Is Zenimax trampling our basic Consumer Rights?

DDuke · January 2015

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to aforementioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

Please consider this post from a moral/ethical perspective, not legal one.

1962 U.S. President John F. Kennedy established four basic consumer rights:
1. The right to safety.
2. The right to choose.
3. The right to be heard.
4. The right to be informed.

In 1970, U.S. President Gerald Ford added: 5. The right to consumer education.
In time, the following rights were added: 6. The right to consumer redress.
7. The right to a healthy environment.
8. The right to basic needs.
In 1984 the INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS UNIONS, now known as CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, formally adopted this list of eight rights as their platform.
The Consumers Council of Canada has added: 9. The right to privacy.
This results in what we call the Eight Plus One.

I would argue our right to be heard has not been fulfilled.

No official polls have been made asking players' opinion on things, and overwhelming majority seems to be against the change to B2P.

I would argue our right to be informed has not been fulfilled.

When we were first introduced to things like Imperial City (back in last summer), and the concepts of Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood etc, we were not informed that these were to be saved up for later to sell as DLC. Zenimax created false expectations by withholding information.

We were not informed our money was being used to develop a Cash Shop (nor were our opinions about that asked).

I would argue our rights to a healthy environment will not be fulfilled.

When players spending more money get advantages over others (no matter how small).

I would argue our right to consumer redress will not be fulfilled.

No matter how much we voice our opinions here or to the customer service, things will not change.

Discuss.

Moonscythe · January 2015

Nothing you have said negates or trumps your right to choose. I won't even try to untangle the knot you have created in your own mind regarding the meaning of these "rights". I will give a particularly loud laugh at the one about a healthy environment though.

Kilandros · January 2015

Stahp.

Tandor · January 2015

Total nonsense.

DDuke · January 2015

Well, I'm so glad you people could elaborate on where I went wrong

Good to see there are still intelligent people around /sarcasm

But hey, atleast I know the community is no longer worth staying for in this game, so something positive came out of this post.

MornaBaine · January 2015

Law is different in each country but here in the US I think it may be possible to make a case for "bait and switch." I'm not advocating that people do this and I will not be doing it. Indeed, it is my intention to stay with the game at least long enough to see how they implement the cash shop as their actions there will dictate my own, to stay or go.

Look up "bait and switch law" on that website that begins with "Wiki..." if you're curious to learn more.

Sacadon · January 2015

If you sincerely believe there's some injustice here, save us all the noise and consult someone who actually knows law first.

The needless banter over the license model is finally slowing and the last thing we need is another wave of fear-based andrenaline steamrolling our community.

IMO obviously.

Roechacca · January 2015

Ysne58 · January 2015

ZOS has no credibility because of it's lies and deceptions. So far I have seen no acknowledgement from them that they even acknowledge this issue.

I still haven't decided what I'm going to do. But they lied when they said we could play how we like. They lied when they said the game would always be subscription only.

This change was a long time in the planning and development, probably planned for even before launch.

I don't know that those lies actually cross into any redressable consumer rights, except for possibly being required to refund any portion of a sub that goes past March 17. I have a six month sub and according to my account it will auto renew unless I decide to change that. As I said, I still haven't decided.

I believe ZOS needs to address the credibility issue and at the very least apologize for lying to it's community and agree to not tell any more lies.

Tandor · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

Well, I'm so glad you people could elaborate on where I went wrong

Good to see there are still intelligent people around /sarcasm

But hey, atleast I know the community is no longer worth staying for in this game, so something positive came out of this post.

I stand by what I said. When someone tries to argue that changing a computer game's business model infringes their right to a healthy environment because of what someone else spends in an online cash shop then "total nonsense" is all that needs to be said. Not that that point is the only nonsensical one.

Gyudan · January 2015

The plane meld is nigh
The plane meld is nigh
Our world will disappear

The plane meld is nigh
The plane meld is nigh
Our doom is drawing near

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqMzhqkOLA

Faugaun · January 2015

MornaBaine wrote: »

Law is different in each country but here in the US I think it may be possible to make a case for "bait and switch." I'm not advocating that people do this and I will not be doing it. Indeed, it is my intention to stay with the game at least long enough to see how they implement the cash shop as their actions there will dictate my own, to stay or go.

Look up "bait and switch law" on that website that begins with "Wiki..." if you're curious to learn more.

I may be mistaken, but wouldn't any case need damages in order to gain standing? Even if you argue a bait and switch occurred how was the consumer damaged?

This is what I see, game was sold and labelled as a subscription game (no labels suggesting this would or would not change in the future). Subscriptions were sold (per month and server access was provided for previous months). Perhaps if they do not give a refund upon request to members who purchased subscription time and do not want plus time then maybe it is a bait and switch. I am guessing if you call them requesting any future time after B2P (or after notice of the change) be refunded then they will do so (at their lawyers direction). That said they seem to be taking a damage mitigation approach (if you remain subbed from launch till march 17 then we will give you a (unspecified) reward that you dont want to miss out on). By remaining subbed after notice has been given then you as a consumer are accepting the new terms offered (contingent upon the promise that that provide something, which they think you would not want to miss...whether or not the item provided meets that standard for you is not relevant).

