nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

If he can find a lawyer who will agree with his interpretation and take the case, I will happily post a video of me eating my own hat. You can even decide the method of preparation.

If he can find a lawyer that will agree with him and take the case: I would gleefully read the transcript, given the opportunity. That kind of crap can be comedy gold.

eisberg wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

danno816_ESO wrote: »

Every month you stayed subbed is another month you said "I am fine with the way things are."

Which is exactly what a judge would ask you to try and figure out why you paid for a service for so long that you did not enjoy or benefit from. They would then conclude that you got exactly what you paid for, otherwise you would have stopped.

The only time I could possibly see someone getting a refund for reasonably would be any sub time carried over past B2P launch due to the 3 or 6 month option. Any time before that? Forget it.

And a company developer saying "I don't think the payment model will ever change" is hardly legally binding in any way. That's just an opinion.

Just to be fair, the op can still contest he would have never purchased the game had he known it would go b2p in a year.

Think of it liken this, you are receiving a 1 hour back massage and enjoy it. At the very last minute of the hour session, the male worker suddenly pours boiling oil all over you. Were you not enjoying it the first 59 minutes? Why did you not leave?

Already talked about this from my Australian lawyer acquaintance. he stated that a change in payment model would not be considered as a Major problem. Also, talked about how the payment model still exists, and all they are doing is adding in another way to pay, which again is not considered as a major problem. That law is pretty tight, and with the train of thought the OP is doing, would be same train of though as saying "Well they changed my sword from the color Red to Blue, I would not have bought the game if I known they would do that, I want a refund" No, that would not fly.

Also, you paid a fee for that 60 minute massage, having oil put on you, wouldn't entitle you to a refund on all the other 60 Minute massages you got prior to that incident.

Yeah, I would think, with this payment model change would actually constitute added value. At least on the boxed purchase. I could see where the "30 days of free game time" might need a corrective sticker over it after the 17th, but for the rest...

No lawyers necessary. File the dispute with your bank or credit card. If you used only cash... that's tougher.

And when you do that, you open yourself up to legal action, as you are fraudulently claiming that you did not receive the goods/services you paid for.

Australians have legal recourse through their consumer protection laws, but those only create a legal means of challenging a company's return/replace/refund policies. They don't let you make fraudulent claims to your credit card company.

jeevin wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

RedTalon wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

RedTalon wrote: »

Hopefully lawyers aren't to pricey in the land down under or they do things differently there for such matters, just my final two thoughts on the matter.

Like in the US, most consumer protections are passed to the intermediates to enforce (i.e the credit cards and or banks involved). That is why in the US, it takes 2 minutes to file a dispute, and the credit card's lawyers will investigate and file for you. Nice, eh?

If you don't file a disupt within a certain amount of time, your money is gone and it comes down to sewing or class action for cases like this.

Yup, in the US it is 60 days from the time of your bill. That would mean you could only ask for a refund on your last subscription renewal, at this point.

I can't see how Zenimax would be liable for any more than that anyway. As a business it would be in their best interests to provide a refund on a sub purchased just before the btp announcement for those who request it. It's basic customer service and a gesture of good will.

eisberg wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

But claiming you received the product but would not had purchased had you known it was going to change in the way it did is NOT fraud. You may lose your dispute, but not fraud. Hence, no consequences on your part (minus no refund).

And at the end of the day, your 2 minute dispute report equates to far more time and money on ZOS's part defending and explaining itself to the credit card or bank.

Good luck telling the credit card company that had you known they were going to add more features to the subscription and added another way to pay for the service, you would have not bought the game and claim that as a Major Problem. Chances are, the Credit Card company wouldn't even contact ZOS in the first place.

However, in the US the credit card companies are required to contact the vendor being disputed. Also, nowhere in the FCBA is their any stipulation or wording involving a "major problem." Don't know where you are getting that as it applies to U.S law.

This thread is about Australian Law, not US law.

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

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/

If there's no personal jurisdiction, Australia can pretty much say whatever it wants, but it can't actually do anything about it.

Local retailers, sure. That might be part of why the Aussie stores were pulling copies. But, for them to get personal jurisdiction on an American company? I don't see how that happens.

Australian authorities can still file charges against the American company in US courts if they feel that they can prove that company breeched any US laws or agreements.

Practically speaking, you have to light a fire that can be seen from space to get that kind of attention. The legal fees alone would outstrip any returned funds. Yeah, sorry, that's a "we could build a cyborg to mow the lawn" kind of solution.

Iago wrote: »

In ZOS's defense Terms of Service do represent a contract.

however contract very seldom hold up in court but the purchaser is promised to be sold one thing but given another.

the problem is you need to prove that they use the bait and switch tactic and even with all the clothes you can find on the internet and things that may have said in the forums there would not be enough to prove concretely that Zenimax Mislead Consumers on purpose.

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Nocturnalis wrote: »

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/

If there's no personal jurisdiction, Australia can pretty much say whatever it wants, but it can't actually do anything about it.

Local retailers, sure. That might be part of why the Aussie stores were pulling copies. But, for them to get personal jurisdiction on an American company? I don't see how that happens.

Australian authorities can still file charges against the American company in US courts if they feel that they can prove that company breeched any US laws or agreements.

Practically speaking, you have to light a fire that can be seen from space to get that kind of attention. The legal fees alone would outstrip any returned funds. Yeah, sorry, that's a "we could build a cyborg to mow the lawn" kind of solution.

It would be the Australian government filing the charges on behalf of citizens injured, if it ever got that far.

