Seems like a bad way to run a business to me. “Fraud is everywhere and we don’t care, take it up with someone else” doesn’t inspire confidence in an auction platform. As I mentioned previously, I’m not arguing that auction houses are legally or even ethically responsible for refunding buyers, just that refunding people for fake items purchased on their platform is good business. If setting the standard that items with questionable authenticity can be returned is somehow problematic, that raises even more questions about the auction platform itself.
Maybe chrispy read this thread a bit fast, but nobody is saying that auction houses should be responsible instead of CGC. Others, including myself, are praising the companies that choose to refund their buyers and pursue claims against CGC themselves. I even think that is a better strategy which is more likely to result in compensation for the companies, because they have more resources and leverage they can bring to bear over CGC than individual submitters.
I just wanted to provide an update since it has been a few days since I shared the email from Rare Candy.
I have returned the cards, and Rare Candy has initiated a full refund on the order. I was not expecting Rare Candy to offer a full refund, but by proactively offering refunds to any customers affected by the situation provides great confidence and shows that they care about the community and their customers.
Ultimately, I think this situation highlights what companies we can and can’t trust, as well as those who care and those who don’t. I hope that CGC ends up doing the right thing. For the companies that acted shady, I hope that people don’t forget how they treated their customers when other even smaller companies have shown what is possible.
I wonder how much is a logistics issue due to sales volume. I’m not defending any auction houses decision, however there is a difference between zng or rc doing a recent single auction block of fake prototypes, vs larger outlets like fanatics or Ha who sold numerous blocks spanning years. In the latter scenario, many of those cards have probably been sold multiple times, and an auction house can’t refund the end buyer. Again I am not defending any decisions made, but I think sales volume + time creates a legitimate issue.
That’s a good point and certainly complicates things from their perspective. I just wish they would defend their customers for the blocks (across several platforms) that ended on the day this came out.
It still seems super shady to me that these auctions houses knew of this information and still chose to accept payment and ship these cards out after the fact. It’s one thing if the cards were sold long ago and no one knew.
I agree, offering a full refund for all of the auctions and sales they have processed would be impossible. However, other platforms have also had auctions and sales in the past few weeks. I feel there is no excuse as to why they couldn’t offer a refund unless I am wrong, and they have offered refunds to those affected recently. If so, people should share their experiences, as this helps bring to light how companies treat their customers.
No I get it, my point is that the larger you get as a third party facilitator of transactions between a buyer and seller, the more risk you are incurring and that’s why there’s so many protections. Mom and Pops upstart pokemon sale emporium will have an easier time at doing better “customer service” IE taking on refunds directly that they shouldnt have to, because they need that smaller pool of customers more as they try to break into market. And again, a huge well established auction house making special exceptions for this case only leads to other cases demanding them to get financially involved. It opens up a portal of risk they never planned to manage as part of their business model. ZandG and Rarecandy are owned by a couple of Pokemon enthusiasts with enough capital to start these little auction houses and they are doing great. But expecting every auction house to do the same is not a fair expectation. People are criticizing normal auction houses for doing normal auction house business procedures and claiming they will never use them again. These auction houses aren’t “being shady” nor do I think they aren’t “doing the right thing”. They are doing what auction houses do. They provide a platform for selling. It is the responsibility of authenticity companies to financially stand behind what they authenticate.
I don’t see it like this. Wouldn’t these refunds be more risky for a smaller business rather than a multinational company like Fanatics which took in $8 billion in revenue last year? Wouldn’t that same company that has a partnership with CGC have a stronger claim against the authenticity guarantee because they can directly prove an amount of revenue lost?
I don’t understand what special exceptions would need to be made in order for inauthentic items to be returned. People have already mentioned above how Heritage allowed returns and refunds of Power Rangers costumes that were incorrectly labeled. It wasn’t that they were fake, just that some were listed as screen-used when it turned out they weren’t. Maybe if all auction houses had a strict “no returns on anything ever” policy would this start some kind of slippery slope, but that’s simply not the case.
On this we agree 100%. I just think that it’s good business (again, not required) for auction companies to stand behind their items as well. If they don’t, why would anyone have any confidence buying on their platforms?
Based on PFMs findings, yes, numerous cards have been determined to have been printed in 2024. At the same time, there have been cards that have been determined in 1996. Again, all of this posted only here on E4. Until CGC officially determines and states which cards specifically are or aren’t fake, auction houses can and will default to CGC’s guarantee and their TOS. They are not going to base any decisions on findings on E4. What they can do is halt the sale of any of these cards until further notice, which they are.
Saying that it’s better for them to take it up with CGC b:c they have more resources and would be good customer service isn’t a fair argument. They are just a platform that facilitates the transactions and they did not knowingly sell fake cards (cards have been selling for months on multiple platforms well before PFM’s findings came to light) They did nothing wrong in this situation (unless they knowingly sell fakes which is a separate topic).
What you and I’m sure everyone who has purchased these cards wants them to take the responsibility, but this isn’t there’s. Review their TOS.
Wouldn’t these refunds be more risky for a smaller business rather than a multinational company like Fanatics which took in $8 billion in revenue last year?
