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."

[__++__==]

BJWyler eredeti hozzászólása:

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

They got destroyed. Denied a third appeal lmao

The facts are that they only lost on the point of the refund policy not being clearly laid out, which it wasn't. They won every other point on the case, including that every refund they denied was for a valid reason, so no one got their refunds any way. So your attempt to keep trolling the forums because you don't know how to conduct yourself like a mature individual in a game hub fails once again.

They lost on the fact they tried to attempt to be immune to Australian consumer law.

They failed. That's huge.
Their defense was corporate deception. The judge did not buy it.

Disgusting conduct

[Vertigo]

.EteRnal. eredeti hozzászólása:

You're still making these threads?

Imagine if you dedicated even half of the effort you put into trolling the Steam Discussions into being a productive member of society in the real world.

The only person he trolls, is himself.

Very successfully.

[__++__==]

Ad hominem doesn't work guys

[Vertigo]

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

Ad hominem doesn't work guys

Yes, your ad hominem crusade against valve isn't working.

We all know.

And laugh.

[BJWyler]

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

BJWyler eredeti hozzászólása:

The facts are that they only lost on the point of the refund policy not being clearly laid out, which it wasn't. They won every other point on the case, including that every refund they denied was for a valid reason, so no one got their refunds any way. So your attempt to keep trolling the forums because you don't know how to conduct yourself like a mature individual in a game hub fails once again.

They lost on the fact they tried to attempt to be immune to Australian consumer law.

They failed. That's huge.
Their defense was corporate deception. The judge did not buy it.

Disgusting conduct

Which, again, was simply tied to having unclear refund policies laid out.

So at the end of the day, and dozens of threads later, Valve isn't the loser here. Permabans are still Permabans in game hub forums, and nobody is getting a refund outside of the now clearly stated policies, unless Valve themselves feel it is appropriate.

[__++__==]

BJWyler eredeti hozzászólása:

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

They lost on the fact they tried to attempt to be immune to Australian consumer law.

They failed. That's huge.
Their defense was corporate deception. The judge did not buy it.

Disgusting conduct

Which, again, was simply tied to having unclear refund policies laid out.

So at the end of the day, and dozens of threads later, Valve isn't the loser here. Permabans are still Permabans in game hub forums, and nobody is getting a refund outside of the now clearly stated policies, unless Valve themselves feel it is appropriate.

If that's all it was then why was Valve trying to pretend it was a non-entity in Australia?
If thats all , why did steam appeal over and over again

Your argument makes no logical sense., furthermore the Judge made comments in direct conflict with your apologism.

You don't understand anything about Australia and you miss the point; the case has set a preceedent that steam MUST OBEY Australia consumer law. If Australia consumer law changes tomorrow, then steam must follow it. If Steam is found to be in further breach of legislation then there will be consequences if the ACCC decides to take action

Not to mention the actual fine.


Since you don't understand it let's recap;

The Court found that Valve made the following false or misleading representations to consumers, in the terms and conditions contained in three versions of its Steam Subscriber Agreement and two versions of its Steam Refund Policy:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for digitally downloaded games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or Steam Client (in any circumstances);
Valve had excluded statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality; and
Valve had restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality.
Valve said at [para 4]:

“…that its conduct did not occur in Australia and that it does not carry on business in Australia so the Australian Consumer Law did not apply to it …”

In his judgment, Justice Edelman concluded that making each of these representations involved conduct in Australia by Valve and that, in any event, Valve was carrying on business in Australia [see para 340].


A leading law firm (slater and gorden) summarised;

"The ACCC alleged Valve engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the ACL by telling its customers that in no circumstances would any fees paid to Valve be refundable."

[Start_Running]

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

BJWyler eredeti hozzászólása:

Which, again, was simply tied to having unclear refund policies laid out.

So at the end of the day, and dozens of threads later, Valve isn't the loser here. Permabans are still Permabans in game hub forums, and nobody is getting a refund outside of the now clearly stated policies, unless Valve themselves feel it is appropriate.

If that's all it was then why was Valve trying to pretend it was a non-entity in Australia?
If thats all , why did steam appeal over and over again

Your argument makes no logical sense., furthermore the Judge made comments in direct conflict with your apologism.

