Zos - you need better lawyers.

RDMyers65b14_ESO · January 2015

I actually looked the law up on the Australian government website. Here's the deal. The law states that in order to get a refund, you have to return the product. How do you return time? That is what the subscription service is. So, unless you can return the time that the subscription bought you, you can NOT get a refund. I guess that you could go work for ZOS for the time free of compensation. Do you have enough money for the move and living expenses for a year without an income? Your claim is just as ridiculous. Good luck with trying to find a lawyer who will accept a loosing case.

ashlee17 · January 2015

More food for thought.

Full steam ahead: ACCC institutes proceedings against Valve for making alleged misleading consumer guarantee representations
29 August 2014
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Valve Corporation (Valve) alleging that Valve made false or misleading representations regarding the application of the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Valve is an entertainment software and technology company located in the United States of America. Valve owns and operates an online computer game distribution platform known as ‘Steam’ that has over 65 million users worldwide. Valve sells computer games through Steam to Australian consumers, but does not have a physical presence in Australia.

The ACCC alleges that Valve made false or misleading representations to Australian customers of Steam that:

consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances;
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality;
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and
the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.
“The Australian Consumer Law applies to any business providing goods or services within Australia. Valve may be an American based company with no physical presence in Australia, but it is carrying on business in Australia by selling to Australian consumers, who are protected by the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales. Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault.”

“The consumer guarantees provided under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, disclosure orders, adverse publicity orders, non-party consumer redress, a compliance program order and costs.

The matter has been filed in the Federal Court’s Sydney Registry. A date for the first directions hearing is set for 7 October 2014 at the Federal Court in Sydney before Justice Jagot.

The Australian Consumer Law provides consumers with rights to certain remedies from retailers and manufacturers, when goods fail to comply with the consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL, including that the goods are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold. That is, if a good is not, for example, of acceptable quality, consumers may be entitled to a refund or a replacement item. These rights cannot be excluded, restricted or modified.

To find out more about consumer guarantee rights, please visit ACCC's page on consumer rights & guarantees.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Once again, your ability to quote unrelated case law is unparalleled.

Valve was taken to court over products. Subscription services are entirely different. And ZO never claimed that Australians didn't have the right to a refund on the game when it was bought through their company. They're saying that they won't offer refunds on subscription time, as they've already delivered that product or service in full. The subscription contract was renewed and/or terminated each time they did provided those services.

eisberg · January 2015

Good thing the TOS states specifically there may be different provisions for Australia. Meaning call Customer Support, cause you probably can get a refund on any remaining time from March 17th.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Good thing the TOS states specifically there may be different provisions for Australia. Meaning call Customer Support, cause you probably can get a refund on any remaining time from March 17th.

I'd be surprised if they honor those requests, but since it's such a small segment of the game population, they may just be kind and do it for fun.

Wreuntzylla · January 2015

This isn't a thread about 6 month subscriptions not being entitled to a refund when mandatory subscription goes away?

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

This isn't a thread about 6 month subscriptions not being entitled to a refund when mandatory subscription goes away?

It isn't, but that's going to be an exceptionally rare situation. They eliminated the six month option well before most customers would be renewing that subscription (most people who opt for long subscription periods would have been subscribing since launch, presumably). I'm sure some people fall in to the category, and they'll receive all the perks that were promised as their subscription period runs out.

jaibierwb17_ESO · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Good thing the TOS states specifically there may be different provisions for Australia. Meaning call Customer Support, cause you probably can get a refund on any remaining time from March 17th.

Only if you subscribed before the announcement was made - if you paid for your subscription after the announcement you would be well aware that the game was going b2p, so you couldn't get a refund. Since they removed the 6 month sub, this is not a lot of people - you would have to have paid for the 3 month sub between 17 December and 20th(?) January (or the date of the announcement, can't remember now).

I_killed_Vivec · January 2015

jaibierwb17_ESO wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Good thing the TOS states specifically there may be different provisions for Australia. Meaning call Customer Support, cause you probably can get a refund on any remaining time from March 17th.

