ACCC begins lawsuit against Valve over Steam refund policies - Polidicks

Over a week on, there's been no response from Valve. If they were going to contest the matter, it is especially odd since the first hearing is next week on Tuesday.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;45940496]So, what, the entire concept of Terms of Service is essentially useless?[/QUOTE] It comes down to how it's implemented (And how fair it is for the consumer) it needs to comply with the local laws and give the user a chance to reject it (i.e. you can't throw up the EULA after buying software and claim there's no refunds) If the Steam ToS said "no refunds ever, regardless of the situation" then it'd be rejected (Because our law clearly states that you can get refunds in certain situations), but if it says something along the lines of "No refunds if you misuse the product" then a court shouldn't really have any problem with that, as it was the user that broke it, etc.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45830142]And how does the ACCC expect any judgement in their favour to be enforced? Valve has no presence in Australia.[/QUOTE] They sell stuff in australia, for AUS and offer content delivery licenses in Australia. Ergo they have a presence in Australia. It would be different if you needed to use a proxy to buy from steam, or merely ordered a physical product from overseas.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;45940607]They sell stuff in australia, for AUS and offer content delivery licenses in Australia. Ergo they have a presence in Australia. [/QUOTE] They sell stuff to Australia - and I'm not sure what you're referring to as content delivery licences. For the sake of brevity, there is no doubt that the Australian Consumer Law applies to sales made by Valve, however, there is no way that an Australian court could make any enforceable ruling on Valve.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45940627]They sell stuff to Australia - and I'm not sure what you're referring to as content delivery licences. For the sake of brevity, there is no doubt that the Australian Consumer Law applies to sales made by Valve, however, there is no way that an Australian court could make any enforceable ruling on Valve.[/QUOTE] They could shut down servers which valve seem to be running in Australia. Plus they are an America company, I'm sure there's something the Australian government can do if they don't follow consumer law and continue selling.

I doubt the court will grant an injunction against any servers managed by Valve and furthermore it is not possible for the ACCC to lodge judgment for them in the US courts since this is a matter of public law and not private law (like a contract between two parties).

I can only see Valve fighting this pretty hard because the ACCC policy seems to take a huge dump on corporate practice, and seems like it was made before video games existed.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;45940607]They sell stuff in australia, for AUS and offer content delivery licenses in Australia. Ergo they have a presence in Australia. It would be different if you needed to use a proxy to buy from steam, or merely ordered a physical product from overseas.[/QUOTE] But it is exactly like ordering a product from oversees. The only difference is that it is a dgital product, not physical. DLsite is in japan, but they have an English storefront. Also, just about every payment processor will allow you to convert between currencies at point of transaction. [QUOTE=ghghop;45947761]I can only see Valve fighting this pretty hard because the ACCC policy seems to take a huge dump on corporate practice, and seems like it was made before video games existed.[/QUOTE] It was implemented 3 years ago.

[QUOTE=Diago21;45940574]I've never had any trouble getting refunds on Steam, sure it can take a while for support to reply but I've gotten 3 games refunded thus far that've either been broken or hadn't lived up to their hype.[/QUOTE] This. Are people just jumping on the hypothetical "Valve doesn't do refunds and are dicks about it" hate-train? Because I've never had a problem at all, and it seems a lot of others have had very good experiences as well. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but I haven't seen anything that would imply that there is. What do the bad stories consist of exactly? How many are there?

Somebody explain me, You can't refund PC games at a store. You can't refund PC games at a online store. What am i missing out on here? After copying CD's and CD-Keys became a thing i haven't been able to refund any PC games bought at any store, which was like 15 years ago.

[QUOTE=Cold;45947893]Somebody explain me, You can't refund PC games at a store. You can't refund PC games at a online store. What am i missing out on here? After copying CD's and CD-Keys became a thing i haven't been able to refund any PC games bought at any store, which was like 15 years ago.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I'd compare it to buying something like cigarettes or food and opening it, but returning it afterwards and saying "It's fine, I didn't do anything with it but open the packaging." It's already been compromised. Whether it has actually been tampered with or not (or in the case of a CD key, copied) is beside the point, a problem can arise later and cause issues for reselling it anyways. I don't think they can reuse that CD key again, if you copied it and attempt to use it on Steam or another service.

