Valve Loses Australian Court Battle Over Steam (computerworld.com.au) 178
angry tapir writes: Valve Software has lost court action launched against it by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Australian court case centered on the refund policies of Valve Software's Steam digital distribution service. Some of Steam's refund policies contradicted the statutory guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law, the court found. A hearing on penalties is yet to be held.
Such "false or misleading representations about guarantees" include: consumers were not entitled to a refund for digitally downloaded games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or Steam Client (in any circumstances); Valve had excluded statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality; and Valve had restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality. Valve has contested ACCC's arguments on a number of grounds.
Such "false or misleading representations about guarantees" include: consumers were not entitled to a refund for digitally downloaded games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or Steam Client (in any circumstances); Valve had excluded statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality; and Valve had restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality. Valve has contested ACCC's arguments on a number of grounds.
EULAs are bullshit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an attempt by corporations to rewrite/bypass existing laws, and prevent you from having any recourse by forcing you to agree to arbitration (conducted by someone friendly to the outcome of the corporation).
Despite the idiocy we've been seeing as courts (*cough* American *cough*) decide it's OK for companies to fuck over consumers with bullshit EULAs which skirt around the law, I'm glad to see some common sense.
Of course, expect the next round of "trade negotiations" (*cough* American *cough*) to work to undermine this.
Because, let's face it, America is all lubed up and on the payroll of multinational corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Many EULAs are so poorly written I question how enforceable they are. Who has time to read hundreds of pages of poorly written dribble? Can't we just all agree on a few well written EULAs and force companies to pick from those?
Re: (Score:3)
Who has time to read hundreds of pages of poorly written dribble?
Apparently, not Congresspeople. "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it," like it's a Cracker Jack prize.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clarity. Let's say the thing said "I give you 3 fucks". Now, due to a printing error, it looks like it reads "I give you 8 fucks" (or 6, or 9 which could also be plausible). Well crap,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Print out the EULA and mark all passages you would like to change clearly. Indicate the changes you would like to suggest, point to reformulations and strike through passages you do not agree with. Make your changes reasonable. The last thing is important, don't make jokes. Put the revised EULA in an envelope, address it to the company's customer service, and in a short polite covering letter point out that (a) you do not agree wi
Re: (Score:2)
I had a friend who'd buy software for his business with checks. On the back of the check was a notice saying that cashing the check was agreeing that the software was up to certain standards. He told me nobody ever balked at it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well outside of the US, EULA's aren't enforceable if they directly or indirectly attempt to bypass your local laws. This is true in Canada, where companies who don't have regional EULA's suddenly find themselves up shits creek and have injunctions slapped against them.
Re: (Score:2)
What really needs to happen with contracts of adhesion is more like how in-person consumer rights are handled in some places: not only can contracts not override certain key protections, but the stores are required by law to display certain information about this at points of sale, and including certain anti-consumer terms in contracts is itself illegal. Evil terms aren't just unenforceable at this point, you can be actively punished for even trying to include them, so you can't just try to scare consumers
Re: (Score:2)
At least we need a law making contracts of adhesion invalid if required after the point of purchase (or, at the very least, mandating refunds of purchase price for such products). The idea that, after spending money on something and doing something that makes a refund impossible, I have to agree to further terms, is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you're from or what your law might be, but where I am terms stated after the point of purchase normally are unenforceable, other things being equal. To be part of a contract there would need to be something in it for both sides, and since the sale has already been completed at that point, there's no reason for the purchaser to accept additional terms without some form of consideration in return.
The catch with a lot of modern technologies is that the additional consideration doesn't have t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from the backward country known as the US.
I believe I can legally install and use lawfully obtained software, and make any copies needed, under US law, so I don't need additional permission to use the software (which doesn't stop people from sticking in a EULA step, but which does mean there isn't any consideration).
What I've never gotten a straight answer to when I had the opportunity to ask in relevant forums, is what an enforceable EULA gives the vendor that copyright law doesn't. There's a few
Not in the States they aren't (Score:3)
Our schools are churning out lawyers like crazy because it's cheap for the University but expensive for the Student and our ruling class took note of a potential glut of people with the means to fire off Class Action Lawsuits. So they bought themselves a nice law. I suspect they're planning to do the same in the rest of the world if they haven't already (or don't just plain own the
Re: EULAs are bullshit ... (Score:1)
Except it's not common sense...it's a right. You cannot sign away 'rights' under Australian law...regardless of how stupid you are.
As I understand things...you can in the US of A.
In Australia (and probably most other "sane" legal systems), the offending clauses get structure from the agreements, leaving the remaining Contract clauses in place.
So...signing things like can't take work for the same industry if changing jobs doesn't hold either to individuals... corporates poaching...between corporates...yeah.
