Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Sigh....Valve lost that case, totally. They had to honour all valid refunds. That's why there was a discussion about setting up a phone hotline, and the ACCC accepted Valves ticketing system instead to handle the backlog. They also had to pay a $3 million dollar fine, which was the maximum fine that the ACCC could impose. Valve was unable to defend itself on anything.
It's quite a claim that they've existed for over 50 years then and have recovered over $50 billion for their clients....please debunk it considering you are saying it's spin.
My read on this is that the Sony case which is very, very similar, is starting to wrap up and looks like it will be a big win.
Instead of waiting for the final result, the Milberg has proceeded to launch another case against Valve before someone else does. They are doing this not because it's a shotgun approach, but because they know they will be a very strong position. Once the Sony results are in it will set a precedent and Valve will be unable to defend their position if they have been doing the same thing as Sony. This will force them to the negotiating table.
As I said, Valve lawyers will be taking it very seriously, it's not a fly by night Lionel Hutz ambulance chaser. You guys can dismiss it all you like here, but your opinions seem to be very bias for Valve.
The Sony case as it stands right now, is at a dead end and considered unsuccessful in legal standards since the evidence still has not been gathered that proves the claims, and may be deadlocked for some time until such evidence can be gathered. I think the limit is 5 years? So, they have until 2027 to prove their claims against Sony.
The specific high Court ruling was an appeal from a lower court about whether Valve had to follow Australian law (including the ACL).
Once the high court ruled that Valve did have to follow Australian law (including the ACL) Valve had to come up with the current two hour refund system.
But it's worth noting that this doesn't supercede the rights in the ACL, Australians are with a major defect, even if two hours and one minute has passed.
Change of mind was not a valid reason for a refund. Defective eg. non-functional or not fit for purpose are valid reasons for refunds. Also, buying the game as a gift that is returned unused.
Valve was not found to be in the right for all refunds denied. Hence the maximum fine, and the requirement to deal with the backlog of claims over the years. You don't get fined for being in the right.
Seriously....what's up with you lot trying to rewrite history.
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/24140574.playstation-owners-owed-500-amid-sony-claim/
This is the newest article from this year that I could find on the Sony case.
'Ms Neil, via the website PlayStation You Owe Us, said her and lawyers Milberg London LLP would be pushing Sony to settle as soon as possible.
But said it could still be "several years before we can secure compensation for consumers"."
These things take time. Does not sound deadlocked at all, just going through the process.
Yes, what do you expect when your source is themselves....
Now how about this where the company was indicted, found guilty, and several of its men ets went to jail for a track record
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/03/26/a-decade-after-the-milberg-weiss-scandal-does-history-repeat-itself/?slreturn=20240519222959
Their lawsuit has no real chance of winning, ironically enough epic games provides plenty of proof they don't fix prices as epic exclusive games that were never released on steam were the same price, and the MFN clause doesn't stop them from releasing on other stores, it only effects steam keys.
You need to read other articles then the ones they publish themselves. Of course they are going to push Sony to settle. That is how firms like that operate
They can't win in court so they urge them to settle for less then it would cost Sony to litigate to try to get a payday. That is the entire point of their fraudulent lawsuits.
They have no intention of litigating them, but are trying to force settlements
Thanks, was actually digging for some info on this but you've beaten me to it.
Sounds like you're the one trying to rewrite and misrepresent the facts here. We're just pointing out your woeful misunderstanding at best, intentional misconstruing at worst, of the situation and the case at hand.
And?
This has zero to do with the class actions they are bring against Sony and Valve.
As you said, they people involved were jailed. They also no longer work at the company.
The fact is, this a serious class action despite whatever opinion you've formed yourself in your "research".
And yes, Valve was found in the right for all refunds denied. The court didn't even dispute that. Now, the click bait articles for the case, will say stuff like. "Valve sued for denying refunds and lost!" Which was not the point of the case. Valve did offer refunds, as seen here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150602175459/https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/
The whole point of the case was Valve screwing up, not following Australian law, and not having a policy in place for all to see, easy to find and following within Australian Law for it. Why their fine was so small and the only thing they were guilty of.
"For over 50 years, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman (“Milberg”) and its affiliates have been protecting victims’ rights and have recovered over $50 billion for our clients. Milberg is a pioneer in federal class action litigation and is widely recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of corporate wrongdoing."
Still waiting on you to point out the spin on this paragraph from the firms website. What exactly is it that is misrepresented here?
Is it that they haven't existed for 50 years?
They haven't recovered $50 billion for their clients?
They aren't a pioneer in federal class action litigation?
Widely recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of corporate wrongdoing?
Or is it something else?
Come now, you are accusing me of misrepresentation simply by quoting what they said on their own website. Please help me understand what exactly is wrong here?
The fact that it's on their website is the problem. It's not a neutral and objective source. There's nothing to back it up aside from their own word. It says nothing of their legal strategies, how that money was recovered (if it even is a factual statement and not just embellished or completely fabricated), if it was recovered through essentially just filing tons of frivilous cases and pushing for settlements rather than actually WINNING legal cases (which if any of the other information from more objective and credible sources is to be believed is definitely the case here). It's a sales pitch and nothing more.
If you don't even understand the basic concept of source objectivity fact checking, to the point you're trying to use the firms own promotional material as 'proof', nothing you state can really be considered credible since it's likely being presented in bad faith or gleaned from heavily biased sources for the sole purpose of pushing your narrative.
You are making things up....
First of all, the case was lodged in 2014, Valve later changed their refund policy during the court case. I would argue this happened as a result of the court case, but maybe they just did it to be nice.
Prior to 2015 Valve rarely refunded anything for any reason.
Valve was found in the right for all refunds denied.- Incorrect. Refunds prior to the policy change in 2015 were denied for any reason and found to be unlawful. This was the whole point of the case. It was submitted in 2014 and resolved in 2017. Clearly, refunds after the period when Valve changed their policy weren't in scope during the case.
Seriously....are all of you in an echo chamber or something? These are just the facts, on the record, of what happened.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/full-federal-court-confirms-that-valve-misled-gamers#:~:text=The%20ACCC%20commenced%20legal%20action,pay%20penalties%20totalling%20%243%20million.
"“The Full Court also upheld the finding that Valve made misleading representations about consumer guarantees and that certain terms and conditions in the Steam subscriber agreements and refund policies were false or misleading.”
"This case sets an important precedent that overseas-based companies that sell to Australians must abide by our law. All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business is based overseas,” Mr Sims said."
"The ACCC commenced legal action against Valve in August 2014. In 2016, the Federal Court found that Valve had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations. In 2016, the Court ordered Valve to pay penalties totalling $3 million."
Can we put the false narrative to rest now?
How about all the times they were investigated and had to pay back from their fake suites like in 2008? So they left NYC due to it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29351573/
Or how they've failed to provide evidence on multiple occasions?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1712858.html
I could go on if you want.
They aren't recognized for anything, other than 2 lucky cases.
So it's spin because you said so.
Got it.
lol