[QUOTE=ghghop;45947761]I can only see Valve fighting this pretty hard because the ACCC policy seems to take a huge dump on corporate practice, and seems like it was made before video games existed.[/QUOTE] Valve are fighting this so hard that they've not responded to any claim from the ACCC, nor do they have counsel: [url]https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD886/2014/actions[/url] And yet first hearing is next week Tuesday.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45948809]Valve are fighting this so hard that they've not responded to any claim from the ACCC, nor do they have counsel: [url]https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD886/2014/actions[/url] And yet first hearing is next week Tuesday.[/QUOTE] Oh hey, it's the typical Valve response :v:

I understand Valves mindset, Because Refunding online is very manipulatable and gives nothing back to the seller to still make profit off of. But it's really Frustrating there is NOTHING in place to compensate a misled consumer. Why Not offer a refund at 50% or something at least, so i can get SOMETHING back. I generally know what i'm purchasing but way too often someones kid will buy something or someone will buy a greenlit game etc that promises something and then never has it, and it becomes hard to trust valve when they're like this.

[QUOTE=pgr2gamer;45830251]Isn't Valve mostly composed of Australians IIRC?[/QUOTE] Yes like Saxton Hale

Valve had not responded by the first direction hearing today. Further, they have now been served with the relevant documentation relating to the claim at their US headquarters. The next hearing is next Tuesday (23rd Sep 2014).

Valve have filed a response to the Court relating to the claims of the ACCC today, and furthermore there has been a judgment from the Court expressing that they do have jurisdiction over the matter: [url]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2014/1018.html[/url] Next hearing is on October 7.

Valve filed a defence to claims of the ACCC on 29th October 2014. Their first defence is something which I would suspect they would raise. From the [URL="http://www.incompetition.com.au/2014/10/consumer-guarantees-update-steam-case/"]In Competition[/URL] (a legal discussion blog). [QUOTE]As predicted in our earlier post, Valve’s defence contends that the proper law of the contract between Valve and Australian consumers is the law of the State of Washington USA and that the consumer guarantee regime does not apply to the supplies made under that contract (described in the pleadings as the section 67 ACL defence).[/QUOTE] Further, they contend that they provide subscriptions to video games, not goods. ACCC have already filed a reply to Valve's claims. I'll see if I can get my hands on the documents and post them here if anyone is interested.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;46461498]Valve filed a defence to claims of the ACCC on 29th October 2014. Their first defence is something which I would suspect they would raise. From the [URL="http://www.incompetition.com.au/2014/10/consumer-guarantees-update-steam-case/"]In Competition[/URL] (a legal discussion blog). Further, they contend that they provide subscriptions to video games, not goods. ACCC have already filed a reply to Valve's claims. I'll see if I can get my hands on the documents and post them here if anyone is interested.[/QUOTE] Well, I mean that makes sense. You don't actually own the game, you're just licensed to use the copy that Steam is supplied.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46461505]Well, I mean that makes sense. You don't actually own the game, you're just licensed to use the copy that Steam is supplied.[/QUOTE] I would argue that such a claim is contrary to the legislation in Australia, since the definition of goods explicitly includes "computer software". Even so, I would suspect the first claim will succeed, so the second becomes irrelevant. This will be a landmark case in Australian consumer law regardless of the outcome, especially if it works in Valve's favour. It could affect international businesses and their responsibilities to Australians under Australian law.

While Steam is a service, video games are definitely not a service.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;46461538]Steam is a bit in a though spot. Like try to return a game you have activated to a retail store.[/QUOTE] It's pretty easy if it just plain doesn't work. Revoking the activation also isn't exactly difficult with current DRM.