Re: EULAs are bullshit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But because the rest of the contract remains in force, companies have no reason not to pack a contract full of unenforceable garbage... Many people simply aren't aware of their rights and will follow the unenforceable bits out of fear.
Adding clauses which are unenforceable should be seen as bad faith and result in penalties for anyone presenting such contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to sue for damages is a blessing and a curse. It's great for situations where someone didn't technically break the law, but they did hurt you. At the same time
Re: (Score:2)
Preach it!
Re: (Score:2)
That was about large bakeries trying to put home (but pro) bakeries out of business by denying them lots of hours during crunch times like holidays.
There is nothing honorable about this big business, rent-seeking decision.
For once... (Score:1)
Australia is on the right side of a video game-related story...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: For once... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, it's already WHY publishers charge more! It's why even physical goods sold in Australia cost more.
I mean, people love to complain about EU and AU pricing, but often it isn't as extortionate as it seems - sure that Apple MacBook costs $300 more, but that's because you're forced to buy the extended warranty. 2-3 year coverage, so they build th
Title rewording (Score:5, Funny)
More punny title: Valve Loses Steam in Australian Court Battle
Re: (Score:2)
My first reaction to the headline was "diddums, poor Valve."
Then I wondered if Umbrella might take legal action against Rain.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I like steam but this is good that the ACCC took them to court and won. Their refund policy is BS. I bought payday 2 ( http://store.steampowered.com/... [steampowered.com] ) when it had just came out for something like US$25 full price. I trusted the word of the developer who said it would NEVER have microtransactions ( http://steamcommunity.com/app/... [steamcommunity.com] ) in the game. Those scumbag developers then added in microtransactions anyway turning it on a P2W game. I tried multiple times through steam to get it refunded and each time I got a template response from steam denying the refund. If this was sold in the shops in Australia it would be ILLEGAL because it was not what I bought nor was it advertised as such to have microtransactions.
I will never buy a overkill game again.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's said that changing a major characteristic of the game after the fact to make it necessary to buy more stuff to continue playing changes the game to the point that one would no longer wish to have purchased it. Funny that you were unable to understand that.
Agreements can change at any time (Score:5, Interesting)
What I absolutely love about steam in particular is they grant themselves the right to "alter the deal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Lets say you have spent a fortune on steam games.
They decide they are big enough they can do whatever they want and decide to start charging monthly fees or install spyware uploading contents of your computer to the New York Times or perhaps they just decide they don't want to support you anymore and unilaterally shut down the service.
If you don't like the new deal and don't accept it your account is shut down and you lose access to everything you ever paid for without any compensation or recourse. You of course also "agreed" to submit to binding arbitration.
This crap is why I don't play games anymore. It just isn't any fun when everyone has this kind of contempt for their customers trying to fuck people over asserting they don't own anything and have no rights.
Re:Agreements can change at any time (Score:5, Insightful)
This crap is why I don't play games anymore. It just isn't any fun when everyone has this kind of contempt for their customers trying to fuck people over asserting they don't own anything and have no rights.
Not everyone. Buy from GOG instead of Steam. They'll sell you DRM-free plain old locally playable games, no network-permission needed to play, no ability for anyone to switch off your game collection later on. They'll work as long as you have a PC or something that can emulate one.
You want that model to succeed? Buy your games there. They don't have as big a collection as Steam, yet, but it's growing fast. If everyone makes sure that business model succeeds, then game companies will be forced to support it, because that's where the buyers are.
On the other hand, if everybody keeps buying lock-in and DRM ala Steam, well... that's what you're gonna get. Put your money towards the world you want to see. Make sure companies selling DRM-free games succeed, and those with needless online activation fail. Game studios need your money to stay in business, but you don't need their games. That means you have all the power, and they have none. Use it wisely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of games also don't actually rely on Steam for DRM and are playable without launching the Steam client.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is going downhill (Score:1)
After over a month asking in a support ticket for them to actually let me get into the store, I've realized that their "move the desk" policy is killing them.
There is no tech support.
There is no testing.
But there is a lot of "ignoring the problem" going on.
Stop investing in steam, start ignoring their games.
Microsoft? (Score:1)
So naturally the same standard applies to Microsoft?
Re:Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it does. Microsoft products sold in Australia have often come with a little flyer that specifies the different protections Australian consumers are entitled to outside their usual EULA.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Microsoft has been taken to town by the ACCC over and over again about their return and warranty policies.
I remember years ago ACCC action in Australia was the reason why warranties were extended to cover red-ringing XBox360s. The Australian "Fit for service" and "expected performance" clauses were read in a way that implied a console should last at least until the next model is released and their short warranty period was therefore invalid for what was clearly a manufacturing flaw.