Likely no. The risk for Z&G is mitigated by the amount of cards sold and not opening themselves up to high risks outside of the realm of pokemon. They could relegate 1-2 people to deal with this directly while the rest of their staff stays the course in business as usual. Asking a huge auction house to leverage resources into who knows how many different auction blocks and resales on top of then having x y and z sports and art people citing this as an example and asking “why wont you help us directly as well” just creates so much additional resources and risk exposure that you’d likely need an entire department built out to handle that. It’s not part of their business model. Either way, CGC is the one that’s going to be held responsible. I don’t think Z&G is just handing out refunds not anticipating to be made whole from CGC.
I don’t think we really have that much of a difference in opinion, but we are talking past each other.
I am not disputing that according to “TOS” the auction houses don’t need to refund anyone. I am not arguing it is the auction house’s “responsibility” to refund people, either legally or ethically. I agree that CGC is ultimately responsible and should be held accountable, and that it may take time to determine exactly which cards are “real” and which are “fake.”
The only point I want to make is that it is a good thing for auction houses to refund people regardless of the above.
CGC lost a card of mine . CGC DID NOT offer declared value, What they wanted to do was buy a card off ebay, or i could take the cards value that they wanted to buy off ebay as compensation. I told them “wtf, my cards are mint-gem mint-pristine vintage, that card on ebay is not the same condition” in the end they just credited me. I did not use the credit for 2 years. CGC is like that when it comes to remedies of compensation.
Just wanted you all know what it is like to deal with CGC. Maybe they changed, but i would suspect the change would be for worse as i was a big submitter the 1st month they were in business.
At least last year, when WhatNot provided this guidance, if there was no resolution between buyer/seller, WhatNot would step in and reimburse the buyer? I am not sure if they are still following this process in 2025, or if it is restricted to a sepcific sale value.
I agree with @fourthstartcg. I don’t think we are arguing that these auction houses and online sellers should be obligated to refund their customers. The auction houses have the right not to refund any transactions as stated in their terms of service. However, other platforms have offered full refunds in recent transactions despite what their TOS states. So, this shows that the companies that went out of their way to provide customers with refunds value their customer base and at least care a little.
Ultimately, CGC should be responsible for the authenticity of the cards, and the blame falls on them. It is nice to know that some companies are willing to be there for their customers. So, it is fair to say that these companies may not be shady or trustworthy, but companies such as ZandG and Rare Candy should be commended for their actions.
I agree with you and with Fourthstar. If Auction houses want to take the extra step and deal with CGC directly while handing everyone refunds, that’s stellar customer service and I’m sure it promotes brand loyalty. I’m just speaking on the frustrations of others who are claiming auction houses are somehow being “shady” and need to be “held accountable” and that they’re “never going to use them again”. That’s where a line is crossed from appreciation to entitlement.
I just want to point out that anyone who purchased a slab card has some avenue of recourse and is likely to be made whole or reimbursed in some way. If you look at those flow charts, the people REALLY shit out of luck here and completely screwed are anyone that bought from Akabane/Kimura/Issei directly before the cards were slabbed. They could be out hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. That’s why it’s crazy to me that so much anger is currently directed at auction houses and CGC rather than the proposed source of potentially fraudulent cards.
I think people are allowed to feel frustrated after losing hundreds and thousands, and support whoever they want based on their feelings about the situation.
the people REALLY shit out of luck here and completely screwed are anyone that bought from Akabane/Kimura/Issei directly before the cards were slabbed
Not trying to be confrontational here (this is my first post on EFour in about 8 years, as someone who fomo’d extremely hard wanting just ONE of these prototype cards for the shelf), but do you honestly believe that?
It’s my understanding from someone who’s been following this situation from a distance for a couple of years now that CGC were the ones that opened the floodgates when they initially slabbed the 3 blue-label starters in 2023.
There’s just no way that in the year 2024 anyone was dumping “millions” into these cards without reasonable assurance that they were going to get slabbed by CGC in the same way the first ones were.
I actually don’t believe the auction houses should be catching any flak at all, in fact they should be making a concerted effort to put the pressure on CGC so that if things get bad enough they’re forced to re-evaluate what slabs they sell on their platforms based on how poorly (or not) CGC handles this.
Z&G, etc., are exceptions in the space, not the rule.
“Guarantor may use actual pricing and sales information available to it, including prices in the actual transaction history of the Collectible in question.” Makes sense. Average of recent sold prices is how we all usually determine value, for the most part. (Although off-topic, if cards are almost never sold - e.g. once every few years, those averages aren’t too reliable with how volatile the market is.)
Reading further though: “… such information may not necessarily represent the accurate current Fair Market Value of any particular Collectible, which again, will be determined by Guarantor in its sole reasonably exercised discretion.”
Current value of the fake playtest cards: 0.03%™ of their previous sold prices.
As with most things on the internet… many who are not even affected and have never been a customer of said businesses “never will do business with them again”. Lots of noise around all things drama (as I, an unaffected person provides more noise).
Its only been a week and in that week CGC has already laid out a plan for re evaluating cards and reimbursing under their financial guarantee. They may do right by everyone and fully refund. I hope they do. They could have done better every step of the way, but lets see where this ends before making a full judgement. Mistakes always will happen, its all about how people respond. This mistake was a bigger one than most would like to see or expect, but if a full remedy is made, what more can you ask?
