Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Examples "Too much ice in Starbucks drinks" yup this was real case, and yes case was dismissed because it was so dumb.
yeah
some are passionate about posting partial quotes about steam breaking the law
read the act for yourself
you will see the stuff they did not post and how they are wrong
Figuratively. In reality, the only thing that could happen is the consumer filing a complaint with the appointed authority of the responsible member state, which would be whatever member state is where Valve holds its EU offices for Steam. That authority is empowered by the act to issue administrative fines. Which works very similar to the EU's GDPR, those fines being based on worldwide annual turnover.
No actual jail or personal accountability.
So those fines basically have to be high enough and scary enough to motivate companies to not risk receiving any - as the dip in profit could draw the ire of share-holders. But the problem is they typically aren't and are actually within the realm of minor setbacks in normal operating expenditures - meaning they're sooner treated as a write-off than as anything else.
As well as the EU means with this kind of legislation, it probably won't amount too much in actual practice because of this.
The best you can hope for is companies to be genuinely unawares of the law and once warned by the authorities that they should correct course or face a fine, they will put in the work needed to reach a state where their procedures can comply.
I do actually consider Valve to be part of that corner of the business world though.
Their upshot is that they're not shareholder earned and are more focused on the longer term, favoring longevity; sustainability and deeper and more lasting consumer-trader relations. It'd be directly in their own best interests to not screw with consumers' legal rights in that regard, because if that kind of thing goes public it tends to be extremely bad PR.
They do have a problem with being lethargically slow on the uptake though. But yeah; Valve gonna Valve. They didn't name the Valve-time meme after them for nothing...
Steam is colloquially taken as a legal entity in and of itself, but you're essentially correct: they are not. 'Steam' is just a brand. The actual party to contract in all of this is Valve corporation.
Then I challenge you to explain how what I wrote would be wrong. I have given you my references; the contents of Articles 14, 17 and 20. Waylay the interpretation of those as I have represented them. Burden of proof in your court now. Trying to dismiss with an off-hand attack on my character is not a valid counter-argument or -claim to anything.
The system is working as its intended. If you have a technical support or billing question, support can assist. Support is not there to answer politically charged questions. Save that junk for social media
The OPs ban was unjust and overturned. Thats a valid question for a ticket. Questions about SBI isn't valid for support and is a waste of time.