Worst arguments put for by Valve ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the way Valve had argued that they weren't doing business in Australia and as such didn't need to comply because all they did was provide an online portal.
An online portal that accepts Australian dollars.
An online portal that will restrict titles for Australia by geolocation.
An online portal that WILL SEND YOU A CUSTOM VERSION OF A GAME FOR AUSTRALIA to meet Australian content requirements (looking at you Left4Dead 2) that was only released in Australia initially.
You can't argue that you're not doing business in Australia while at the same time creating (not even releasing but actually creating) specific content to comply directly with local requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. They were grasping at straws, thinking they were above the law. And this is what happens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just wait until the EU comes after them. EU law states all software can be resold, including digital only. Strange that Valve, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony still won't offer a single method for doing so, therefore breaking the law as there is no mechanism to bypass their DRM. Seeing as these massive global tax dodging corporations are the gatekeepers for the keys, and no one else can transfer them, they cannot deny they are not preventing private sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until the EU comes after them.
Don't get me wrong I love the EU laws, but the laws have little teeth without some well funded entity to back them. Associations like the ACCC exist to fight the fights that consumers in Australia can't afford to. That's not to say they are a free lawyer, but they exist to ensure that the bastards are kept honest. It's the same reason there's no "unlimited" advertising in Australia if there is a terms of use that defines "unlimited" to be anything other than what the dictionary states.
Re: (Score:3)
The decision: https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
The judge deemed them to be doing business in Australia because:
A) Valve had CDN's in Australia, a fair number of them
B) Valve allowed Australian customers to access support channels
C) Steam had 2.2 Million Australian Users
D) Valve knew the users were in Australia
E) Steam prices games differently in Australia, or sometimes doesn't make them available at all
F) Valve pays for it's Australian servers from an Australian bank account
Re: (Score:2)
... and they tried to argue "not doing business in Australia" anyway? Jeez, whatever Valve is paying their lawyers, it's clearly way too much (or not enough, if they couldn't be bothered to hire lawyers that can find their ass with both hands and a mirror)...
Australia and Europe (Score:1)
As one of the few people who actually read the Valve EULA: All of the parts of the EULA that tries to take away consumer protection has a little text on the end, something like "except as outlined in 13" (or whatever the number was).
Down near the end is part 13, which says something like "if you're in the European Union, you can ignore these parts".
With this court case, part 13 will have to be changed to "European Union or Australia".
Digital game refunds - surprisingly complex (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the other comments on this, I see some pretty polarised views; either "corporations are evil, let me get a refund on anything I want whenever I want it" or "regulation is evil, let companies do what they want". I think both of those are missing the point somewhat.
The area of refunds for downloadable game purchases is one that a lot of effort has gone into over the last few years and nobody has yet quite found a solution that seems to work fairly for both the public and developers.
Actually, it needs to be acknowledged that things have moved on a long way from a couple of years ago. You can actually routinely get refunds now from the main online PC game stores, provided you meet specific conditions. What's not clear is whether this is down to the threat of governmental action (the EU had been making loud noises) or market forces. In particular, when EA startled everybody by announcing what was actually a fairly ambitious refund policy for Origin, it forced competitors like Steam to up their game and follow suit.
Steam's current policy is that, outside of exceptional circumstances, you can get a refund without question on a game which has been purchased within the last two weeks (or which has been released within the last two weeks if you pre-ordered) and which you have played for less than two hours. That falls short of the statutory provisions for refunds that apply in many jurisdictions, but it's nevertheless a useful protection if you purchase a game which doesn't work on your PC, is hopelessly bug-riddled or is fundamentally not-as-advertised.
But this system is causing problems of its own. In particular, a lot of small-scale indie developers, whose games only sell for a couple of dollars but whose play-time is less than two hours, are finding that people are playing their games to completion in less than two hours and then requesting refunds, despite having, in essenence, fully consumed the product. Guess what - customers can be greedy, exploitive morons too.
Now, you might argue - and indeed I would - that Steam would be a better place if it closed the door to a lot of these small-scale indie developers, or at least increased the barriers to entry. But encouraging them onto the platform and then shafting them through the refund policy benefits nobody.
I think part of the problem here is that for all of their many benefits, Valve remain resolutely awful at direct customer support and, indeed, seem to have no interest in resourcing it properly. Turn-around time for support requests, including non-standard refund reqursts, are abyssmal (and said requests often just drop into a black-hole). This means that when things go wrong either for a customer or a developer, unless you manage to get a twitter-storm on-side, it can be very hard to escalate a problem. Dealing with that and becoming better at processing those non-standard refunds (for instance, when a previously-working game is broken by a patch), might help with a lot of Valve's current problems. But that won't be cheap or easy for the company to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let me guess (Score:3)
1) We're American!
