ACCC begins lawsuit against Valve over Steam refund policies - Polidicks

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833137]But the product is still in perfect condition, the manufacturer has just revoked your ability to using their services, thus preventing you from using your product as intended.[/QUOTE] If I don't pay the power bill and the power mob cuts me off, that doesn't mean I can get a refund. If you cheat in a game, get caught and banned, suck it up. Don't whine like a bitch over it and beg for a refund.

[QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833162]If I don't pay the power bill and the power mob cuts me off, that doesn't mean I can get a refund. If you cheat in a game, get caught and banned, suck it up. Don't whine like a bitch over it and beg for a refund.[/QUOTE] But refusing to pay the bills means you are not paying for a service, they are in the right. Your products usefulness was damaged or removed by an entity deciding that you are no longer eligible for their services, despite being a customer and your actual product being undamaged itself. It is closer to saying "this toaster does not toast bagels" then when you use it as such it locks down and cannot be used beyond the coolest setting despite no damage to the machine and it being in the same condition as purchase.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833189]thats where the statement "reasonable person" comes into play there are images on the storefront which are not ingame (realistic mode) theres also the fact that anyone with a decent amount of time simply being a consumer of the industry would be able to deduce that the game is an absolute crock of shit and not and adequate quality. everything a storefront says to you about a product should be considered literal[/QUOTE] But what is the literal meaning when you have several? And is that literal meaning is a quote, what happens then? The storefront has reviews and has statements saying that it is not of good quality, does that affect the decisions of a reasonable person? Afterall that should decrease the level which is considered adequate quality.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45833143]You should not be able to request a refund on previously purchased items unless you did it within 2 weeks or 5 hours of game time I reckon Else then it's super exploitable[/QUOTE] You can play a game offline through Steam and it won't count hours played. And it's very easy to complete a singleplayer game in 2 weeks, so no, that won't work.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833181]But refusing to pay the bills means you are not paying for a service, they are in the right. Your products usefulness was damaged or removed by an entity deciding that you are no longer eligible for their services, despite being a customer and your actual product being undamaged itself.[/QUOTE] No, the product's usefulness was damaged by the fact that you cheated in an online game. I doubt that any mob would give a damn if you cheated in a single player game. I think a reasonable person would assume that a multiplayer game in general would assume to be played without cheats, or at least cheating only on a private server where it would be allowed. This isn't going to be a "Oh no, I got banned from CoD after I got caught hacking in bazookas that fire nuclear weapons the size of America, I better hit the magic refund button." issue.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833207]also relating to VAC bans, that would pretty much fall under the "you damaged this yourself" criteria, you ran an external program and as a direct result your game no longer works [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] and reasonable tiem for videogames is fairly short, 3-6 months generally under current industry standards[/QUOTE] But the game is still in perfect condition, undamaged. It is still available to you in a state no different than when you purchased it. [QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833215]No, the product's usefulness was damaged by the fact that you cheated in an online game. I doubt that any mob would give a damn if you cheated in a single player game. I think a reasonable person would assume that a multiplayer game in general would assume to be played without cheats, or at least cheating only on a private server where it would be allowed. This isn't going to be a "Oh no, I got banned from CoD after I got caught hacking in bazookas that fire nuclear weapons the size of America, I better hit the magic refund button." issue.[/QUOTE] Wrong, the product is still in perfect condition, which is the issue here. You still have the exact same product everyone else has, in the same condition, however someone else has now told you that you are no longer eligble for the same purposes as everyone else due to you decided to do something they didn't want.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833220]thats the grey area, the storefront can decide if you are being a reasonable person and if you disagree you can take it up with the ombudsman [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] Not really, in terms of early access specifically, if the developer completely changes the game, sure it "works" but it doesnt work in the same way as you bought it in terms of advertisement, games like watch_dogs (despite working and being fine games, even if overhyped and dumbed down) were in fact misrepresented, thus would allow refunds[/QUOTE] You are missing the point entirely once again. Person A and person B have the EXACT same product, but one is restricted while the other is not. Person A could copy his entire game to person B's computer and person B would be unable to tell the difference. The only difference between person A and B is that person A cheated and is banned from online play by the developer.

