Doesn't Blocking Crown Store Gifting Smell Like Class-Action Lawsuit?

loveeso

People bought ZOS's virtual currency that ZOS advertised/sold as:

1. a currency that can be used to buy virtual products from the crown store
2. currency that can be used to gift crown store products to other players

Now, after taking our hard earned cash, ZOS suddenly says, 'By the way, you cannot use what we sold you the way we were telling you you could use it when we were selling it to you"

Doesn't it smell almost like a class-action suit?

Also, how is it possible that you decide to introduce a change that affects the whole community and you don't announce it weeks or months before you actually implement the change? I haven't seen anything like it anywhere, it's unbelievably unprofessional.

What will be next? 'BTW, starting from ten minutes ago you can only buy crown crates for the crowns we sold you. Oh, you are not interested in crates and just want to buy houses or costumes? Too bad. Well, you can still do this if you buy our new currency, emeralds'?!

EDIT:

As all of you smart people here I have no doubt have guessed, this is just to highlight how unprofessional and unethical the company's actions are by pointing out that they could even be considered grounds for a class-action lawsuit, even though such a lawsuit is unlikely to ever materialize since the company and its product are not important or valuable enough to prevent the alienated customers from just leaving.

All software companies have their TOS and EULAs. Some of them are fined or have to settle despite having them. But, to be honest, a class-action lawsuit is not even the most important issue for me. We all know that it is possible, but only time will tell if it happens (unlikely in my opinion, who cares, most of us will just move to other games if ZOS continues alienating their customers) The main issue for me is that these changes to the game's virtual currency & store haven’t been adequately communicated (incl. ETA which gives customers time to adapt or give their feedback) which may result in alienating large parts of the community or lead to financial losses. It could have been handled much better.

kevkj

Surely your case will not be laughed out of every lawyer's office.

sarahthes

loveeso wrote: »

People bought ZOS's virtual currency that ZOS advertised/sold as:

1. a currency that can be used to buy virtual products from the crown store
2. currency that can be used to gift crown store products to other players

Now, after taking our hard earned cash, ZOS suddenly says, 'By the way, you cannot use what we sold you the way we were telling you you could use it when we were selling it to you"

Doesn't it smell almost like a class-action suit?

Also, how is it possible that you decide to introduce a change that affects the whole community and you don't announce it weeks or months before you actually implement the change? I haven't seen anything like it anywhere, it's unbelievably unprofessional.

What will be next? 'BTW, starting from ten minutes ago you can only buy crown crates for the crowns we sold you. Oh, you are not interested in crates and just want to buy houses or costumes? Too bad. Well, you can still do this if you buy our new currency, emeralds'?!

You should read the terms and conditions before you spend money on virtual currency.

wilykcat

I know what a fruit smoothy smells like but not a law suit.

Maitsukas

Imagine how everything was before Crown Store gifting was implemented with Update 18 (Summerset Chapter).

majulook

Did ZOS ever actually state that it was OK in any document, social media post, or Live stream that you were not breaking any rules when --- Selling in game Gold for Crowns --- ?

I actually do not remember if they did.

The whole "gifting" (trade gold for crowns) thing is kind of odd that it was not inside of the game, as in a trade kiosk or in game store front, and that the only way in the game to setup a "trade" is via chat.

Aka_

no

loveeso

majulook wrote: »

Did ZOS ever actually state that it was OK in any document, social media post, or Live stream that you were not breaking any rules when --- Selling in game Gold for Crowns --- ?

I actually do not remember if they did.

The whole "gifting" (trade gold for crowns) thing is kind of odd that it was not inside of the game, as in a trade kiosk or in game store front, and that the only way in the game to setup a "trade" is via chat.

I'm not taking about selling crowns for gold. I'm talking about using crowns to send gifts to friends. This is what they blocked now, and without any prior warning.

If they are really concerned about fraudulent behaviour related to crown store then let me quote someone else from another thread:

"They should disable the whole crown store and start making some worthwhile rewards for doing things in the game. That'll really stop fraudulent behavior for the foreseeable future ."

