Question About Chargebacks

[chirovette]

Hi, yesterday I applied for and received a refund via Steam for Just Cause 3.

I noticed that some people in the JC3 forums are trying, and failing, to get refunds through Steam. Now my question for reference and curiosity is I have read that Steam bans people for charge-backs.

I am curious if this is the case and, if so, how it is legally justified.

I am not trying to start an argument, but I am not entirely convinced that banning a customer from your servers is legal.

Also, what do these bans entail?

Does it mean you cannot play online? Single player for games you own? Can they prevent you from activating a PC game you buy, say, from Amazon?

[Matt]

A chargeback causes the account to be locked and prevents purchasing, registering keys, using the Community, trading, using the market, etc. It also bans that particular card number. I don't believe it affects playing existing games. Regardless, do not do a chargeback!

[FFL2and3rocks]

It's automated, they do it because too many people think they can get free games that way. Doing a chargeback will also cost Valve an additional fee, not just the money the game cost. It gives you a notice that says something like this:

Content purchased with these wallet funds has been removed from your account.
This account will have restricted functionality for 9 weeks.

This account will be restricted for 9 weeks (until (date)). Purchasing, gifting, trading, cd-key activation, and Steam Community access have been disabled. If the chargeback is removed, this restriction will be lifted and the content will be returned to your account.

Once the restriction has been lifted, the Visa card used will no longer be an accepted method of payment on Steam.

[chirovette]

(Disclaimer: I am NOT suggesting people do chargebacks! I am a very curious person and the law fascinates me, so I wanted to get some opinions!)

Say, for instance, a customer asks for a refund for a game that is more than 14 days old OR that they have played for more than the allowed 2 hour trial period? Then clearly the customer is in the wrong and is NOT due a refund.

But what if Steam is wrong and the customer can document it yet Steam still refuses a refund?

I wanted to start this discussion because I am really curious how Steam can legally justify banning an account after a disputed charge.

Here is my reasoning:

My understanding of credit card laws is that consumers DO NOT and CANNOT actually initiate a charge back. All consumers are empowered to do, when they feel cheated by a retailer or online company, is to "dispute" the charge.

Now disputing the credit card charge initiates NOT a charge back, but an investigation on their end, which Steam/Valve would have to answer and provide documentation in order to refute your charge back.

I am a chiropractor, for instance, and when I was in private practice (and I also owned a store once that took credit cards) and when a customer in my old store disputed a charge, I was contacted by the Credit Card company and informed that they were investigating that charge.

I remember Amex customers in particular seemed to dispute a lot of charges in my store. Not saying this is typical, by the way, only a pattern I experienced.

So, say you spent $30.00 in my store and for whatever reason you were not happy with the purchase OR you were trying to claim that it was not you who made the purchase. Or say, I promised you a refund if not satisfied, BUT I refused to honor that.

So first thing I get is a letter from Amex (or VISA or MC) informing me that a charge I was paid has been disputed by the customer. They then ask me for any pertinent information, such as signed credit card receipts (so they can match a signature), any documentation about a warranty I may offer, or some other proof that I am not in the wrong.

In every instance I can recall, the credit card company decided in my favor, because I kept VERY good records.

So contrary to popular belief, customers are not endowed with magic "charge back powers" just because they use a credit card to make a purchase.

In the example I mentioned at the beginning of this post about a player who went beyond the 14 day post-release period or played the game for more than 2 hours, all Steam would have to do is provide the credit card company with documentation pertaining to the dispute (which is stored on their severs) and the credit card company would DENY the refund if Steam is right.

My point in this tl;dr post is that the ONLY WAY Steam would be liable for the charge back is if they were in the wrong OR if they either failed to document the transaction or respond to the claim.

My point is that Steam is mostly good with refunds, but what if someone's ticket slips through the cracks and Valve steadfastly refuses to grant a deserved return?

Is that customer supposed to just be intimidated and take it?

Because the ONLY WAY Steam will have to pay back the charge back is if they are wrong in the first place or fail to document their case.

Banning members from your servers, when in many cases your service holds a monopoly on the PC gaming platform for MANY GAMES, even when purchased from outside sources such as Amazon, sounds an awful lot like harrassment to me, and I am guessing it is actionable.

If developers are using Steam as the PC platform and gamers cannot activate a code and play a game they just purchased, that could be sen as both harrassment and restricted trade (restriction the dev and publisher I mean) not to mention stopping players from going online if Steam is the only Online platform to play on and the player purchased the game to play online.

It seems to me that Steam may be vulnerable to suits, particularly class action (because who will sue over their one game and what lawyer would take the case? lol)

Again, I am not entirely sure it is legal for a ban to be issued over what basically amounts to a credit card dispute! Remember that customers cannot "charge back" anything. They can only ask their credit card company to investigate.

[76561198218426745]

Steam does not ban the account. If you charge back the money, Steam removes the game. Steam simply refuses to do further business with you if you do a charge back, and any company has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

[chirovette]

habitualaction eredeti hozzászólása:

Steam does not ban the account. If you charge back the money, Steam removes the game. Steam simply refuses to do further business with you if you do a charge back, and any company has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

This I agree with.

But I read somewhere that they will lock you out of future game installs, even purchased on other sites. They also said that you could be banned from playing your game online.

Now I don't know about any of this, which is why I am asking.

But, you are correct, refusing to do business with me is not an actionable offense. They are under no obligation to do that. However, when they provide the platform and developers develop for said platform, and they restrict a player's use of it (activting nre games and playing online) then that may be.