Im pretty sure if they allow refunds my account would suddenly become worth over 1000 dollars.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833266]what that makes literally no sense are you actually trying to argue that person A who cheated would attempt to get a refund because person B who didn't cheat would be able to? like im actually confused here [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] unless im actually retarded i think you just don't understand that the consumer law is as literal as it possibly can be as everyones interpretation of quality is different, someone might really enjoy air control but that doesnt mean another person shouldnt be able to get a refund[/QUOTE] If they were both eligible for whatever reason outside of that, why shouldn't they both be eligible for a refund? Person A is being denied a service that was noted as being part of the game. So couldn't he file an official complaint? post edit: The thing is that I am taking the law in it's most literal sense, aka how laws should be. A digital product is a literal perfect product, there is no decay from user error, there is no damage from overuse, only external forces.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833292]because person A tampered with his product and person B did not[/QUOTE] But person A's product can be copied over to person b's computer and person B would never be able to tell as they are the exact same. The only thing different between them would be something that identifies the user, which is something that is usually called a registry key, which is a function of the operating system.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833252]You are missing the point entirely once again. Person A and person B have the EXACT same product, but one is restricted while the other is not. Person A could copy his entire game to person B's computer and person B would be unable to tell the difference. The only difference between person A and B is that person A cheated and is banned from online play by the developer.[/QUOTE] You buy a car, you hit someone with it, you don't get a refund on the car. You buy a knife, you stab someone with it, you don't get a refund on the knife. You buy a computer, you overclock it to 4 THz or whatever and melts, you don't get a refund on the computer. You get a telephone account set up, and use it to scam oldies until the cops arrest you, you don't get a refund on the phone. This is NOT going to be a get out of jail free card. I cannot get banned and go "Oh but the ACCC clearly says that--" because the ACCC doesn't goddamn apply to that situation. It doesn't apply to cheating. All it applies to is that the consumer gets a reasonably working product, in reasonable order, that works for a reasonable amount of time. And I'd say that if a game works well enough for a person, be they myself, Kim Jong-Un or Edward Cullen, to be able to play 700 hours, then we can assume that the game is in reasonable working condition. That it is in reasonable order. And that it has worked for a reasonable amount of time, and will probably work for a period of time beyond that. And that if the only reason you got kicked off was because you broke the rules of the game, then the ACCC is not going to apply.

[QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833311]You buy a car, you hit someone with it, you don't get a refund on the car.[B]illegal, evidence in a crime, you caused the damage[/B] You buy a knife, you stab someone with it, you don't get a refund on the knife.[B]illegal, evidence in a crime[/B] You buy a computer, you overclock it to 4 THz or whatever and melts, you don't get a refund on the computer.[B]user caused damage, physical, the game as described has not been changed.[/B] You get a telephone account set up, and use it to scam oldies until the cops arrest you, you don't get a refund on the phone.[B]illegal, you wouldn't anyways[/B][/QUOTE] The game is physically unchanged on your end. Someone else(the company) has stated that you may no longer use it though. [QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833316]how does that mean person A no longer tampered with their own product or allow A to get a refund if person B allows person A to tamper with person B's product then person B has actually tampered their own product knowingly or not. "i didnt cheat it was my brother i swear" [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] oh wait i think i get it now person A tampers with "the product" and gives it to person B to return it no that would not work, as its the same product and has been tampered with stop being dumb thanks[/QUOTE] No, the two are technically unrelated. The program person A has is unable to be differentiated from person B's except for that their servers have flagged the registry key that person A has and have blocked him from playing. Person A has had no changes to his game or computer as a result of their actions or his own. Should he be able to get a refund for his game based on the fact it no longer works as advertised and is still in perfect condition with no user damage.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833329]The game is physically unchanged on your end. Someone else(the company) has stated that you may no longer use it though.[/QUOTE] Alright. What would American consumer law say about this, then? Would they allow you to get a refund for cheating? I mean, it's clear you know more about Australian consumer law then Australians do.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833340]you do know that valve sells the license right you tamper with the product the license gives you, in return your license is revoked due to a breach in the agreement between you and valve to try and beat it into your head, this is trying to force valve into letting you get a refund for your license when the product behind the license doesn't meet the standard set if you wanna bitch and whine about how ~its digital~ without knowing how digital products are handled then don't be so obnoxious about it[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf[/URL] You posted it, where does it have special rules for digital products. Your tampering has left no damage and has left nothing to interfere with normal operation. Akin to putting a magnet on a fridge. If the company says not to put magnets on the fridge in the manual, does putting one on make you no longer able to get a refund when it breaks down in 2 years? [QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833342]Alright. What would American consumer law say about this, then? Would they allow you to get a refund for cheating? I mean, it's clear you know more about Australian consumer law then Australians do.[/QUOTE] I am basing it off of the info provided in it's literal sense.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45830155]As far as I've heard you can get refunds in the UK if you contact customer services and spout a few European and UK laws. You get your money back for that single game but they'll ban your entire account in the process.[/QUOTE] I have gone through 2 other Steam accounts due to this.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833361]it doesn't, because its set in the steam subscriber agreement dummy which you agreed to the problem here is the part of the agreement that is illegal is the no refunds policy[/QUOTE] You really cannot read. I am not just talking about valve, I am talking about how interpretation of the law can basically fuck over everything due to how broad it is.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833378]You really cannot read. I am not just talking about valve, I am talking about how interpretation of the law can basically fuck over everything due to how broad it is.[/QUOTE] Thank god you're not the one interpreting the law, then.

[QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833384]Thank god you're not the one interpreting the law, then.[/QUOTE] You mean in the most literal sense possible? AKA the product no longer works as advertised and is still in perfect condition? [QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833391]no i can read you just dont understand that its a per case basis based on abuse by companies valve have the right to decide on a case by case basis what deserves a refund, in the case of VAC bans you have to be literally retarded to think that anyone could get a refund after getting VAC'd, even if the govt got involved valve could easily argue against it government laws supersede agreements made between parties inside countries governed by said governments like i can't stress this enough, you are literally wrong when it comes to this[/QUOTE] Yet based on the reading of the law, the change they would need to make is say they allow for refunds of products that do not work as advertised(which they have done so in the past), and deny everything else as the product works fine for everyone else.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833398]thats not how our consumer law works[/QUOTE] According to what you posted the only situations that revoke your right to refund or replacement are; [QUOTE]the supplier alerts the consumer to any hidden defects the consumer examines the goods or the consumer uses the goods in an 'abnormal' manner[/QUOTE] Which the last one refers to damage caused by the user.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833425]According to what you posted the only situations that revoke your right to refund or replacement are; Which the last one refers to damage caused by the user.[/QUOTE] So what would cheating be counted as? It's not a hidden defect... It's not the consumer examining the goods... It could possibly be the fact that the consumer is using the goods in an abnormal manner. It's a mad idea I know.

[QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833440]So what would cheating be counted as? It's not a hidden defect... It's not the consumer examining the goods... It could possibly be the fact that the consumer is using the goods in an abnormal manner. It's a mad idea I know.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Goods are not expected to be indestructible; a consumer’s use of goods can affect the durability of those goods.[/B] The guarantee of acceptable quality will not apply if the consumer: – uses the goods abnormally – causes the quality of the goods to become unacceptable – fails to take reasonable steps to avoid the quality becoming unacceptable. [B]The law does not define ‘abnormal use’. However, examples of abnormal use include:[/B] – a mobile phone is dropped in water or is left out in the rain – a television is broken by an object hitting the screen – a small electric lawnmower is used to mow four hectares every fortnight – a laptop is picked up by the corner of its screen, which then cracks down the middle. [/QUOTE] Durability unaffected, undefined term. Go with what is claimed.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833451]Durability unaffected, undefined term. Go with what is claimed.[/QUOTE] Alright, riddle me this. Why are you so insistent on cheaters being eligible for refunds?

