And good work once again. :)

But to address your point: eBay also allows Mastercard and Visa through PayPal. Abebooks allows Mastercard and Visa through their own internal payment gateway. How does eBay using PayPal as a payment gateway differ from Abebooks using their unbranded internal payment gateway? As you point out, eBay owns PayPal. From the perspective of the ACCC, why are they not treated as an integrated company?

If your concern is mainly focused on PayPal’s fees, as the two companies have a common ownership, they could be seen as simply multiple fees charged by eBay for its service. Indeed, many firms separately itemise fees. Lots of itemised fees may not be very transparent, but I don’t see why that would be something for the competition regulator to be concerned with.

From a seller’s perspective, eBay charges listing fees, as well as fees and commissions on sales. PayPal takes another commission on the sale. Enacted across the world, eBay will pick up $billions extra in commissions - compulsory double dipping. A direct deposit to a bank account costs little or nothing. Consumer choice would dictate that alternative methods of payment also be allowed, according to what’s convenient or appropriate.

As a buyer, I love PayPal for the convenience and added safety. As a seller, I would rather have the choice - especially for items with a large ticket price. Under the existing arrangements, sellers still have the right to limit payment methods - to PayPal only if desired.

The ACCC is correct to label eBay’s stance as anti-competitive. Free market economics depends on choice and competition. But then again, it seems to me that the IPA is more concerned with the interests of its patrons than promoting real competition.