I am all for that. Just refund our unspent crowns first.

alternatelder

Zos' legal team reading this:

Tandor

kevkj wrote: »

Surely your case will not be laughed out of every lawyer's office.

Lawyers never laugh a case out of their office, they take the instruction and pocket the fee !

Over the years I've seen so many occasions where gamers have talked about taking out a class action lawsuit. Never seen one win, and I'm not sure I've even seen one actually go forward.

loveeso

alternatelder wrote: »

Zos' legal team reading this:

You would be surprised. E.g. Epic also thought they had everything covered in their deliberately vague terms and conditions... and yet 😆

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge

That's just off the top of my head. There have been many cases like that, just use Google.

FireBreathingNord

Game developers have the right to make changes to their games and services, including temporarily disabling certain features like gifting, to address various issues, such as fraud, unauthorized trading of in-game assets for real money, and maintaining the integrity of the in-game economy.

However, whether or not such a move could lead to a class-action lawsuit depends on several factors, including the specific circumstances and the legal jurisdiction in which the game operates. Here are some considerations:

Terms of Service: Most MMOs have terms of service (ToS) or end-user license agreements (EULAs) that players must agree to when playing the game. These agreements typically grant the game developer broad discretion to manage and modify their services. Players who violate these terms by engaging in unauthorized activities may not have legal grounds for a lawsuit.

Communication and Transparency: Game developers are usually expected to communicate changes to the game's features or services clearly to players. If they provide reasonable explanations for their actions and do not unduly harm the player experience, it's less likely to lead to legal issues.

Impact on Players: If the blocking of Crown Store gifting disproportionately harms legitimate players who were using the feature for lawful purposes, there could be potential grounds for player dissatisfaction and complaints.

Legal Jurisdiction: The laws and regulations governing online gaming and virtual items can vary from one jurisdiction to another. Whether or not a class-action lawsuit is viable may depend on the legal landscape in the specific jurisdiction where the game is operated and where potential legal action is initiated.

Player Reaction: Player dissatisfaction can sometimes lead to vocal protests, petitions, or even legal action. However, the success of any legal action would depend on the strength of the legal arguments and evidence presented.

While the blocking of Crown Store gifting might upset some players, it doesn't inherently suggest a class-action lawsuit. Whether or not legal action is taken depends on various factors, including the game's terms of service, the impact on players, and the specific legal context. Game developers generally have the legal right to manage their games as they see fit, but they must do so in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

loveeso

FireBreathingNord wrote: »

Game developers have the right to make changes to their games and services, including temporarily disabling certain features like gifting, to address various issues, such as fraud, unauthorized trading of in-game assets for real money, and maintaining the integrity of the in-game economy.

However, whether or not such a move could lead to a class-action lawsuit depends on several factors, including the specific circumstances and the legal jurisdiction in which the game operates. Here are some considerations:

Terms of Service: Most MMOs have terms of service (ToS) or end-user license agreements (EULAs) that players must agree to when playing the game. These agreements typically grant the game developer broad discretion to manage and modify their services. Players who violate these terms by engaging in unauthorized activities may not have legal grounds for a lawsuit.

Communication and Transparency: Game developers are usually expected to communicate changes to the game's features or services clearly to players. If they provide reasonable explanations for their actions and do not unduly harm the player experience, it's less likely to lead to legal issues.

Impact on Players: If the blocking of Crown Store gifting disproportionately harms legitimate players who were using the feature for lawful purposes, there could be potential grounds for player dissatisfaction and complaints.

Legal Jurisdiction: The laws and regulations governing online gaming and virtual items can vary from one jurisdiction to another. Whether or not a class-action lawsuit is viable may depend on the legal landscape in the specific jurisdiction where the game is operated and where potential legal action is initiated.

Player Reaction: Player dissatisfaction can sometimes lead to vocal protests, petitions, or even legal action. However, the success of any legal action would depend on the strength of the legal arguments and evidence presented.