Only if you subscribed before the announcement was made - if you paid for your subscription after the announcement you would be well aware that the game was going b2p, so you couldn't get a refund. Since they removed the 6 month sub, this is not a lot of people - you would have to have paid for the 3 month sub between 17 December and 20th(?) January (or the date of the announcement, can't remember now).

They removed the 6 month sub option but not the auto renew.

They auto renewed me on November 5th - I still have 100 days left, about 50 when it goes free on March 17th.

MornaBaine · January 2015

While I'm not upset enough to demand a refund, and may actually remain with the game depending upon how this cash shop is handled, I am curious about this stuff. There are certainly laws here in the US against "bait and switch." When one takes into account the numerous times ZOS officials of one sort or another assured players that they would NOT be changing from the subscription model they started with it seems fairly clear that "bait and switch" could easily apply to this situation.

For an excellent source of those quotes that make it clear a bait and switch was pulled, see this thread:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147455/anyone-else-remember-quotes-like-this/p1

Morana · January 2015

Bait and switch is cried every time an MMO changes their payment model. Business models change based on need for profitability and needs to satisfy vendors (aka Microsoft).

MornaBaine · January 2015

Morana wrote: »

Bait and switch is cried every time an MMO changes their payment model. Business models change based on need for profitability and needs to satisfy vendors (aka Microsoft).

You may be right. Again, I am simply curious about this issue. I have no great desire to see ZOS punished despite being deeply disappointed in their lack of integrity. I certainly don't think anyone is entitled to a refund for time already played but those who have subscription time that goes past the change over in March do, I believe, have grounds to demand the money for that future time be returned to them. To be eligible for a refund of time already played it seems that the customer would have to be able to prove a couple very difficult things. 1) That they only purchased the game to begin with on the reasonable belief that it would not change its subscription model based on company statements. 2) That ZOS knew it would change its subscription model at the time those statements were made and deliberately lied in order to keep subscriptions.

SFBryan18 · January 2015

ashlee17 wrote: »

More food for thought.

Full steam ahead: ACCC institutes proceedings against Valve for making alleged misleading consumer guarantee representations
29 August 2014
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Valve Corporation (Valve) alleging that Valve made false or misleading representations regarding the application of the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Valve is an entertainment software and technology company located in the United States of America. Valve owns and operates an online computer game distribution platform known as ‘Steam’ that has over 65 million users worldwide. Valve sells computer games through Steam to Australian consumers, but does not have a physical presence in Australia.

The ACCC alleges that Valve made false or misleading representations to Australian customers of Steam that:

consumers were not entitled to a refund for any games sold by Valve via Steam in any circumstances;
Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality;
Valve was not under any obligation to repair, replace or provide a refund for a game where the consumer had not contacted and attempted to resolve the problem with the computer game developer; and
the statutory consumer guarantees did not apply to games sold by Valve.
“The Australian Consumer Law applies to any business providing goods or services within Australia. Valve may be an American based company with no physical presence in Australia, but it is carrying on business in Australia by selling to Australian consumers, who are protected by the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“It is a breach of the Australian Consumer Law for businesses to state that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales. Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers can insist on a refund or replacement at their option if a product has a major fault.”

“The consumer guarantees provided under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, disclosure orders, adverse publicity orders, non-party consumer redress, a compliance program order and costs.

The matter has been filed in the Federal Court’s Sydney Registry. A date for the first directions hearing is set for 7 October 2014 at the Federal Court in Sydney before Justice Jagot.

The Australian Consumer Law provides consumers with rights to certain remedies from retailers and manufacturers, when goods fail to comply with the consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL, including that the goods are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold. That is, if a good is not, for example, of acceptable quality, consumers may be entitled to a refund or a replacement item. These rights cannot be excluded, restricted or modified.

To find out more about consumer guarantee rights, please visit ACCC's page on consumer rights & guarantees.

And just like that, no more Steam for Australia. J/K, but it will be an interesting case.

treborrealb14_ESO · January 2015

ashlee17 wrote: »

Quote from zos FAQ

I am a current subscriber to The Elder Scrolls Online and my subscription will be active when the game transitions to The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited. What happens to my subscription?
The remaining subscription time will automatically transition to ESO Plus membership. You will receive the applicable allotment of crowns as described above. No refunds will be offered on existing subscriptions.

