: the adopted provisions reflect a proposed general remedy for a tested pattern, rather than a demand based on one member’s account.

12. In the Platform Council snapshot, members reported both account suspensions and funds held: 990 reports concerned account suspension and 774 concerned funds held. A report may describe circumstances that overlap; these figures should therefore be read as counts of reported situations, not necessarily as mutually exclusive categories. They are not attributed here to eBay or to any other named company.

Relationship to existing legal frameworks

13. The Standard is designed to be compatible with protections already expressed in applicable legal frameworks, while offering one clear baseline for business users across countries. In the European Union, the Platform-to-Business Regulation requires a statement of reasons in specified circumstances when a provider restricts or suspends a business user, and requires at least 30 days’ notice before terminating the whole service, subject to the Regulation’s terms and exceptions.¹ The Standard’s requirements for written notice and a specific reason draw on the same practical principle: a business should be able to understand the decision affecting its access to a platform.

14. Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires providers within its scope to give affected recipients a clear and specific statement of reasons for certain restrictions, including relevant information about whether automated means were used.² The Platform Fairness Standard likewise calls for a reason that can be understood and reviewed. Its request for review by a person is a proposed common practice in the Standard; this letter does not suggest that Article 17, in every case or for every service, independently creates that precise requirement.

15. Japan’s Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms provides another relevant reference point. For designated platforms within the Act’s scope, the framework addresses disclosure of terms and conditions, including matters related to withholding payments.³ The Japanese Government’s materials describe the designated-platform framework and its implementation.⁴ The Standard’s time limit on payout holds is a general proposal; it is not a claim that the Japanese Act imposes that identical time limit on every platform or every transaction.

16. These references are offered to show that the Standard’s core aims—clear reasons, understandable terms and fair processes—are not foreign to existing regulatory approaches. Their legal application depends on the service, jurisdiction and circumstances. This letter makes no claim about whether any particular eBay service is within the scope of a particular provision, or about eBay’s compliance with any law. It asks eBay to consider a consistent company-wide commitment that does not depend on a business owner first establishing which local rule applies.

Requests to eBay

17. I respectfully ask that eBay:

1. Review RC/PL/RES/2026/1 with the teams responsible for business-user policy, account decisions, listings, payments and appeals.

2. Confirm whether eBay will sign the Platform Fairness Standard as a public commitment to implement its four protections: written notice, a specific reason, review by a person, and a time limit on payout holds.

3. If eBay considers that any provision needs clarification or a defined implementation period, provide a written proposal identifying the provision and the change or timetable requested. Reseated will publish the response in full and record the resulting seat status neutrally.

4. Identify a contact point for a practical discussion about implementation, including how the protections could be communicated to business users and applied across the countries in which eBay operates.

18. The Standard does not require a particular system design. A company may decide how to deliver notice, what information can safely be disclosed, how to route human review, and how to set a reasonable payout-hold limit. What matters is that the business user receives a notice in writing, a reason specific enough to respond to, a genuine route to human consideration, and a stated limit or review point for funds held.

19. Reseated can share anonymized data and supporting materials to assist your review. Any such sharing would be limited to information that does not identify members or their businesses. Members are anonymous unless they choose a public seat; their reports are not permission to disclose identifying details. We can discuss the scope and format of a data briefing with your designated contact.

The reserved CEO seat and publication

20. The Platform Council has reserved a CEO seat for eBay in the Standard’s implementation process. The seat is an invitation to make a public commitment, not a claim that the company has accepted a role. Signing means confirming in writing that eBay adopts the Standard. On receipt of that confirmation, the Secretariat will record the seat as “Signed.” If eBay sends a substantive reply without signing, the register will record “Replied.” A letter is recorded as “Delivered” when delivery is confirmed. Until then, its status is “Letter sent.”

21. The seat register uses the following states: Proposed, Letter sent, Delivered, Replied, Signed and Empty chair. These are procedural descriptions. “Empty chair” means that no signature has been recorded; it is not a judgment about motive, the quality of a

company’s policies, or its legal compliance. The register will be updated as the record changes. At circulation, this letter is being sent and the seat is recorded as “Letter sent.”

22. Any reply from eBay will be published in full. If eBay chooses to sign, the signed commitment and any accompanying reply will also be published in full. This publication practice is intended to let members and the public see what was asked and what answer was given, without paraphrasing a company’s position or implying a response where none has been made. If eBay wishes to include material that it considers confidential, please identify it clearly before sending; Reseated will discuss the issue with you, but will not silently alter a published reply.

23. A signed commitment would not replace applicable law, a company’s own terms, or the need to assess individual cases. It would establish a public baseline against which business users could understand the process offered to them. If eBay does not sign, the Secretariat will record that fact through the neutral seat status and keep the invitation open for a later response.

24. I would welcome a written response or a meeting with the relevant eBay team. Please direct correspondence to the Founding Secretariat of Reseated, with “RC/PL/2026/7” in the subject line. The Platform Council is ready to provide the adopted resolution, anonymized evidence and a concise explanation of the consultation record.

Sources

1. RC/PL/RES/2026/1, Resolution adopted by the Founders Assembly: the Platform Fairness Standard, 13 August 2026.
2. RC/PL/2026/N.1, Interim pattern review: volume and frequency of suspensions and payout holds, 23 April 2026.
3. RC/PL/2026/N.2, Certification of the pattern test for PL-001, 12 May 2026.
4. RC/PL/2026/L.1/Rev.1, Revised draft resolution: the Platform Fairness Standard, 14 July 2026.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. [1] Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, including Article 4

2. [2] European Commission, Digital Services Act: Transparency Database questions and answers

3. [3] Japan Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Specified Digital Platforms

4. [4] Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Digital Platforms