While the blocking of Crown Store gifting might upset some players, it doesn't inherently suggest a class-action lawsuit. Whether or not legal action is taken depends on various factors, including the game's terms of service, the impact on players, and the specific legal context. Game developers generally have the legal right to manage their games as they see fit, but they must do so in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Exactly. Class action lawsuits against software companies that involve complex or vague terms and conditions are not uncommon. These suits typically revolve around issues like privacy violations, deceptive practices, or breach of contract. Here are a few examples of successful class action suits against software companies:

Facebook's Beacon Program (2009):
In 2009, Facebook settled a class action lawsuit for $9.5 million related to its Beacon program. Beacon was an advertising system that automatically shared user activity on third-party websites with Facebook friends. Users alleged that Facebook violated their privacy by sharing information without proper consent. The settlement included changes to Facebook's privacy settings and the establishment of a foundation focused on online privacy.
Google's Street View Wi-Fi Data Collection (2013):
Google faced a class action lawsuit in multiple countries, including the United States, over its Street View cars collecting data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks. The company eventually settled for $7 million in the U.S. and took steps to improve its privacy practices.
Apple's iPhone Throttling (2020):
Apple settled a class action lawsuit for $500 million in 2020 over allegations that it intentionally slowed down older iPhones through software updates without proper user notification. Apple agreed to compensate affected users and be more transparent about its software updates.
Zoom Video Communications (2020):
Zoom faced a class action lawsuit related to privacy and security issues as its usage surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company was accused of sharing user data with Facebook without consent and failing to provide adequate security measures. Zoom settled for $85 million and implemented various security enhancements.
Equifax Data Breach (2019):
While not a software company per se, Equifax, a credit reporting agency, faced a massive class action lawsuit after a data breach exposed sensitive information of millions of individuals. Equifax agreed to a settlement of up to $700 million to compensate affected consumers and improve its data security practices.
Sony's PlayStation Network Data Breach (2015):
Sony settled a class action lawsuit for $15 million following a major data breach of its PlayStation Network in 2011. The breach exposed users' personal and financial information. Sony agreed to compensate affected users and enhance its security measures.
These examples demonstrate that software companies can face significant legal consequences when their complex terms and conditions are perceived as infringing upon users' rights or failing to adequately protect their data and privacy. Class action lawsuits can serve as a mechanism for holding these companies accountable and securing compensation for affected users

virtus753

majulook wrote: »

Did ZOS ever actually state that it was OK in any document, social media post, or Live stream that you were not breaking any rules when --- Selling in game Gold for Crowns --- ?

Yes: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5208334#Comment_5208334

In-game item for in-game item is allowed. Gold is obviously an in-game item, which was confirmed when Gina said that buying skins, achievements, or anything along those lines with gold is also allowed (provided it does not involve breaking TOS to do it, such as the seller logging into the buyer's account to earn the reward). Gina also explicitly said "a Crown Store item is considered an in-game item." Gold for crown store items is therefore also allowed.

What is not allowed, of course, is giving someone other than ZOS real money for gold, crowns, crown items, etc. But in a proper crown store trade, the gold goes from one player to another and a crown store item (i.e. a different in-game item) is sent in return. Crowns never actually get transferred to another player, only between an individual and ZOS.

SilverBride

From the EULA:

"ZeniMax may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time and ZeniMax may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability."

https://bethesda.net/data/eula/en.html

Murderhound

SilverBride wrote: »

From the EULA:

"ZeniMax may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time and ZeniMax may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability."

https://bethesda.net/data/eula/en.html

User agreements aren't set in stone, and if certain expectations have been made an equally binding informal contract is made.

loveeso

SilverBride wrote: »

From the EULA:

"ZeniMax may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time and ZeniMax may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability."

https://bethesda.net/data/eula/en.html

Of course. All software companies have their TOS and EULAs. Some of them are fined or have to settle despite having them. On second thought, a class-action lawsuit is not even the most important issue for me. We all know that it is possible, but only time will tell if it happens (unlikely in my opinion, who cares, most of us will just move to other games if ZOS continues alienating their customers) The main issue for me is that these changes to the game's virtual currency & store haven’t been adequately communicated (incl. ETA which gives customers time to adapt or give their feedback) which may result in alienating large parts of the community or lead to financial losses. It could have been handled much better.

