I'm reasonably sure most European countries have laws protecting the customer from such actions. I know mine does, if the product significantly differs from what was offered and I was misled into buying, I'm entitled to a refund no matter what the company policy says.

Rosveen wrote: »

I'm reasonably sure most European countries have laws protecting the customer from such actions. I know mine does, if the product significantly differs from what was offered and I was misled into buying, I'm entitled to a refund no matter what the company policy says.

Mine too. They do seem to have problems applying these laws to games and online services though.

Well quite frankly ZoS fracked up the communication part of its consumers holding out before announcing it like some event instead of telling their subscribers that a huge change was coming to the system.

I can see why most customers are throughly infuriated with them as am I when I think a simple email of saying big news coming to subscription services would have sufficed enough.

As for Australian law, they will enforce ZoS to provide refunds or face severe fines.

U.S. Company, U.S. Law

Was the actual physical copy of the game sold in Australian stores. If not then it was purchased online outside of Australia.

This is sooo stupid. its a freaking game and you cry like small kids that lost their candy.. Pay the sub and nothing will really change for you..

Rhoric wrote: »

Was the actual physical copy of the game sold in Australian stores. If not then it was purchased online outside of Australia.

If it was imported it can still be refunded, unless they directly purchased it from the online distributor in America. Online distributors in Australia still count.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/online-shopping/shopping-online
That being said, it is most likely the distributor that owes the refund. Not necessarily ZOS or Bethesda.

In Australia we don't need class action lawsuits for issues such as this. Thanks to our strong consumer laws companies cave long before it reaches that point

Rosveen wrote: »

I'm reasonably sure most European countries have laws protecting the customer from such actions. I know mine does, if the product significantly differs from what was offered and I was misled into buying, I'm entitled to a refund no matter what the company policy says.

What, exactly, is changing with this product? Nothing. Just the pay options. "Reasonably sure" about "most" countries means you dont know. Frivolous claims are...frivolous. Looking for any and every reason to be self entitled is the real problem here.

Fissh wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

I'm reasonably sure most European countries have laws protecting the customer from such actions. I know mine does, if the product significantly differs from what was offered and I was misled into buying, I'm entitled to a refund no matter what the company policy says.

What, exactly, is changing with this product? Nothing. Just the pay options. "Reasonably sure" about "most" countries means you dont know. Frivolous claims are...frivolous. Looking for any and every reason to be self entitled is the real problem here.

I'm going by what I remember, but am not 100% sure about. I did some reading on it before, but it was long ago. I am sure about my country because I had to exercise that right on one occasion (not related to video games). I could check, but I don't have time for that.

And the product has changed. It is going to be free to play for everyone who already bought the box. Current players might be unwilling to continue subscribing to something that is now free. ZOS obviously made the decision earlier, but told us only now, everyone who prolonged their sub in the meantime has a right to feel misled. I am not talking about refunding box price or time already played, only future subs to a free service.

SFBryan18 wrote: »

Probably why all copies of they game were pulled from Australian shelves before the announcement was made.

To little to late. They should have pulled the game as soon as they knew they were going B2P. Instead of continuing to sell it as something that "reqires a subscription to play".

As I posted in another thread, when you click the 'I Accept' you have signed a digital agreement which in other words is a CONTRACT.
In their ToS it states they have the right to make any changes, modifications, blah blah blah they feel necessary.


6. Availability of Services and Content; Game Maintenance, Patches, Updates; Termination of Services

ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or geographic locations, at any given time, or that it will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law, ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content, for any reason.

For example..
Apple Australia gives undertaking to ACCC to improve its consumer guarantees policies and practices
18 December 2013
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Apple Pty Limited (Apple) following an investigation into Apple’s consumer guarantees policies and practices, and representations about consumers’ rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The ACCC was concerned that Apple had made a number of false or misleading representations to a number of consumers regarding their consumer guarantee rights, including that Apple was not required to provide a refund, replacement or repair to consumers in circumstances where these remedies were required by the consumer guarantees in the ACL.

The ACCC was concerned that on occasions these representations may have arisen from Apple staff and representatives misapplying Apple’s policies, including its 14 day return policy and its 12 month limited manufacturer’s warranty. The ACCC was also concerned that Apple staff were directing consumers with faulty non-Apple manufactured products purchased from Apple, to the manufacturer for resolution of the consumer’s concerns.

Apple has since acknowledged the ACCC's concerns, and that some of these representations to consumers may have contravened the ACL. Apple has worked with the ACCC to resolve these concerns, and has now committed to taking a number of compliance measures.

“The ACCC was concerned that Apple was applying its own warranties and refund policies effectively to the exclusion of the consumer guarantees contained in the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“This undertaking serves as an important reminder to businesses that while voluntary or express warranties can provide services in addition to the consumer guarantee rights of the ACL, they cannot replace or remove those ACL guarantee rights.”

In the undertaking Apple has publicly acknowledged that, without limiting consumers’ rights, Apple will provide its own remedies equivalent to those remedies in the consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL at any time within 24 months of the date of purchase.

To avoid any doubt, Apple has also acknowledged that the Australian Consumer Law may provide for remedies beyond 24 months for a number of its products.

“The ACL consumer guarantees have no set expiry date. The guarantees apply for the amount of time that it is reasonable to expect given the cost and quality of the item or any representations made about the item,” Mr Sims said.

In addition, the undertaking requires Apple to:

not make representations to consumers which the ACCC was concerned were contrary to the ACL;
continue to offer a consumer redress program in which consumers potentially affected by the alleged conduct can go to Apple to have their claims re-assessed by Apple in accordance with the ACL;
continue to implement an Apple program to improve ACL compliance which includes improved training for Apple sales staff and management staff and all Apple call centre representatives who have contact with Australian consumers;
continue to monitor and review its ACL compliance going forward to ensure the conduct of concern to the ACCC does not occur again;
maintain a webpage aimed at providing information and clarifying the differences between the coverage provided by the ACL and Apple’s voluntary limited manufacturer’s warranty; and
continue to make available in its retail stores in Australia copies of the ACCC’s “Repair, Replace, Refund” brochure.
The ACL came into effect on 1 January 2011 and provides consumers with basic rights in relation to consumer goods sold in Australia. These basic rights operate in addition to any express or voluntary warranties offered by businesses and cannot be excluded by a business’ terms and conditions of sale.

Products affected by Apple’s policies and practices included:

Apple iPods, iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, iMacs and peripherals;
non-Apple manufactured products such as headphones and printers; and
products and software available for purchase on Apple’s iTunes and App stores.
The undertaking is available on the Undertaking register.