Refund Policy says "No refund for more than two hours of playtime" WTH?

[OuttaSpace]

Played Planet Zoo for about 11 hours total. Had multiple crashes and just decided I didn't like the game. Tried to get a refund but Steam's policy of 2 hours playtime total, negated my request to get one. I'm not happy with the product within 3 days of having it and Steam won't give me a refund. Horrible business practice. I should be able to get a refund for this game within a more reasonable playtime restriction. Planet Zoo is not some game you conquer within a couple of hours. Highly disappointed at Steam Support. Out $58.99. Thanks Steam!

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

snip

We aren't talking about hypothetical situations involving EU laws and regulations. Please don't derail the thread with YouTube lawyer breakdowns of them.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

Which law, specifically? Citation needed.
Actual legislative text? Case law from a particular jurisdiction where case law holds weight?
And from where?

What legally goes and doesn't go is different across the world, after all. E.g. places like the EU have much stronger protection against imbalance in contracts than places like the US.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US legal system here, but for the EU I could refer you to the 1993 EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which states terms of contract that are not individually negotiated - such as those in a stock contract - that create a significant imbalance between rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer may be considered unfair and may not bind a consumer. It also contains an annex of terms that are always, without further evaluation, to be considered unfair and are completely disallowed. Which expressly states any terms allowing unilateral changes to contract unless valid reason for such changes was expressly specified beforehand in the original contract.

It's a matter of debate and contemplation for the courts then whether umbrella catch-all non-exhaustive wording such as "for such reasons as X, Y, Z" fits the bill as a 'valid reason.' As far as I'm aware that one in particular has not been rigorously tested yet at higher courts, so it'd have to go to those courts first for us to know. And until it does, and there is a solid ruling on it, we don't know for sure how far contracts can and are allowed to push the boundaries. It's Schrodinger's docket, pretty much: unless there's a strong judicial ruling it's neither conclusively legal nor conclusively illegal.

That's just one example from an area of the world I'm familiar with, but odds are good there's plenty more out there with different legal systems and different jurisdictions that don't all see things the same way.

Well said.

Except this isn't the EU.

[D. Flame]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von brian9824:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

Which law, specifically? Citation needed.
Actual legislative text? Case law from a particular jurisdiction where case law holds weight?
And from where?

What legally goes and doesn't go is different across the world, after all. E.g. places like the EU have much stronger protection against imbalance in contracts than places like the US.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US legal system here, but for the EU I could refer you to the 1993 EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which states terms of contract that are not individually negotiated - such as those in a stock contract - that create a significant imbalance between rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer may be considered unfair and may not bind a consumer. It also contains an annex of terms that are always, without further evaluation, to be considered unfair and are completely disallowed. Which expressly states any terms allowing unilateral changes to contract unless valid reason for such changes was expressly specified beforehand in the original contract.

It's a matter of debate and contemplation for the courts then whether umbrella catch-all non-exhaustive wording such as "for such reasons as X, Y, Z" fits the bill as a 'valid reason.' As far as I'm aware that one in particular has not been rigorously tested yet at higher courts, so it'd have to go to those courts first for us to know. And until it does, and there is a solid ruling on it, we don't know for sure how far contracts can and are allowed to push the boundaries. It's Schrodinger's docket, pretty much: unless there's a strong judicial ruling it's neither conclusively legal nor conclusively illegal.

That's just one example from an area of the world I'm familiar with, but odds are good there's plenty more out there with different legal systems and different jurisdictions that don't all see things the same way.



This is argumentum ad populum, btw. (Or more precisely ad verecundiam, I suppose.)

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/

Can read up on it here, courts routinely uphold it as long as it meets a few criteria such as being notified in a timely manner about the change.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Yes.

Well can add it to the list of things you are wrong about, including the fact that no changes to the TOS have occured that would effect your refunds as Steam's refund policy has remained consistent from Day 1 of them having it with the exact same rules.

From your own link:

One issue left open by the Douglas court is whether the parties can enforce language in the original terms and conditions that one party can unilaterally change the terms and conditions at any time. Courts have differed in their treatment of such language.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von brian9824:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/

Can read up on it here, courts routinely uphold it as long as it meets a few criteria such as being notified in a timely manner about the change.




Well can add it to the list of things you are wrong about, including the fact that no changes to the TOS have occured that would effect your refunds as Steam's refund policy has remained consistent from Day 1 of them having it with the exact same rules.

From your own link:

One issue left open by the Douglas court is whether the parties can enforce language in the original terms and conditions that one party can unilaterally change the terms and conditions at any time. Courts have differed in their treatment of such language.