Lozeenge

this is not worth the legal fees i think

darvaria

Never under estimate what some attorney would take on a contingency basis (trust me I know this from the defendant side) BUT am not advocating this as a solution. I don't care enough about the 55K investment in crowns to do anything at all about. Except, not play, probably cancel sub and never buy anymore crowns (sure was a good thing though, while it lasted).

I do feel this will lead a certain group of players cancelling subs. And not buying any more crowns. I have NO need for my 55K of crowns. I might spend a few every now and then, but face it, those Crown Crates are a form of gambling. I don't gamble.

At LEAST, put an item in the Crown Store, call it a "Bag of Gold". Maybe sell 1400:1 gold exchange. This way we could skip the process of gifting. I was never that fond of gifting for in exchange for gold because it left the receiver exposed, in most trades. The people I mostly traded with, I would gift and they would send because they knew me. There was never a question of misconduct, on either side.

Just let me continue to buy gold. You can't possibly expect busy players to ride around collecting nodes. I consider being in a trade guild not really fun. It's not really fun to have to sell items. I only do FUN things in game. And I am to be punished because I enjoy not having to farm gold? When gold runs out, guess I'll probably be done. Was really looking forward to the 10 year anniversary though.

Cheers,
Darv

(I really hope this is re-evaluated)

Danikat

If you think you've got a case go and talk to a lawyer.

Regardless of how successful the case may or may not be if someone actually went through with it no company is going to care about vague speculation online that there might be an opportunity for "someone" to start a lawsuit. There's 3 ways topics like this can go:

1) Someone is genuinely hoping to start a lawsuit but either doesn't know how to go about it (see option 2) or is trying to gauge support and being so vague no one takes them seriously and so doesn't support it.
2) They're hoping someone else will do the hard (and likely expensive) work for them and they can join in once that's been done. No one comes forward to spend their time and money on the case, so it goes nowhere.
3) They think the company will panic at the mere mention of a lawsuit and give in to their demands but have no intention of doing anything more than talking about it, which makes it an empty threat.

I worked retail for about a decade and lost count of how many times someone said they were going to either sue us or report us to Trading Standards (for a few years I worked for a truly terrible company that actually should have been reported on a few things). But I can remember exactly how many times it actually happened: zero.

Maybe if someone got lucky and picked a very inexperienced employee for their initial threat it would get as far as that employee telling the manager. Then the manager would tell them to go ahead and do it, and go on with their day knowing it will never happen.

dragonlord500

Honestly it's all extremely complex to me at the end of the day. but one thing I do clearly understand is that no players have been able to sue any game company as far as I know.

Rohamad_Ali

loveeso

Danikat wrote: »

If you think you've got a case go and talk to a lawyer.

Regardless of how successful the case may or may not be if someone actually went through with it no company is going to care about vague speculation online that there might be an opportunity for "someone" to start a lawsuit. There's 3 ways topics like this can go:

1) Someone is genuinely hoping to start a lawsuit but either doesn't know how to go about it (see option 2) or is trying to gauge support and being so vague no one takes them seriously and so doesn't support it.
2) They're hoping someone else will do the hard (and likely expensive) work for them and they can join in once that's been done. No one comes forward to spend their time and money on the case, so it goes nowhere.
3) They think the company will panic at the mere mention of a lawsuit and give in to their demands but have no intention of doing anything more than talking about it, which makes it an empty threat.

I worked retail for about a decade and lost count of how many times someone said they were going to either sue us or report us to Trading Standards (for a few years I worked for a truly terrible company that actually should have been reported on a few things). But I can remember exactly how many times it actually happened: zero.