This is in breach of australian comsumer law quoted below.

'No refund' signs and expired warranties

It is against the law for businesses to tell you or show signs stating that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales.

Your rights under the consumer guarantees do not have a specific expiry date and can apply even after any warranties you’ve got from a business have expired.

Might want to look into that.

They just need to word it differently, the current format will still have a sub and there not canceling what you have now there letting you still sub and as a extra reward for the sub there adding things for the subbers .

The sky is falling

Vis · January 2015

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

lathbury · January 2015

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.

The pace of updates is changing from the agrred 4- 6 weeks, it is now availble for free so those that have time remaining are paying for nothing but costumes which is not what they agreed or was advertised.
-

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

lathbury wrote: »

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.

The pace of updates is changing from the agrred 4- 6 weeks, it is now availble for free so those that have time remaining are paying for nothing but costumes which is not what they agreed or was advertised.
-

Those with time remaining after the transition may have the right to seek some compensation in some specific countries. But until the transition, your subscription gives you exactly what it claims to.

lathbury · January 2015

and under British consumer law they are guilty of misinterpretation when they said it wouldn't go b2p repeatedly. also of misrepresentation when asked about 6 month sub going and they said it was unpopular guess what's back in eso plus.
a trader does something to mislead you into buying something that you may not have bought if you had been given all the information, this is an unfair commercial practice and is against the law. Misleading actions are covered by Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008).

This page explains what misleading actions are and how to spot if a trader has done this.

For the regulations to be unfair, they have to apply to the average consumer. You are considered to be an average consumer if you are reasonably:

well-informed
observant. You notice what goes on around you
circumspect. You are reasonably cautious.
It also has to be clear that a misleading action would be likely to make you buy or do something that you might not have, if you had been given the true facts.

If you think a trader has done something to mislead you, you can report the problem to Trading Standards, who may decide to take action against the trader. From 1 October 2014, you may also be able to get some or all of your money back or compensation from the trader.

What is a misleading action?

A misleading action is something a trader does to deceive you into making a different decision to the one you might have made if you had been given the true facts. They may do this either by giving you false information or by presenting something to you in a way that is not factually correct. You don't have to have lost any money to take action against a trader who's misled you.

The regulations identify three types of misleading actions:

giving misleading information
creating confusion with a competitor's products
failing to stick to firm commitments made in a code of conduct.
Giving misleading information

For information to be misleading, it needs to be deceiving or untrue. You may be given misleading information about:

the way goods or services are advertised
the way prices are calculated or compared
what the trader promises to provide (the extent of the trader's commitments)

What are misleading omissions?

Traders must give you enough accurate information to allow you to make an informed choice before you buy something. If they leave out information that would be important to the choice you make about what to buy, they are breaking the law.

Examples of misleading omissions include:

deliberately leaving out or hiding information that is important in making a decision about whether to buy the product or service.
giving you information that is unclear, hard to understand, ambiguous or not given at the right time
not revealing that the information you've been given is really for commercial reasons.

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

The question is, would you have continued your last subscription at all had you known it was going to go b2p. If your claim is you would have not, then you should be expected to have stopped playing the moment of the announcement, cancelled your sub that same day, asked for a refund that same day on time remaining, and the opened your dispute that same day. All of which is what many of us have done. We are thus proving we would not have played had we known about the change. If you pay for a roller coaster that sprays you with urine 2 minutes into the ride (without knowing about that feature before), should you be expected to pay for ride up to the point of the change in service? The law has already said no.

Vis · January 2015

As for the no changes claim, that is not true at all. However, luckily for me it's not fan boys decision as what may be considered a change. Hell, they've even changed the NAME of the game!

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

The question is, would you have continued your last subscription at all had you known it was going to go b2p. If your claim is you would have not, then you should be expected to have stopped playing the moment of the announcement, cancelled your sub that same day, asked for a refund that same day on time remaining, and the opened your dispute that same day. All of which is what many of us have done. We are thus proving we would not have played had we known about the change. If you pay for a roller coaster that sprays you with urine 2 minutes into the ride (without knowing about that feature before), should you be expected to pay for ride up to the point of the change in service? The law has already said no.