No, I understand. I'm just saying, it would be the equivalent of going to war over a parking ticket. The whole "kids engineering an incredibly complex bit of cybernetics to get out of chores" joke didn't quite work... I'm going to chalk that up to being tired as hell.

starkerealm wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

RedTalon wrote: »

The thing is even tho this involves money, this reminds me of the lawsuit matter that happen with Star Wars Galaxies when people wanted to keep it open and so on, and it didn't stand up in court cause of agreeing to the end user agreement

If I recall right.

Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D

"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"

I don't know, that part still cracks me up.

Vis wrote: »

Iago wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Iago wrote: »

In ZOS's defense Terms of Service do represent a contract.

however contract very seldom hold up in court but the purchaser is promised to be sold one thing but given another.

the problem is you need to prove that they use the bait and switch tactic and even with all the clothes you can find on the internet and things that may have said in the forums there would not be enough to prove concretely that Zenimax Mislead Consumers on purpose.

There is a lot of truth to that. However, you are still legally allowed and protected to file a truthful dispute and see if you win. If you win, then yay. If you lose, no harm to you and you made ZOS waste time and money (not to mention hurt its rep with the cc's and banks) over something that took you 2 minutes. Just be sure to be truthful and accurate.

And they could take it to court But you're not going to prove it Without some kind of internal memo from the company or documentation That says hey This is what we're going to do Whether they like it or not.

Even if such a document exists somewhere You'll never see it

Actually no courts involved. The credit card company can penalize the vendor and if they do not pay, they can forbid them from using their services and more. Ultimately, even if you lose your dispute... ZOS will have to spend resources defending against it. In my opinion, no skin off of my teeth either way.

Iago wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Iago wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Iago wrote: »

In ZOS's defense Terms of Service do represent a contract.

however contract very seldom hold up in court but the purchaser is promised to be sold one thing but given another.

the problem is you need to prove that they use the bait and switch tactic and even with all the clothes you can find on the internet and things that may have said in the forums there would not be enough to prove concretely that Zenimax Mislead Consumers on purpose.

There is a lot of truth to that. However, you are still legally allowed and protected to file a truthful dispute and see if you win. If you win, then yay. If you lose, no harm to you and you made ZOS waste time and money (not to mention hurt its rep with the cc's and banks) over something that took you 2 minutes. Just be sure to be truthful and accurate.

And they could take it to court But you're not going to prove it Without some kind of internal memo from the company or documentation That says hey This is what we're going to do Whether they like it or not.

Even if such a document exists somewhere You'll never see it

Actually no courts involved. The credit card company can penalize the vendor and if they do not pay, they can forbid them from using their services and more. Ultimately, even if you lose your dispute... ZOS will have to spend resources defending against it. In my opinion, no skin off of my teeth either way.

The only way your credit card company would go after a refund for you Is if you lied And said you did not give them your credit card information to bill you for the game.


You see if I take my visa And I go to BestBuy and buy a brand new TV and have it delivered But they deliver something else And refused to return my money I have to take them to court.

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

RedTalon wrote: »

The thing is even tho this involves money, this reminds me of the lawsuit matter that happen with Star Wars Galaxies when people wanted to keep it open and so on, and it didn't stand up in court cause of agreeing to the end user agreement

If I recall right.

Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D

"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"

I don't know, that part still cracks me up.

Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.

I get the argument, but it's a tough sell. Especially since the Palomino horse was in at launch.

No argument there. Good chance my dispute will fail. However, I least I asked and ZOS has to work harder (than a single FAQ link) in saying no, a lot harder.

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

RedTalon wrote: »

The thing is even tho this involves money, this reminds me of the lawsuit matter that happen with Star Wars Galaxies when people wanted to keep it open and so on, and it didn't stand up in court cause of agreeing to the end user agreement

If I recall right.

Yup, can you imagine if the Australian law actually did protect things like this? All those Australians could have demanded a refund because "I would not have bought the game if I had known they would shut down the servers" This is not much different then saying "I would not have bought the game had I known they would add more features to my subscription and add an additional and optional way to pay for services" =D

"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME MORE THAN I PAID FOR! I DEMAND REPARATIONS!"

I don't know, that part still cracks me up.

Well, that is not exactly the case. Some of us were paying our subs because we did not want an in-game shop, and we are therefore getting less from this. It would be like me eating at a restaurant that caters on using all natural foods, and then adding corn syrup to all meals and saying, "why so mad. I am giving you more food." More of something you don't want is less overall.

I get the argument, but it's a tough sell. Especially since the Palomino horse was in at launch.

No argument there. Good chance my dispute will fail. However, I least I asked and ZOS has to work harder (than a single FAQ link) in saying no, a lot harder.

Not much harder. They demonstrate that they provided what you actually, contractually, paid for, and then feed you into the wood chipper.

Proving they "feel" they did takes time and labor (more so than sending me a link to the faq page about ESOU) . No wood chippers, they cannot retaliate against a consumer over an accurate/honest dispute.

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

Should point out that games, unlike a lot of other products sold in Australia, only have a 30 day warranty at best. There is also this little nugget you conveniently skipped.

You can ask a business for your preference of a free repair, replacement or refund, but you are not always entitled to one. For example, the consumer guarantees do not apply if you got what you asked for but simply changed your mind, found it cheaper somewhere else, decided you did not like the purchase or had no use for it.

By the sounds of it, because ZOS has changed the business model and you don't agree with said business model you no longer like the purchase that you have made and you've changed your mind. Therefore it is not covered by the ACL. This was the biggest thing I had to try and explain to customers when the laws were changed. Sorry OP but they can legally not offer refund in this case.

Also, they have no Australian store front. Every product they sell is either through a reseller or direct via their website. The ACL would apply only to the reseller but since a reasonable amount of time has elapsed and the fact you clearly have changed your mind, you are not entitled to a refund.