Nothing better than watching a bunch of people with absolutely no legal knowledge attempting to offer legal advice.

Here's a hint: unless you can objectively identify a payment plan change as a "problem," then you have no legal redress under Australian law. I'm not even going to get in to the issues surrounding timing, because you simply haven't got a case.

A real bit of advice to anyone: if you try to get a refund via your credit card company, be prepared for fines, credit issues, and potential criminal proceedings.

Nyghthowler wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

T and C doesn't trump consumer protection laws.

As soon as you click the 'I Accept' you have signed a digital agreement just as binding as signing your name.

Tell that to Apple. Another american company that got busted in Australia for misleading warranties and refund policies.

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.

No but the principal is the same. I already showed you what is considered a major problem reguarding services under consumer law.

ashlee17 wrote: »

No but the principal is the same. I already showed you what is considered a major problem reguarding services under consumer law.

Do they not bother teaching Australian lawyers the difference between "principal" and "principle"?

The principle is not remotely the same. And you would have to demonstrate a problem with the services that would merit a refund on your prior subscribed time. Since you received mostly uninterrupted service (regular maintenance is not reason enough for a refund) during the months of your subscription, it would take a lot of liquor to make a judge find that you did not receive your money's worth.

If you're claiming that you're owed a refund for the game itself, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a court ruling that supports refunding someone almost a year after buying software, especially when the software can undergo changes at any time due to the nature of updating online games.

Comparing this to a case that had to do with physical products and services isn't just silly, it's wrong. If you actually are training in the law in Australia, do your contrymen a favor and go in to a different profession.

eisberg wrote: »

Talked to an acqaintance of mine, lawyer in Australlia. He laughed at this thread, the OP is far from being correct. He said he doesn't know any lawyer that would be stupid enough to even try and test this idea in the courts. Changing payment model wouldn't be considered as a "problem" as the law would be concerned.

Yep. That's the key word in the law that the OP is missing. Apple misleading me about the battery life of a product and deliberately creating a product warranty that won't cover that battery life is a problem. Changing a subscription payment model is not a problem.

ashlee17 wrote: »

I agree if changing a payment model was the issue - no refund.
But this is far more then a simple change of payment model.

Oh? What else is changing?

Hmm, much as I hate this change to the game, I think you would have a hard time convincing a court in any country that you are being harmed because Zenimax is offering to let you play the game now without paying a subscription fee. For the months since it released the game was advertised as a subscription-based pay model and has operated that way. The fact that there have been plans in the background that indicate this model was always meant to be temporary or was inevitably unsustainable don't change the fact that you got what was advertised in all cases. I'm all for giving ZOS a hard time about the hypocrisy but as far as I know hypocrisy is not against the law even in Australia. I am as always prepared to be corrected.

Kraven wrote: »

So people are arguing about an informative post? Really? If it has no affect on you why disregard others? You come to say "You can't tell people that!" when truth is you can and should.

Several countries out side the US have consumer laws in place that trump TOS. If those players choose to stand up for themselves that is there right, under law. Arguing
"You can't do that! It might hurt ZOS!" Doesn't change basic facts.

Considering the game was sold while developers were quoted as saying "I'd rather shut the game down than go to F2P model."
Or just last summer saying:
"We have no plans at all, that I am aware of, to ever change the payment model."
The fact is this change has been known about for quite some time. Unless you think they completely designed the cash shop this week?

Selling the players the BS line "Everything is moving forward as expected! Have no fears all is well." is an absolute misrepresentation of the service paid for.

If you want to take legal advice from someone who can't use basic spelling or grammar, then feel free.

However, the OP is completely misstating Australian law, and if any consumers were dumb enough to follow up on this by contesting credit card charges, they'd be facing serious consequences.

ashlee17 wrote: »

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.

Are ESO subscription fees considered "sold in Australia"?


This Apple case is more likely a thing because Apple has many brick and mortar retail stores in Australia.

https://www.apple.com/au/retail/storelist/

technohic wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points. Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription. Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

Nothing has changed for this month that anyone is currently paying for.Maybe if you're already paid through March? Thats when it changes. But still; good luck.

The question would be whether you would have purchased your last subscription had you known it was going b2p. If the answer is no, then you should have the right to cancel today and be refunded on time remaining today. You just won't be able to play until March if you should choose to see the game as a none premium member.

Vis wrote: »

Guys, the op has made many good points. Perhaps asking for a refund for the original price of the game or used time would be too much. But as the Australian law is written, I see no reason why the op is not entitled to a refund on time remaining on his/her subscription. Good on Australia for having such protections. Shame on others who have attacked the op for presenting those protections.

The thing is, the TOS even states that there could be different provisions for people of Australia. If anybody at this time has time left that will roll over into the change, then perhaps they just need to contact support to get a refund for the remaining time.

At this time any Australian who is on the monthly plan, have no reason to ask for a refund, they have time to cancel their subscription before they pay for the time that would include any time from March 17th and beyond. So if they choose to continue their subscription knowing this, they are not protected because "changing mind" is not protected by the law.

At this point, it is possible that an Australian with a current multi month plan that rolls into March from the 17th and beyond can get a refund. But anybody who has the Multi Month plan that went into effect after the announcement may not be protected because it would be considered as "Changing Mind",