Because thats basically how companies do YOu use every legal trick and avenue in the book, It's a matter of standard procedure.

[__++__==]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

If that's all it was then why was Valve trying to pretend it was a non-entity in Australia?
If thats all , why did steam appeal over and over again

Your argument makes no logical sense., furthermore the Judge made comments in direct conflict with your apologism.

Because thats basically how companies do YOu use every legal trick and avenue in the book, It's a matter of standard procedure.

It didn't work, it was a cretin's defense, the judge wasn't impressed and they got slapped - appeals denied

In normal english parlance, this is called something that backfired

[__++__==]

The ACCC alleged that Valve's refund policy indicated the following:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances.
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality.
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.


Don't whitewash this to being 'unclear'

[__++__==]

This is what the CHAIRMAN OF THE ACCC SAID!

""It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales," stated ACCC chairman Rod Sims. "

There's nothing UNCLEAR here.

[__++__==]

I found the relevant part in the introduction:


You can read the case here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca0196

"2 The applicant, the ACCC, alleges that Valve made misrepresentations in relation to the acceptable quality guarantee in s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law which, by s 64, could not be modified or excluded. The ACCC says that Valve (i) contravened s 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law by making representations which were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, and (ii) contravened s 29(1)(m) by making false or misleading representations about the existence or effect of the consumer guarantees. At the heart of these alleged misrepresentations were statements by Valve, such as the statement in its terms and conditions in capital letters: “ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART”."


It's "unclear" to apologists -

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

[__++__==]

"244 The third matter is relied upon most heavily by Valve. The two SSAs contained an additional relevant sentence in the final (miscellaneous) clause that “Valve’s obligations are subject to existing laws and legal process and Valve may comply with law enforcement or regulatory requests or requirements notwithstanding any contrary term”. It is unlikely that a reasonable consumer would read this clause as qualifying the dominant message from (i) the (capitalised) denial of refunds, (ii) with an exception only for EU customers. It is too much of a strain for the reasonable Australian consumer of Valve games to read the dominant message to be subject to an implied qualification to be found in cl 15 that the clause also permitted refunds for Australian customers under the conditions permitted by their local laws."

[Start_Running]

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

Because thats basically how companies do YOu use every legal trick and avenue in the book, It's a matter of standard procedure.

It didn't work, it was a cretin's defense, the judge wasn't impressed and they got slapped - appeals denied

In normal english parlance, this is called something that backfired

Maybe but those lawyers do have to justify their retainer fees. So valve had to pay a fine and make a more clearly worded policy. And life moved on.

And in the big picture Valve won the fight that counted..

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

The ACCC alleged that Valve's refund policy indicated the following:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances.
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality.
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.


Don't whitewash this to being 'unclear'

And yeah it was unclear Valve did indeed grant refunds, but the conditions and whether or not one could even apply for a refund were unclear.

IT was kinda funny that the ACCC only really won on one of those three points. They lost on the other two. :P

[__++__==]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

It didn't work, it was a cretin's defense, the judge wasn't impressed and they got slapped - appeals denied

In normal english parlance, this is called something that backfired

Maybe but those lawyers do have to justify their retainer fees. So valve had to pay a fine and make a more clearly worded policy. And life moved on.

And in the big picture Valve won the fight that counted..

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

The ACCC alleged that Valve's refund policy indicated the following:

Consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances.
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality.
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.


Don't whitewash this to being 'unclear'

And yeah it was unclear Valve did indeed grant refunds, but the conditions and whether or not one could even apply for a refund were unclear.

IT was kinda funny that the ACCC only really won on one of those three points. They lost on the other two. :P

ALL STEAM FEES ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART

[__++__==]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

__++__== eredeti hozzászólása:

It didn't work, it was a cretin's defense, the judge wasn't impressed and they got slapped - appeals denied

In normal english parlance, this is called something that backfired

Maybe but those lawyers do have to justify their retainer fees. So valve had to pay a fine and make a more clearly worded policy. And life moved on.

And in the big picture Valve won the fight that counted..

No they didn't. They have to abide by our law. That's a big L for a corporation that thinks it answers to no one

Valve would have had a better defense if they claimed they were A Small off duty Czechoslovakian Traffic Warden