The announcement is your notification that the payment model is changing. It has absolutely no impact on your current subscription.

Put it this way:
If it weren't a payment system change but a content change like the addition of airplanes, people would want to leave. But an upcoming addition like planes doesn't affect the current game. Your subscription still pays for your current access to the game, so you still aren't entitled to a refund.

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

The question is, would you have continued your last subscription at all had you known it was going to go b2p. If your claim is you would have not, then you should be expected to have stopped playing the moment of the announcement, cancelled your sub that same day, asked for a refund that same day on time remaining, and the opened your dispute that same day. All of which is what many of us have done. We are thus proving we would not have played had we known about the change. If you pay for a roller coaster that sprays you with urine 2 minutes into the ride (without knowing about that feature before), should you be expected to pay for ride up to the point of the change in service? The law has already said no.

The announcement is your notification that the payment model is changing. It has absolutely no impact on your current subscription.

Put it this way:
If it weren't a payment system change but a content change like the addition of airplanes, people would want to leave. But an upcoming addition like planes doesn't affect the current game. Your subscription still pays for your current access to the game, so you still aren't entitled to a refund.

Again, thank heavens it's not up to the blindly devoted likenyourself to determine what is a legitimate change in a service. A lawyer with the issuer will force ZOS to make that defense and then judge for himself.

DanielMaxwell · January 2015

ashlee17 wrote: »

Quote from zos FAQ

I am a current subscriber to The Elder Scrolls Online and my subscription will be active when the game transitions to The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited. What happens to my subscription?
The remaining subscription time will automatically transition to ESO Plus membership. You will receive the applicable allotment of crowns as described above. No refunds will be offered on existing subscriptions.

This is in breach of australian comsumer law quoted below.

'No refund' signs and expired warranties

It is against the law for businesses to tell you or show signs stating that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales.

Your rights under the consumer guarantees do not have a specific expiry date and can apply even after any warranties you’ve got from a business have expired.

Might want to look into that.

If you believe you have a legal case (based on where you live) against ZOS then consult a lawyer and pursue the appropriate charges . Personally I do not think you will get the answers you expect from a lawyer qualified to pursue an international legal case .

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

The question is, would you have continued your last subscription at all had you known it was going to go b2p. If your claim is you would have not, then you should be expected to have stopped playing the moment of the announcement, cancelled your sub that same day, asked for a refund that same day on time remaining, and the opened your dispute that same day. All of which is what many of us have done. We are thus proving we would not have played had we known about the change. If you pay for a roller coaster that sprays you with urine 2 minutes into the ride (without knowing about that feature before), should you be expected to pay for ride up to the point of the change in service? The law has already said no.

The announcement is your notification that the payment model is changing. It has absolutely no impact on your current subscription.

Put it this way:
If it weren't a payment system change but a content change like the addition of airplanes, people would want to leave. But an upcoming addition like planes doesn't affect the current game. Your subscription still pays for your current access to the game, so you still aren't entitled to a refund.

Again, thank heavens it's not up to the blindly devoted likenyourself to determine what is a legitimate change in a service. A lawyer with the issuer will force ZOS to make that defense and then judge for himself.

Good luck with that.

Vis · January 2015

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

Quote from zos FAQ

I am a current subscriber to The Elder Scrolls Online and my subscription will be active when the game transitions to The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited. What happens to my subscription?
The remaining subscription time will automatically transition to ESO Plus membership. You will receive the applicable allotment of crowns as described above. No refunds will be offered on existing subscriptions.

This is in breach of australian comsumer law quoted below.

'No refund' signs and expired warranties

It is against the law for businesses to tell you or show signs stating that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales.

Your rights under the consumer guarantees do not have a specific expiry date and can apply even after any warranties you’ve got from a business have expired.

Might want to look into that.

If you believe you have a legal case (based on where you live) against ZOS then consult a lawyer and pursue the appropriate charges . Personally I do not think you will get the answers you expect from a lawyer qualified to pursue an international legal case .