[QUOTE=1Eevee1;45833461]Alright, riddle me this. Why are you so insistent on cheaters being eligible for refunds?[/QUOTE] Because; why shouldn't they if the law says nothing against it? Also, here is a little tidbit- I've never been banned by an anti-cheat for hacking nor have my online privileges been revoked for such actions. My argument is merely of the figuring out the answer kind.

Its hilarious reading you people as you try to understand Australian Consumer Law... What most of you non-australians need to understand is that our consumer law is in favor of the consumers, not the corporations like most other ones.

[QUOTE=Best4bond;45833485]Its hilarious reading you people as you try to understand Australian Consumer Law... What most of you non-australians need to understand is that our consumer law is in favor of the consumers, not the corporations like most other ones.[/QUOTE] Which is what I understand, and it is worded in such a way that it helps, however it does not protect businesses very well against frivolous refunds based on the very few circumstances in which your consumer protection is not there. Also it doesn't help when someone suggests that the court ruling would bar Australians from dealing with any affiliates of said foreign company.(Paypal)

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833510]if they lie about a product or knowingly sell a shitty product then this is why these laws exist [/QUOTE] Which I honestly believe that Valve is knowingly selling shitty products by letting them onto the store and they haven't taken action against all games which lie to the consumer, just some of them. Furthermore, If I was the ACCC I would go as far as to accuse them of other tactics in the market like predatory pricing in some cases, like for example the steam sale (Which don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of) do seem to not allow competitors of Steam compete at the same rate.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833510]as i said before, it falls to "reasonable" i still think you don't understand the whole idea of "it can be returned if it does not function as expected or is not of quality" our consumer law is there to stop people from abusing a generally conservative market, we usually don't care what something costs so people abuse the fuck out of it and the govt steps in read through the entire document if you want to continue arguing it and notice that the biggest point of it is that its very reasonable on both sides, its something that makes the sellers responsible for what they sell and not the consumers responsible for what others sell[/QUOTE] So how does Valve get compensation from companies that it is the supplier for without the protection of Australian law? You know the other half the equation. [QUOTE][editline]29th August 2014[/editline] A business is completely protected if they operate on a reasonable level of trust with their consumers if they lie about a product or knowingly sell a shitty product then this is why these laws exist [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] you literally arent providing proper reasons as to why steam shouldn't give refunds you are just saying "i think this law won't work in this hypothetical situation" to which it doesnt make any fuckin' sense because its quite obviously tampering [/QUOTE] That is the thing, why shouldn't they give refunds for something they did not make and have no way of forcing companies to compensate them for said refunds of their products?

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;45833554]please explain in more detail im having a hard time wrapping my head around this post they are real words but i don't think you are using them properly[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf[/URL] section 12 Oh I meant valve, sorry. If you are still wondering [QUOTE]When a supplier fixes a problem that is not their fault (manufacturer’s indemnity) A supplier has three years to ask a manufacturer for reimbursement. [/QUOTE] Now, how does valve manage to do this when they are not in Australia and would have to practically sue to get compensation in another country in which they have no operations?

[QUOTE=deadoon;45833548] That is the thing, why shouldn't they give refunds for something they did not make and have no way of forcing companies to compensate them for said refunds of their products?[/QUOTE] I'm presuming by shouldn't you meant should. Valve operates in the Australian market, thus they have to abide by Australian consumer law, these laws entitle Australians to refunds for misleading products and bans companies from saying that there are "No refunds allowed" as they are also misleading. The game companies sell their games in the retail stores here too, thus they clearly have a presence here in Australia and they too must abide by consumer law and refund the product.

[quote=deadoon] – causes the quality of the goods to become unacceptable[/quote] Couldn't they argue that cheating ruins the game for the other users, effectively damaging the game. I mean the product is designed to be enjoyed as entertainment, if cheating ruins that experience it is ruining the product. This obviously only applies to online multi-player games