EBay (EBAY)

The listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items may harm our business.

We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and trade names, or other intellectual property rights. See “Item 3 — Legal Proceedings” below. Although we have sought to work actively with the owners of intellectual property rights to eliminate listings offering infringing items on our websites, some rights owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners have been active in asserting their purported rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in threats of litigation and actual litigation against us from time to time by rights owners, including litigation brought by luxury brand owners such as Tiffany & Co. in the U.S. (where Tiffany & Co. is currently appealing the trial court ruling in favor of eBay), Rolex S.A. and Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH in Germany, Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture in France, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie in several European countries. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to hold eBay liable for alleged counterfeit items listed on our sites by third parties, for “tester” and other not for resale consumer products and for unboxed and other allegedly nonconforming products listed on our sites by third parties, for the alleged misuse of trademarks or copyrights in listings or otherwise on our sites, or in connection with paid search advertisements, or for alleged violations of selective distribution channel laws or parallel import laws for listings of authentic items, or for alleged non-compliance with consumer protection laws. Such plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief and damages. In the aggregate, these suits could result in significant damage awards and could adversely affect our business. In June 2008, the Paris Court of Commerce ruled in the Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture cases that eBay and eBay International AG were liable for failing to prevent the sale of counterfeit items on its websites that traded on plaintiffs’ brand names and for interfering with the plaintiffs’ selective distribution network. The court awarded the plaintiffs approximately EUR 38.6 million in damages and issued an injunction (enforceable by daily fines of up to EUR 100,000) prohibiting all sales of perfumes and cosmetics bearing the Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo brands over all worldwide eBay sites to the extent they are accessible from France. We have taken measures to comply with the injunction and have appealed these rulings. A subsequent ruling fined us EUR 1.7 million (the equivalent of EUR 2,500 per day) and indicated we should employ additional measures to enforce the injunction. These and similar suits may force us to modify our business practices, which could lower our revenue, increase our costs or make our websites less convenient to our customers. Any such results could materially harm our business.

In addition to litigation from rights owners, we may be subject to regulatory, civil or criminal proceedings and penalties if governmental authorities believe we have aided in the sale of counterfeit goods. While we have had some early success in defending against such litigation, more recent cases have been based, at least in part, on different legal theories than those of earlier cases, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in defending against such litigation. For example, the German Federal Supreme Court has ruled that we may owe duties, under certain circumstances, to content owners and competitors relating to taking reasonable

18

Table of Contents

steps to prevent the listing of illegal, counterfeit, and pirated items. Plaintiffs in recent cases have argued that we are not entitled to safe harbors under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S. or as a hosting provider in the European Union under the Electronic Commerce Directive because of the alleged active nature of our involvement with our sellers, and that, whether or not such safe harbors are available, we should be found liable because we supposedly have not adequately removed listings that are counterfeit or are authentic but allegedly violate trademark law or effectively suspended users who have created such listings. We are constantly seeking to improve and modify our efforts to eliminate counterfeit and pirated items. These improvements are in response to ongoing business initiatives designed to reduce bad buyer experiences and improve customer satisfaction as well as in response to new patterns we are seeing among counterfeiters and others committing fraud on our users. Notwithstanding these efforts, we believe that the legal climate, especially in Europe, is becoming more adverse to our positions, which may require us to take actions which could lower our revenues, increase our costs, or make our websites less convenient to our customers, which may materially harm our business. In addition, a public perception that counterfeit or pirated items are commonplace on our sites, even if factually incorrect, could damage our reputation and our business.

Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners may also seek to bring legal action against entities that are peripherally involved in the sale of infringing items, such as payment companies. To the extent that intellectual property rights owners bring legal action against PayPal based upon the use of PayPal’s payment services in a transaction involving the sale of infringing items, including on our websites, our business could be harmed.

The listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items may harm our business.

We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and trade names, or other intellectual property rights. Although we have sought to work actively with the owners of intellectual property rights to eliminate listings offering infringing items on our websites, some rights owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners have been active in asserting their purported rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in threats of litigation and actual litigation against us from time to time by rights owners, including litigation brought by luxury brand owners such as Tiffany & Co. in the U.S. (where Tiffany & Co. is currently appealing the trial court ruling in favor of eBay), Rolex S.A. in Germany, Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture in France, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie in several European countries. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to hold eBay liable for alleged counterfeit items listed on our sites by third parties, for “tester” and other not for resale consumer products and for unboxed and other allegedly nonconforming products listed on our sites by third parties, for the alleged misuse of trademarks or copyrights in listings or otherwise on our sites, or in connection with paid search advertisements, or for alleged violations of selective distribution channel laws or parallel import laws for listings of authentic items. Such plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief and damages. In the aggregate, these suits could result in significant damage awards and could adversely affect our business. In June 2008, the Paris Court of Commerce ruled in the Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior

28

Couture cases that eBay and eBay International AG were liable for failing to prevent the sale of counterfeit items on its websites that traded on plaintiffs’ brand names and for interfering with the plaintiffs’ selective distribution network. The court awarded the plaintiffs approximately EUR 38.6 million in damages and issued an injunction prohibiting all sales of perfumes and cosmetics bearing the Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo brands over all worldwide eBay sites to the extent they are accessible from France. We have taken measures to comply with the injunction and have appealed these rulings. However, these and similar suits may force us to modify our business practices, which could lower our revenue, increase our costs or make our websites less convenient to our customers. Any such results could materially harm our business.

In addition to litigation from rights owners, we may be subject to regulatory, civil or criminal proceedings and penalties if the authorities believe we have aided in the sale of counterfeit goods. While we have had some early success in defending against such litigation, more recent cases have been based, at least in part, on different legal theories than those of earlier cases, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in defending against such litigation. For example, the German Federal Supreme Court has ruled that we may owe duties, under certain circumstances, to content owners and competitors relating to taking reasonable steps to prevent the listing of illegal, counterfeit, and pirated items. Plaintiffs in recent cases have argued that we are not entitled to safe harbors under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S. or as a hosting provider in the European Union under the Electronic Commerce Directive because of the alleged active nature of our involvement with our sellers, and that, whether or not such safe harbors are available, we should be found liable because we supposedly have not adequately removed listings that are counterfeit or are authentic but allegedly violate trademark law or effectively suspended users who have created such listings. We are constantly seeking to improve and modify our efforts to eliminate counterfeit and pirated items. These improvements are in response to ongoing business initiatives designed to reduce bad buyer experiences and improve customer satisfaction as well as in response to new patterns we are seeing among counterfeiters and others committing fraud on our users. Notwithstanding these efforts, we believe that the legal climate, especially in Europe, is becoming more adverse to our arguments, which may require us to take actions which could lower our revenues, increase our costs, or make our websites less convenient to our customers, which may materially harm our business. In addition, a public perception that counterfeit or pirated items are commonplace on our site, even if factually incorrect, could damage our reputation and our business.

Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners may also seek to bring legal action against entities that are peripherally involved in the sale of infringing items, such as payment companies. To the extent that intellectual property rights owners bring legal action against PayPal based upon the use of PayPal’s payment services in a transaction involving the sale of infringing items, including on our websites, our business could be harmed.