Not eBay's fault
It's not really eBay's fault.
Let's suppose someone designed a car in such a way as to make it possible for somebody (ostensibly, only the manufacturer and then only in certain circumstances, although it's widely known -- though the car manufacturer strenuously deny this -- to be open to abuse) remotely to take over the steering, the pedals, the gears and the ignition.
Furthermore, this car isn't sold to buyers in the usual way. It's given away gratis when you buy a bundle including a year's insurance policy, a year's worth of fuel and some accessories. The car manufacturer is also suspected of applying illegal pressure to insurance providers and fuel companies to dissuade them from insuring or gassing up any other makes of car, but the evidence always goes missing at the last minute (just before the senior investigating officer wins the lottery and retires to the sun, or has a nasty but improbable accident).
As a result of this aggressive marketing technique, this car is the most popular model on the roads. The newest model is even fitted with a much-touted device to warn you if it detects someone trying to take over the controls; however, this is not 100% reliable and never can be, since the warning device itself can, by design, be overridden by the manufacturer (or anyone else who knows how to pretend to be the manufacturer -- who, of course, vehemently deny that this is possible).
Now, someone drives to town in their free-but-hopelessly-insecure car to go shopping at Woolworth's; but finds their car being redirected to some other store instead.
Is that really Woolworths' fault, for being a popular destination for shoppers driving insecure-by-design cars?