Which means it isn't illegal or extortion.

[RiO]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

From your own link:

Which means it isn't illegal or extortion.

No- it means there's no cut and dry statement whether it is universally illegal or legal.
It is evaluated case-by-case.

Like I wrote before: Schrodinger's docket. You don't know until there's an actual ruling that establishes universal bounds on its legality or illegality.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von brian9824:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/

Can read up on it here, courts routinely uphold it as long as it meets a few criteria such as being notified in a timely manner about the change.

From that link:

Over the past 15 years, users of websites and online services have challenged the enforceability of online terms of use, creating a robust body of judge-made law regarding such terms. The existing case law on online modifications, however, is scant. The few existing opinions rely appropriately on off-line contract modification rules to determine whether the authors of the original contract terms succeeded in effectively modifying those terms. Unfortunately, the decisions to date do not yet provide us with predictability as to the enforceability of online contract modifications.

In short: they don't know.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Which means it isn't illegal or extortion.

No- it means there's no cut and dry statement whether it is universally illegal or legal.
It is evaluated case-by-case.

Until there is a case stating it's illegal, it isn't illegal.

[RiO]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

No- it means there's no cut and dry statement whether it is universally illegal or legal.
It is evaluated case-by-case.

Until there is a case stating it's illegal, it isn't illegal.

And until there's a case stating it's legal, you also cannot off-hand dismiss an opinion that it might be illegal through simply the argument that "the law says it's legal" - which is how this thing started. Because you don't know whether the law says it's legal.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Well said.

Except this isn't the EU.

OP's specific case isn't - indeed. Personally, I think the discussion had already moved passed their concrete case and into more general territory along the lines of e.g. moral justification, but sure: if you want to go back and consider only the narrow-band perspective, then I will give you that and concede that to OP's specific case that particular line of reasoning didn't apply.

[D. Flame]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Which means it isn't illegal or extortion.

No- it means there's no cut and dry statement whether it is universally illegal or legal.
It is evaluated case-by-case.

Like I wrote before: Schrodinger's docket. You don't know until there's an actual ruling that establishes universal bounds on its legality or illegality.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von brian9824:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/

Can read up on it here, courts routinely uphold it as long as it meets a few criteria such as being notified in a timely manner about the change.

From that link:

Over the past 15 years, users of websites and online services have challenged the enforceability of online terms of use, creating a robust body of judge-made law regarding such terms. The existing case law on online modifications, however, is scant. The few existing opinions rely appropriately on off-line contract modification rules to determine whether the authors of the original contract terms succeeded in effectively modifying those terms. Unfortunately, the decisions to date do not yet provide us with predictability as to the enforceability of online contract modifications.

In short: they don't know.

My point was not that it was illegal. My point was that if you applied the same rules they apply to software to a real good or product (aka you agreed to the new terms or lose your purchased items), then it would be illegal. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation.

Just because it is currently legally-tolerated-extortion doesn't mean it isn't still extortion.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

No- it means there's no cut and dry statement whether it is universally illegal or legal.
It is evaluated case-by-case.

Like I wrote before: Schrodinger's docket. You don't know until there's an actual ruling that establishes universal bounds on its legality or illegality.



From that link:


In short: they don't know.

My point was not that it was illegal. My point was that if you applied the same rules they apply to software to a real good or product (aka you agreed to the new terms or lose your purchased items), then it would be illegal. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation.

Just because it is currently legally-tolerated-extortion doesn't mean it isn't still extortion.

Except that isn't entirely true.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

If anyone else did it, that would be considered blackmail or extortion.

"I sold you thing already, but now you have to agree to these additional terms, and if you don't, I won't let you use that thing you bought anymore. You have no agency nor rights to disagree while maintaining access."

https://legaldictionary.net/extortion/

Extortion Meaning in law

The term extortion refers to the crime of obtaining money or property by using threats of harm against the victim, or against his property or family. Extortion might involve threats of damage to the victim’s reputation, or to his financial well being. Anything obtained by the use of extortion, including consent, has been illegally obtained, and the perpetrator has committed a felony. To explore this concept, consider the following extortion definition.
Definition of Extortion

noun. The act of obtaining something of value by using threats, force, or abuse of authority.

You claimed that if anyone else did this, it would be extortion, which is illegal. The matter is, almost every single online service does this.

You did in fact claim what is being done is illegal. Only under the guise of "if others did this".

[Brian9824]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von brian9824:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/

Can read up on it here, courts routinely uphold it as long as it meets a few criteria such as being notified in a timely manner about the change.