It would be hard to argue damages, hard to find enough people who canceled subs immediately to accrue enough monetary damages to make it worth the expense of legal action.

That said I am not a lawyer and even if I was you would be prudent to get an independent opinion from your own legal council (if it is really this important to you).

Spiritreaver_ESO · January 2015

Honestly from what i've seen of this whole situation, and please keep in mind i am coming to this late as i am just getting back to the game after a long absence; ZoS hasn't done anything wrong from a business view.

I just took a look at the ToShttps://account.elderscrollsonline.com/terms-of-service, something i have done for some years now with games and services i subscribe to. What i take away is that unless you can prove that ZoS's future changes to TESO are going to cost you upwards of $100, the only recourse you have with them(ZoS) is to cancel your account.

Now that isn't an endorsement on my part of the direction the game seems to be taking. It is just my take on what you can do to alleviate your dissatisfaction atm.

Ysne58 · January 2015

I'm pretty sure this doesn't rise to the level of winnable law suit. I'm a retired attorney and the only real recoverable thing would be refund for subs that last past March 17th and only for time remaining on them. That is likely a small amount compared to how expensive litigation might be.

ZOS has destroyed much of it's good will with it's paying customers. It needs to acknowledge that and fix it. Even those of us who decide to continue no longer have much if any faith that the company will ever be truthful.

Iselin · January 2015

This is what real trampling looks like:

DeLindsay · January 2015

OP, if you seriously think you have a viable lawsuit against ZoS then by all means go spend all your money trying to sue a large corporation which probably has a team of well paid lawyers just waiting for things like this. Meanwhile I'll remain happy paying a whopping $12.99/mo (I pay for 6mo sub) for some entertainment. BTW, I spend more on a single meal once per month when I head out to Famous Dave's BBQ (costs me $14-15 with tip) or when I go see a single movie once per month (if I buy any concessions). As far as I'm concerned $12.99/mo is literally nothing off my back.

starkerealm · January 2015

Faugaun wrote: »

MornaBaine wrote: »

Law is different in each country but here in the US I think it may be possible to make a case for "bait and switch." I'm not advocating that people do this and I will not be doing it. Indeed, it is my intention to stay with the game at least long enough to see how they implement the cash shop as their actions there will dictate my own, to stay or go.

Look up "bait and switch law" on that website that begins with "Wiki..." if you're curious to learn more.

I may be mistaken, but wouldn't any case need damages in order to gain standing? Even if you argue a bait and switch occurred how was the consumer damaged?

Or, to quote myself from another thread:

starkerealm wrote: »

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

AlexDougherty · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

1962 U.S. President John F. Kennedy established four basic consumer rights:
1. The right to safety.
2. The right to choose.
3. The right to be heard.
4. The right to be informed.

In 1970, U.S. President Gerald Ford added: 5. The right to consumer education.
In time, the following rights were added: 6. The right to consumer redress.
7. The right to a healthy environment.
8. The right to basic needs.
In 1984 the INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS UNIONS, now known as CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, formally adopted this list of eight rights as their platform.
The Consumers Council of Canada has added: 9. The right to privacy.
This results in what we call the Eight Plus One.

I would argue our right to be heard has not been fulfilled.

No official polls have been made asking players' opinion on things, and overwhelming majority seems to be against the change to B2P.

I would argue our right to be informed has not been fulfilled.

When we were first introduced to things like Imperial City (back in last summer), and the concepts of Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood etc, we were not informed that these were to be saved up for later to sell as DLC. Zenimax created false expectations by withholding information.

We were not informed our money was being used to develop a Cash Shop (nor were our opinions about that asked).

I would argue our rights to a healthy environment will not be fulfilled.

When players spending more money get advantages over others (no matter how small).

I would argue our right to consumer redress will not be fulfilled.

No matter how much we voice our opinions here or to the customer service, things will not change.

Discuss.

Your right to be heard.
It has been fulfilled, it is a right for ZOS to listen to you, not a right for them to agree.

Your right to be informed
It has been fulfilled, you have been informed, and prior to it happening too. There are issues with how they did it, but these are social issues, not legal ones.

Your right to a healthy environment
You can leave at any time, they do police the game, but there is only so much they can do, the rest is up to us.

Your right to consumer redress.
You have the right to stop playing, you have the right to try to sue them (won't work, they've broken no rules), and you have the right to complain to them.
That's all your right to redress is.

I Notice you are focusing solely on NA rights, we EU have our own rights too.
Not sure if this B2P change infringes on them, the German players will know though (since German Law is very keen on the rights of the consumers, and via EU law gives all EU players strong consumer rights).

PSLAnimal · January 2015

Actually, neither Kennedy or Ford "established" anything. That was just political bloviating with no meaning whatsoever. And none of the things mentioned could be or are "rights" in any manner.

danno8 · January 2015

Tell it to the judge.