Maybe if someone got lucky and picked a very inexperienced employee for their initial threat it would get as far as that employee telling the manager. Then the manager would tell them to go ahead and do it, and go on with their day knowing it will never happen.

And another possibility:

4) Someone uses this to highlight how unprofessional and unethical the company's actions are by pointing out that they could even be considered grounds for a class-action lawsuit, even though such a lawsuit is unlikely to ever materialize since the company and its product are not important or valuable enough to prevent the alienated customers from just leaving.

loveeso

darvaria wrote: »

Never under estimate what some attorney would take on a contingency basis (trust me I know this from the defendant side) BUT am not advocating this as a solution. I don't care enough about the 55K investment in crowns to do anything at all about. Except, not play, probably cancel sub and never buy anymore crowns (sure was a good thing though, while it lasted).

I do feel this will lead a certain group of players cancelling subs. And not buying any more crowns. I have NO need for my 55K of crowns. I might spend a few every now and then, but face it, those Crown Crates are a form of gambling. I don't gamble.

Exactly

Aislinna

loveeso wrote: »

People bought ZOS's virtual currency that ZOS advertised/sold as:

1. a currency that can be used to buy virtual products from the crown store
2. currency that can be used to gift crown store products to other players

Now, after taking our hard earned cash, ZOS suddenly says, 'By the way, you cannot use what we sold you the way we were telling you you could use it when we were selling it to you"

Doesn't it smell almost like a class-action suit?

Please let us know how the talk with your lawyer goes.

The publisher of the previous game I played was sued for breaking a Founder's Pack promise and the plaintiffs did finally win after 5 years, after another year paltry payouts were mailed to those involved in the lawsuit, with the lawyers being the biggest winners.

FantasticFreddie

Well, I'm glad to see the forums are taking a calm and rational approach to the situation, per usual.

loveeso

Seeing that the majority of crown-buying customers here clearly seem to be happy about the change, consider the change good, and do not think that how it was handled was in any way unprofessional or communicated inadequately, I am happy for them and reassured that no further discussion is needed. Time for me to relax and play one of the games that cannot be mentioned on these fora. I just saw a nice weapon style on sale there, I know a friend who will love it 😍 Good night

FeedbackOnly

majulook wrote: »

Did ZOS ever actually state that it was OK in any document, social media post, or Live stream that you were not breaking any rules when --- Selling in game Gold for Crowns --- ?

I actually do not remember if they did.

The whole "gifting" (trade gold for crowns) thing is kind of odd that it was not inside of the game, as in a trade kiosk or in game store front, and that the only way in the game to setup a "trade" is via chat.

Yes Gina Bruno okayed it

Aislinna

loveeso wrote: »

Seeing that the majority of crown-buying customers here clearly seem to be happy about the change, consider the change good, and do not think that how it was handled was in any way unprofessional or communicated inadequately, I am happy for them and reassured that no further discussion is needed. Time for me to relax and play one of the games that cannot be mentioned on these fora. I just saw a nice weapon style on sale there, I know a friend who will love it 😍 Good night

What thread were reading to make those conclusions? Nobody in this thread even hinted that the change was good or anything else you said. If you feel you have grounds for a class action lawsuit, proceed and file one.

Katzenzunge

[snip]
Barely anyone is not miffed with this change. I see no one "happy" about it.
But jumping on the first trashcan you see, trying to rally people to burn down cars and throw stones is *not* the move, [snip]

[edited for baiting]

Dokolus

Besessenes wrote: »

[snip]
Barely anyone is not miffed with this change. I see no one "happy" about it.
But jumping on the first trashcan you see, trying to rally people to burn down cars and throw stones is *not* the move, [snip]

Like I expect that sort of thing when it comes to the casual crowd and games like NMS, or Cyberpunk, but not an MMO like ESO, especially when most of the playerbase won't even know this sort of change in economy, let alone being interested/caring in it to act upon the negative changes.

Even then, the legal fees would be large and ongoing, making it a non worthwhile fight.

[edited to remove quote]