... "I love you. I don't like what you did. Understand the difference." It's not that I hate laywers. I just don't always like what they "represent." <g>

You have presented one scenario of shill bidding where no one actually got hurt, and implied from it no one is hurt by shill bidding. That's like me saying I drove home drunk last night and didn't kill anyone. I do it all the time. So what's wrong with drunk driving?

OK, shill bidding... Have you ever been to a live auction? The auctioneer says, "We'll open the bidding at $100." Silence. "OK, who'll bid $80? $50? Do I hear $20?" At which point someone bids $20. $25. $30. $40. $50. $100. $200. Sold for $550! Why? Because someone else wanted it. Somebody was willing to go $550. Why didn't he jump off his chair when the auctioneer first said $100?

Here's a more realistic scenario:

1) Suzie Seller posts the item with a minimum bid of $20. Billy Bob Bidder thinks, "wow, ain't no way in hell I'd pay $20 for that", and moves on. The item doesn't sell. Suzie reevaluates her perception of the item's value and lists it next week for $10. Billy Bob sees it again, is the only bidder, and wins it for $10. Heck, it the thing was really worth $20, there would have been real bidders really bidding against him.

2) Suzie Seller posts the item with a minimum bid of $1 and a reserve of $20. Billy Bob Bidder thinks, "I'd pay $10 for that," bids $10 and doesn't reach the reserve. Billy Bob figures the reserve is probably outrageous and moves on.

3) Suzie Seller posts the item with a minimum bid of $1. Billy Bob Bidder thinks, "wow, I'd pay $10 for that" and bids $10 (current bid is $1). Billy Bob starts picturing that item in his collection. Suzie Seller then uses a shill to raise the bid. Billy Bob see's he's outbid and figures, "heck if I was going to pay $10, I could pay $12," and bids again. He's back on top at $12. Suzie Seller uses a different shill to raise the bid again. Billy Bob figures, "heck, this dang thing must be worth more than I thought it was. All these other people think so." This continues until Billy Bob's bid reaches $20, at which price
he wins the auction.

I think the technical term is "being suckered." It goes on in all sorts of marketing scams, where false interest is used to deceive a person into believing something has value that it really doesn't have. (Like that swampland in Florida Bob G. is always trying to sell. He never said it WASN'T swampland, mind you.)

The issue is NOT whether Billy Bob was harmed in one specific scenario. The issue is whether or not shill bidding can be used to harm and deceive bidders. The reserve auction, while distasteful to many, is honest in that the bidder knows the rules up front. In my scenario 3 above, I deliberately left out the aspect of Suzie bidding on her own auction, because this is at least apparent to Billy Bob what is happening. The use of third parties to manipulate Billy Bob's bids and perceptions is deceptive and dishonest. Billy Bob has a reasonable expectation that the bidders he's competing with are real and interested. I don't know the fancy lawyer talk for this, but I do know selling an item under false pretenses is wrong, regardless of whether you wind up selling the item for more or less than it's actual value.

If the shoe fits, you must be spit. Or something like that.