Well can add it to the list of things you are wrong about, including the fact that no changes to the TOS have occured that would effect your refunds as Steam's refund policy has remained consistent from Day 1 of them having it with the exact same rules.

From your own link:

One issue left open by the Douglas court is whether the parties can enforce language in the original terms and conditions that one party can unilaterally change the terms and conditions at any time. Courts have differed in their treatment of such language.

Yep and if you read it the cases where it was not allowed was when changes were done without notice, and it was allowed in cases where it was done with notice. There are a few factors for it to be valid, i don't remember them all but 2 of them were

1. Timely notice of change
2. Notified in a reasonable manner

As long as a company meets those thresholds the courts side with them and its why literally everysite has it in their TOS.

[Brian9824]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

My point was not that it was illegal. My point was that if you applied the same rules they apply to software to a real good or product

Except as already pointed out the two examples you are comparing are fundamentally different. You don't have a service that persists beyond the purchase of a physical good. The contract ends after the sale has been executed.

With sites like Steam, EGS, Ubisoft, etc you have a recurring subscription with them, The laws are different between those two because the products are completely different

[Brian9824]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RiO:

snip.

Guess you should go report Ubisoft to your government if you think its illegal. They are a French company and have the same clause that is being claimed its illegal.

Your quick to claim things are illegal, but seem unwilling to actually take the appropriate steps if you truly feel that way.

[D. Flame]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

My point was not that it was illegal. My point was that if you applied the same rules they apply to software to a real good or product (aka you agreed to the new terms or lose your purchased items), then it would be illegal. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation.

Just because it is currently legally-tolerated-extortion doesn't mean it isn't still extortion.

Except that isn't entirely true.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

If anyone else did it, that would be considered blackmail or extortion.

"I sold you thing already, but now you have to agree to these additional terms, and if you don't, I won't let you use that thing you bought anymore. You have no agency nor rights to disagree while maintaining access."

https://legaldictionary.net/extortion/

You claimed that if anyone else did this, it would be extortion, which is illegal. The matter is, almost every single online service does this.

You did in fact claim what is being done is illegal. Only under the guise of "if others did this".

You didn't even catch the "your" / "you're" joke I made earlier, so "your" ability to grasp the subtitles of language is questionable at best. But to expound on that quote, context clues and other supporting comments should have made it cleat that I was specifically referring to the same process being applied to physical goods. Not only did I explain this repeatedly, but I also even clarified that I think other software stores are also extorting their customers in the same way. At least any are that make accepting their new terms a requirement for continuing to use what you have already purchased.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SlowMango:

Except that isn't entirely true.




You claimed that if anyone else did this, it would be extortion, which is illegal. The matter is, almost every single online service does this.

You did in fact claim what is being done is illegal. Only under the guise of "if others did this".

You didn't even catch the "your" / "you're" joke I made earlier, so "your" ability to grasp the subtitles of language is questionable at best. But to expound on that quote, context clues and other supporting comments should have made it cleat that I was specifically referring to the same process being applied to physical goods. Not only did I explain this repeatedly, but I also even clarified that I think other software stores are also extorting their customers in the same way. At least any are that make accepting their new terms a requirement for continuing to use what you have already purchased.

I caught it, don't worry.

The fact you latched on a common spelling mistake(that is usually done by auto-correct) showed there was no further discussion in any type of good faith.

The dancing around your own words deeming this practice illegal "if someone else did it" only solidifies that theory.

[crunchyfrog]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von D. Flame:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von crunchyfrog:

Then this again shows you don't understand contracts. Of course they ONE SIDEDLY change the terms and offer it up because they can't really change YOUR terms can they? Only you can change what YOU want.

Again this is how contracts work EVERYWHERE. What part of this don't you understand?

I explained to you using my landloard's contract as clear analogy. When a party has a change they offer it up, and you can either agree (and must have time to consider) or refuse.

The same is happening here.

A landlord doesn't have the legal right to change the terms of your lease mid-lease. If you decline the changes, then they are not allowed to kick you out until the end of the lease. Even if someone new buys the property, they are forced to honor the current lease until it runs out.

Steam is doing the equivalent of changing your terms midlease and threatening to kick you out if you don't agree.

They absolutely do. I'm in the UK so it's certainly a thing. They do have to give some pretty decent breathing space though.

But how about you answer the question and tell me how it SHOULD work.

And yes, that's how it works in a nutshell. If you have the terms changed then you agree to the new terms or you don't use that part or all of it. That's again how IT WORKS.

If you don't like it, suck for you I guess, but that doesn't make it illegal.

So again how about you demonstrate how it should work and present your evidence for that?