Gemseed · January 2015

This thread, and the rest of the internet lawyer posts, are ridiculous.

DDuke · January 2015

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

P.S. If someone is violating your consumer rights, that would be considered illegal, and you'd be entitled to sue. Since you're clearly aware that you aren't entitled to sue, you're also aware that your rights haven't been infringed upon.

Naivefanboi · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

Please consider this post from a moral/ethical perspective, not legal one.

1962 U.S. President John F. Kennedy established four basic consumer rights:
1. The right to safety.
2. The right to choose.
3. The right to be heard.
4. The right to be informed.

In 1970, U.S. President Gerald Ford added: 5. The right to consumer education.
In time, the following rights were added: 6. The right to consumer redress.
7. The right to a healthy environment.
8. The right to basic needs.
In 1984 the INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS UNIONS, now known as CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, formally adopted this list of eight rights as their platform.
The Consumers Council of Canada has added: 9. The right to privacy.
This results in what we call the Eight Plus One.

I would argue our right to be heard has not been fulfilled.

No official polls have been made asking players' opinion on things, and overwhelming majority seems to be against the change to B2P.

I would argue our right to be informed has not been fulfilled.

When we were first introduced to things like Imperial City (back in last summer), and the concepts of Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood etc, we were not informed that these were to be saved up for later to sell as DLC. Zenimax created false expectations by withholding information.

We were not informed our money was being used to develop a Cash Shop (nor were our opinions about that asked).

I would argue our rights to a healthy environment will not be fulfilled.

When players spending more money get advantages over others (no matter how small).

I would argue our right to consumer redress will not be fulfilled.

No matter how much we voice our opinions here or to the customer service, things will not change.

Discuss.

welcome to the video game industry, where customers are to eat crap and call it ice cream.good ole terms of service.

Kilandros · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.

DDuke · January 2015

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

Please consider this post from a moral/ethical perspective, not legal one.

1962 U.S. President John F. Kennedy established four basic consumer rights:
1. The right to safety.
2. The right to choose.
3. The right to be heard.
4. The right to be informed.

In 1970, U.S. President Gerald Ford added: 5. The right to consumer education.
In time, the following rights were added: 6. The right to consumer redress.
7. The right to a healthy environment.
8. The right to basic needs.
In 1984 the INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS UNIONS, now known as CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, formally adopted this list of eight rights as their platform.
The Consumers Council of Canada has added: 9. The right to privacy.
This results in what we call the Eight Plus One.

I would argue our right to be heard has not been fulfilled.

No official polls have been made asking players' opinion on things, and overwhelming majority seems to be against the change to B2P.

I would argue our right to be informed has not been fulfilled.

When we were first introduced to things like Imperial City (back in last summer), and the concepts of Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood etc, we were not informed that these were to be saved up for later to sell as DLC. Zenimax created false expectations by withholding information.

We were not informed our money was being used to develop a Cash Shop (nor were our opinions about that asked).

I would argue our rights to a healthy environment will not be fulfilled.

When players spending more money get advantages over others (no matter how small).

I would argue our right to consumer redress will not be fulfilled.

No matter how much we voice our opinions here or to the customer service, things will not change.

Discuss.

welcome to the video game industry, where customers are to eat crap and call it ice cream.good ole terms of service.

First one who understands what I meant.

Now for the rest of you: do you like eating crap, or would you like things to change?

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.

The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Kilandros · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.

The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.

The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.

Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?

Kilandros · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

To be fair, you're clearly just another armchair internet lawyer, so don't presume to know what does and does not have legal merit in the real world.

The OP has no merit, but if you'd like to cite some relevant case law to contradict that, feel free.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

I'm not saying that the OP has any merit. I'm saying that neither you nor the OP have any idea what you're talking about. I don't need "relevant case law" to know that neither you nor the OP are lawyers. Go ahead and take a guess at how I know that for a fact.

Because you don't know my background, education, etc., but you love trolling people on the internet?

I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you're not a lawyer and you don't know what you're talking about. I know that despite knowing almost nothing about you. I know only that you did not attend an American law school and that you do not practice law. Go ahead and guess at how I know that.

DDuke · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Just a note: I'm fully aware of the ToS and am not expecting a refund (because it is impossible due to before mentioned).

I'm simply stating that what they are doing goes against the basic consumer rights (nullified by ToS) and what is generally considered fair practice.

I will add this to my original post, since some people seem not to understand it.

And to add: while what they are doing is not illegal, I have a firm opinion that it should be.

I think you should probably ask a lawyer about this. They could use a laugh.

P.S. If someone is violating your consumer rights, that would be considered illegal, and you'd be entitled to sue. Since you're clearly aware that you aren't entitled to sue, you're also aware that your rights haven't been infringed upon.

And you should learn to read (though it may be above your mental capability).

The principle of laws & rights is that they are based on morality & ethics, and this is the angle I'm looking at things.

It may be made legal because of ToS, but it doesn't make it morally right.

We live in times when morals & ethics matter little in the way of $$$, and the attitudes of people like you is making it happen.