[FFL2and3rocks]

Considering how many people use Steam, and how many scammers are around, maybe responding to so many chargebacks simply isn't worth Valve's time, so they just automatically restrict the account.

When you create a Steam account, you aren't guaranteed that you will continue to have unrestricted access to everything Steam offers.

[Spawn of Totoro]

chirovette eredeti hozzászólása:

habitualaction eredeti hozzászólása:

Steam does not ban the account. If you charge back the money, Steam removes the game. Steam simply refuses to do further business with you if you do a charge back, and any company has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

This I agree with.

But I read somewhere that they will lock you out of future game installs, even purchased on other sites. They also said that you could be banned from playing your game online.

Now I don't know about any of this, which is why I am asking.

But, you are correct, refusing to do business with me is not an actionable offense. They are under no obligation to do that. However, when they provide the platform and developers develop for said platform, and they restrict a player's use of it (activting nre games and playing online) then that may be.

No, you will not be banned from playing games online.

You will be unable to add games to that account, reguardless of where it was purchased, though you can create a new account and use them there.

When you do a chargeback, Valve gets charged more then the cost of the game, typicaly between $20-$200 per a chargeback.

You also agreed in the SSA that you would not do a chargeback. You would be violating that agreement by doing so, so they are with-in their right to limit the account in any way, including not allowing the activation of games on the account.

If you would like an idea of what a chargeback does to a company, I suggest reading:
https://chargebacks911.com/what-is-a-chargeback/
http://www.cardfellow.com/chargebacks/

A chargeback for a legitimate purchase is considered a form of fraud to begin with. The only time a chargeback should be done is due to fraudulent charges on the card/account.

As for the Just Cause 3 issue, that is an obvious bug that will get fixed (if it hasn't already) and users only need to contact support if they still have an issue.

[chirovette]

I am pretty certain that the disclaimer you sign in the TOS is actually an unenforceable contract.

Here's why:

But first, I absolutely AGREE with you that if you legitimately purchased a game and you knew the terms of purchase, that disputing the charge is intrinsically unethical. All I am talking about is if, in a hypothetical example, Steam is absolutely wrong.

Let's say you are due a refund according to Valve's own TOS and binding contract, okay? Let's further assume that for whatever reason you cannot get the dispute with Steam's Customer Service resolved no matter how hard you try.

Is it yours and others positions that the player should just bend over and take it up the tail-pipe, for lack of a better expression?

Look, I am ABSOLUTELY not talking about someone with buyer's remorse who is outside the "money back guarantee period" here.

Anyway, not to get ahead of myself, I have to apologize, but there are times when a consumer's ONLY RECOURSE is to dispute a charge with their credit card company.

Again, I am NOT talking about the unscrupulous player-frauds who just want something for nothing and are willing to take advantage of Steam and anyone else they can get over on.

But surely there has to be some protection for the consumer when Valve fails in policing themselves.

This, by the way, is why I am certain that the "agreement" whether you sign it is bogus, and would fall under the heading of an unenforceable contract.

Furthermore, Steam can easily "dispute the dispute." I did it many times when I had my store. If the CC company asks you for your proof that you are due that money, then the CC company will tell the customer that the dispute was resolved in favor of the company and NOT in favor of the customer.

My point is, why is should consumers abdicate their intrinsic rights for renumeration and adjudication that they PAY THEIR CREDIT CARD COMPANIES FOR in the first place just because Valve cannot be bothered to answer claims, whether legitimate or not?

If Valve has unintentionally cheated someone, say through some Customer Care mishap, and the customer cannot obtain appropriate satisfaction, how is it wrong to file a dispute of charge, irrespective of the so called disclaimer that Steam has admonishing you not to file such claims?

By the way, big companies use these unenforceable contracts in their disclaimers all the time. You would be VERY SURPRISED to know how many of the disclaimers you come into contact with every day that are not enforceable, but they are added to store signage and customer TOS anyway because most people don't know their rights.

[Matt]

What is the point of all of this? You're just rambling on a user forum.

Is there a game that you're having trouble refunding even though you are within the 2hr/2wk rule?
Did you do a chargeback and are now concerned?

[chirovette]

Matt eredeti hozzászólása:

What is the point of all of this? You're just rambling on a user forum.

Is there a game that you're having trouble refunding even though you are within the 2hr/2wk rule?
Did you do a chargeback and are now concerned?

Not at all. I am curious. Steam was actually good about my refund, and I assume about most refunds they do very well with.

But I don't think its out of line to question a company's policies on a legal level. I think that is a perfectly acceptable form of "discussion" in a discussion forum.

[Matt]

As long as you're within the 2 hour/2 week rule, then there should be no issues getting a refund.

[chirovette]

Matt eredeti hozzászólása:

As long as you're within the 2 hour/2 week rule, then there should be no issues getting a refund.

I understand that.

I was just questioning how legal or moral it is to sanction a player/customer for exercising their consumer rights to involve their own credit card company in a dispute.

You are a moderator here, so clearly you are intelligent.

Can you not see what I am trying to suss out here? I am genuinely curious NOT about my situation but about how disputes are handled when they arise.

[Matt]

Your concern is moot because there should not be a need to chargeback a game purchase. They have a refund policy that gives you time to make sure the game works, and if it does not work then the user can request a refund. If the game does work then the user keeps it.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Legal concerns should be directed to an attorney or court, not in a user forum.

If such agreements were not enforceable, then they would't exist to begin with.

You asked what would happen, we told you. If you want to debate it's legality, I suggest finding another place to do so.

As your question has been answered and, as Matt said, the point in asking in moot, I'll lock this up.