Remember that time Steam lost its court case?

[__++__==]

https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-posts-a-notice-about-australian-consumer-rights-on-steam/

"When you buy video games from Valve Corporation as a consumer located in Australia, the video games come with guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law that cannot be excluded, including a guarantee that the video games are of acceptable quality. You are entitled to a replacement or refund from the retail supplier of the video games for a major failure and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the video games repaired or replaced by the retail supplier of the video games if the video games fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure. Certain other rights are available directly against manufacturers that cannot be excluded or limited."

[__++__==]

This golden gem

On 24 March 2016, the Federal Court of Australia found that Valve Corporation had engaged in misleading conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law in representing to Australian consumers via the Steam Subscriber Agreement and Steam Refund Policy that consumers had no entitlement to a refund in any circumstances and that Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees of acceptable quality," the notice says.

Australia 1 - Steam 0

[Ogami]

Yes? That was 6 years ago. And the reason they lost was not because of their refund policy but because they did not advertise the refund policy upfront.
Also this ruling ONLY applies to Australian customers and still only applies to non functioning games.

So what has this 6 year old ruling to do with anything?
Because Valve won every other court case against them regarding refunds or reselling of games.

[Thermal Lance]

https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/valve-to-pay-3-million-fine-for-misleading-australian-gamers/

[Weimu]

Originally posted by Ogami:

So what has this 6 year old ruling to do with anything?

it has to do with the OP's obsessive grudge against valve over a permanent game hub ban

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Ogami:

So what has this 6 year old ruling to do with anything?

Oh, it's just the latest misused thing OP drags into it, OP has an axe to grind with Valve and Relic.

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

its not really a steam loss...

customer are more inclined to shop where the
rules support lower risk with a a good refund policy..

would you like to present some financial and customer usage figures to support your 0

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by Ogami:

So what has this 6 year old ruling to do with anything?

Oh, it's just the latest misused thing OP drags into it, OP has an axe to grind with Valve and Relic.

And unfortunately, the paid moderators just let him keep doing it.

[TJ_4874]

Originally posted by __++__==:

Steam tried to argue it didn't conduct business in Australia.

What a terrible disgusting legal defense.

Okay It's a bad legal defence. And?

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by __++__==:

Steam tried to argue it didn't conduct business in Australia.

Steam didn't argue anything. Steam is the name of the client and the storefront.

[__++__==]

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Originally posted by __++__==:

Steam tried to argue it didn't conduct business in Australia.

Steam didn't argue anything. Steam is the name of the client and the storefront.

Steam = valve. same thing

[Cathulhu]

No, there is a difference. And in a legal manner that is very important. If you can't get even such basic things right, don't bother arguing. No one will take you serious.

[The Commendatore]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

No, there is a difference. And in a legal manner that is very important. If you can't get even such basic things right, don't bother arguing. No one will take you serious.

Meh. Nobody's been taking the OP serious for months at this point.

[Start_Running]

I love the fact that the OP leaves out that The AAAC lost when it came to the question of refund denials. where the courts upheld that Valve had the right to deny refunds. BUt hey . Gotta push the narrative.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by Ogami:

So what has this 6 year old ruling to do with anything?

Oh, it's just the latest misused thing OP drags into it, OP has an axe to grind with Valve and Relic.

It's actually kinda sad really. OP is proving Relic right with every thread they make.
Would you want someone like this trolling your forums if you had the power to boot them?
Let's be honest, Most of us would have done it much faster and with much less diplomacy than Relic did.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

No, there is a difference. And in a legal manner that is very important. If you can't get even such basic things right, don't bother arguing. No one will take you serious.

No one ever has.

[TJ_4874]

Originally posted by The Commendatore:

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

No, there is a difference. And in a legal manner that is very important. If you can't get even such basic things right, don't bother arguing. No one will take you serious.

Meh. Nobody's been taking the OP serious for months at this point.

Yeah he's just kinda there. I was thinking about bringing the great emu war into the conversation