Again, I would urge those involved, you do not need a lawyer. If you used a credit card or debit card, you are legally allowed dispute your last subscription renewal (if that subscription goes up to or past the March changes).

Vis · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Most of us asking for a refund are asking for a refund on time remaining on our current subscriptions that run past March. For instance, I have over 120 days left. The terms of my purchase are violated with months left on my subscription. A pro-rate based on the date I cancelled my subscription (the one running past March) is only fair.

Now again, for the 100th time, disputes involving the "quality" of a service are legal and available to anyone who used a credit card to purchase their last subscription. Just Google credit card disputes. You cannot be retaliated against for your dispute from the issuer or merchant (if you are accurate about why you are opening your dispute claim) because you are protected by the FCBA in the United States. Some uneducated fan boys will try to intimidate you with lies and ridiculous made up anecdotes. Some them even believe those lies because they have allowed themselves to be ripped off in the past due to their ignorance of the law. But just ask them for a link for proof and watch them shy away in stupidity.

Again, don't let idiots tell you what you are and are not entitled to. Read the law for yourself!

You may have a case for the days that remain after the new payment model goes live. But when you paid in advance for your subscription, you assumed the risk that the game may change in ways you didn't like over the next few months. Since the payment model hasn't changed now, you're still receiving exactly what you paid for.

The question is, would you have continued your last subscription at all had you known it was going to go b2p. If your claim is you would have not, then you should be expected to have stopped playing the moment of the announcement, cancelled your sub that same day, asked for a refund that same day on time remaining, and the opened your dispute that same day. All of which is what many of us have done. We are thus proving we would not have played had we known about the change. If you pay for a roller coaster that sprays you with urine 2 minutes into the ride (without knowing about that feature before), should you be expected to pay for ride up to the point of the change in service? The law has already said no.

The announcement is your notification that the payment model is changing. It has absolutely no impact on your current subscription.

Put it this way:
If it weren't a payment system change but a content change like the addition of airplanes, people would want to leave. But an upcoming addition like planes doesn't affect the current game. Your subscription still pays for your current access to the game, so you still aren't entitled to a refund.

Again, thank heavens it's not up to the blindly devoted likenyourself to determine what is a legitimate change in a service. A lawyer with the issuer will force ZOS to make that defense and then judge for himself.

Good luck with that.

Thanks. Luckily I have never lost a dispute. Most merchants don't fight it because it costs more than the dispute itself.

DanielMaxwell · January 2015

Vis wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

Quote from zos FAQ

I am a current subscriber to The Elder Scrolls Online and my subscription will be active when the game transitions to The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited. What happens to my subscription?
The remaining subscription time will automatically transition to ESO Plus membership. You will receive the applicable allotment of crowns as described above. No refunds will be offered on existing subscriptions.

This is in breach of australian comsumer law quoted below.

'No refund' signs and expired warranties

It is against the law for businesses to tell you or show signs stating that they do not give refunds under any circumstances, including for gifts and during sales.

Your rights under the consumer guarantees do not have a specific expiry date and can apply even after any warranties you’ve got from a business have expired.

Might want to look into that.

If you believe you have a legal case (based on where you live) against ZOS then consult a lawyer and pursue the appropriate charges . Personally I do not think you will get the answers you expect from a lawyer qualified to pursue an international legal case .

Again, I would urge those involved, you do not need a lawyer. If you used a credit card or debit card, you are legally allowed dispute your last subscription renewal (if that subscription goes up to or past the March changes).

That is also a viable recourse but it depends entirely on what your disputing

if claiming problems with the billing then yes you go to your CC/Debit card issuer if your using a CC/Debit card , if your claiming some kind of breach of contract/service then you need a lawyer .

Xjcon · January 2015

Rodario 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.

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

Is this due to the fact that you check that little box agreeing to the Terms of service? Perhaps the fact that some where in there it says they can change the game at anytime?

RedTalon · January 2015

Worse case is people from assuie land and euro can no longer play while law suits and the countries look into matters?

Kidding hopefully, but all laws become murky when online services are involved.