Valve may not be able to argue that they operate out of the US since the email on my Paypal receipts from them have the email for the EU steam store, not the US store. [quote]steamgames[b]eu[/b]@steampowered.com[/quote] I would presume that the US steam store would send out paypal receipts with or without the 'us' as part of the email like this: [quote]steamgames[b]us[/b]@steampowered.com[/quote] [quote]steamgames@steampowered.com[/quote] ACCC can argue that Valve is operating out of the EU to conduct business with Australian customers, allowing Australians any protections under the EU consumers laws which I believe Valve has allowed some limited refund capacity in them for digital goods. If Valve does lose and are required to issue refunds, the ACCC allows for refunds under the following reasons: [quote]- The product was not as described by either the writing on the packet or by a person selling you the product. [/quote] Bullshitting on the steam store page would qualify a few games to be refunded such as WarZ/Infestation as well as [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/295810/]'next gen airplane simulator'[/url] and any other game has been found to have been misrepresented the product by the Devs/publisher or by Valve themselves. [quote]- Not fight for purpose.[/quote] Hard to argue for video games. It is meant as a form of entertainment but it is quite subjective as to what consumers consider 'fun' as it varies from person to person. Also relates back to the first point considering the gamer should be able to do everything in the game that the devs state in the product description and accompanying marketing material. [quote]- Not of acceptable quality in terms of what the reasonable consumer, aware of the goods' condition, would find acceptable. A product is only acceptable if looks ok (appearance of a finished product), is safe for use and is durable. [/quote] Early Access would get fucked over hard by this, especially when devs give up on developing their game. Games that are missing their .exe file like such as Game Tycoon 1.5 which released WITHOUT the .exe file to even be able to play the fucking game. A lot of gamers would expect their game to at least be playable and not crash or break every few minutes. Players would also expect a certain duration of uninterrupted gameplay time without having to act to fix their game (workarounds, restarts, file repairs, re-installs, etc) Durability would be the game would need to be reinstalled on a regular basis because of the game being broken. This would encourage devs to not release buggy day one versions of their game and promise a 'fix' but instead to fix their games before the game came out, investing more into QA and testing.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;46461498]Valve filed a defence to claims of the ACCC on 29th October 2014. Their first defence is something which I would suspect they would raise. From the [URL="http://www.incompetition.com.au/2014/10/consumer-guarantees-update-steam-case/"]In Competition[/URL] (a legal discussion blog). Further, they contend that they provide subscriptions to video games, not goods. ACCC have already filed a reply to Valve's claims. I'll see if I can get my hands on the documents and post them here if anyone is interested.[/QUOTE] "We are an American company so we follow American law even when dealing in Australia" Yeah good luck arguing for that to a court. I don't know how Aussies handle that but it would never fly here in Europe.

[QUOTE=mcattack1092;46461660]Valve may not be able to argue that they operate out of the US since the email on my Paypal receipts from them have the email for the EU steam store, not the US store. I would presume that the US steam store would send out paypal receipts with or without the 'us' as part of the email like this:[/quote] I would not consider the PayPal email address as relevant towards the operating law of the contract. [QUOTE=mcattack1092;46461660]ACCC can argue that Valve is operating out of the EU to conduct business with Australian customers, allowing Australians any protections under the EU consumers laws which I believe Valve has allowed some limited refund capacity in them for digital goods.[/QUOTE] ACCC cannot prosecute violations of EU consumer laws. They're permitted by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to only go after matters of Australian law, and only in regards to Australia competition / consumer law. Valve could run a defence that the contract is subject to the law of Washington State (as they are) or that they are subject to European law, and the outcome would be identical for the ACCC. If the court accepts this, then the ACCC's luck runs out at that point. There is legal merit in Valve's claim re the law of the contract. Typically contracts are governed in the location in which the majority of the transaction happens (although there are always laws which apply to both sides). For a digital sale, this is clearly a contentious issue, and will be one tested in court. As for fit for purpose, it would simply only be required that the computer software program run on your computer. Nothing more. Whether the consumer considers the game fun or not is a personal opinion, and there is no way that would be the legal test in relation to being fit for purpose.

I bought L.A. Noire on a sale and it didn't even launch on my computer. It was cheap, so it's not like I'm hella mad, but the product should at least launch. Valve is also selling some rather old games that have problems running on newer versions of Windows - for example Medieval II: Total War. The problem isn't that they're selling old software (MII:TW is probably my favourite game), but nowhere on the product page does it say that this game could have problems running on Windows 8 or whatever. Valve should take more responsibility for what's written on the product page - a consumer should be able to make an informed purchase, simply by reading the product page, and too often you cannot. I'm pretty tech savvy, so I got the game working with some tinkering, but a lot of people would be unable to do so.

I usually like Valve but in this case they're being major dicks and show little care in interest of their consumers.

It'd be great if this applied to games bought on a steam account ages ago, I pre-ordered duke nukem forever, what a mistake that was.

[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've gotten refunds before and my account was never banned, and the region I live in doesn't have any of this consumer protection for digital goods shit. a support rep told me that steam has a policy where you can get a refund for any early access/beta/otherwise unfinished product as long as it's still in that state when you ask for the refund. they also gave me one as a ''one time customer support gesture'' and they gave me a refund for Ace of Spades on the grounds that the game couldn't be played because every time I joined a server I'd get sucked into the ground.