2) What? That's like communism!
3) But it's on the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
1 and 3 actually. They claimed they don't do business in Australia.
You know they just release special releases of games for that country that are only available to users of the service in that country and are only applied when paid in the currency of that country. They just apparently don't do business in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the old one about the trouble with political jokes is that they sometimes get elected? There must be an equivalent for the legal sphere.
4) (a corollary[1] of 1 ): Is that the one with the Lederhosen or the one with the kangaroos? Yeah, we, er, meant the other one.
[1] No, not a corroboree.
Re: After I got banned from even playing single-pl (Score:3, Interesting)
If they keep you from running a game you bought within the first 90 days, do a chargeback. If you own a bunch of Steam games, it might not be worth it since they'll ban you from playing the other games you paid for.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a single player game! Why would any other players care? Cheat at solitaire all you want.
Time for some simple regulation in the industry? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you own a bunch of Steam games, it might not be worth it since they'll ban you from playing the other games you paid for.
This is why one of the consumer protection laws we really need in 2016 but don't currently have in most jurisdictions is that businesses providing this kind of sales/distribution service have to treat each transaction independently.
It is clearly unfair for Valve (or your e-book seller, or a service providing movie or music downloads, or...) to attack a customer by retrospectively undoing other transactions or crippling other products involved in them just because one transaction was disputed or didn't work out properly in some way. If I go to a supermarket to complain because the "fresh" food they'd sold me with a use-by date some time next week had gone bad the day after I bought it, they don't get to refund me for that bad food but also make everything else I ever bought from them disappear from my kitchen. Tech firms doing the equivalent are just exploiting an imbalance of power and a controlling position in their market, not to mention abusing the kind of DRM schemes that allow that sort of control in the first place and the laws underpinning those schemes.
There are good reasons we regulate monopolies in other business contexts. We also regulate services in some important industries even though they aren't monopolies, because competition hasn't proved sufficient to keep the market balanced. As far as I can see, almost exactly the same arguments apply to a lot of modern on-line services today.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair, but given the massive devoted fan base that Steam has who will loudly defend it at every turn, it's going to be very difficult to get Valve to change their strategy and play fair.
Re: (Score:2)
That all sounds perfectly reasonable, except for the part where they completely and dubiously legally cut off a genuine customer from everything they paid for. As far as I'm concerned, they should lose the resulting court case, and as compensation for damages they should have to pay the total price someone would have paid for the entire set of games at the normal current rates since their own system will generally tell you what the market value of those games is.
I'm actually a little surprised that the card
Re: (Score:1)
I've gotten bans from games for doing stuff that was completely legit within the design of a game, such as killing people who were typing, spawn killing, camping and generally being a better player. Instead of getting mad, I just loop crashed their servers at random intervals. If they want to dish out bullshit, then I can return it right back to them.
Re: After I got banned from even playing single-p (Score:5, Insightful)
It had to be more than just some stupid things. Bans like than only come from abusive messages or serious threats. So as a TF2 player, I'm glad you and your little shit of a nephew got banned.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're so concerned about abusive messages that you feel the need to assume the worst, swear at someone, demean their family, and support action that effectively costs them money, despite presumably having no knowledge of the actual situation?
It's a good thing we don't ban people from Slashdot for abusive messages, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. If someone comes to me and complains that they lost their license due to speeding the first reaction is not that they were actually innocent and it's a big misunderstanding.
Likewise here knowing a bit of history the number of cases where people were wrongfully banned from Steam and the ban wasn't quickly resolved is almost nothing, so the smart money is on guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise here knowing a bit of history the number of cases where people were wrongfully banned from Steam and the ban wasn't quickly resolved is almost nothing, so the smart money is on guilty until proven innocent.
What do you know that I don't? As far as I know, there aren't any published figures on this kind of thing from a reliable source, and there have been enough reports of Valve doing obviously inappropriate things that I wouldn't necessarily assume they were in the right as you seem willing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Valve, not a court of law. There is no due process allowed, just one employee pushing a ban button with no appeal. Valve is not a paragon of virtue who should be implicity trusted by thinking they must have had a good reason for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're right. I don't use Steam so I have no personal axe to grind either way. But you have to admit that some things about the OP's situation as they reported it do sound dubious to an impartial outsider.
That pretty much requires some serious levels of threats, like threatening to find and harm someone in the real world. The kind of threat that would get you arrested if you made in person.
If those threats are serious, then why aren't they being reported to the actual police? That sounds like a pretty toxic environment that has gone beyond what any commercial organisation should be trying to control themselves.
Given what I've just told you about the level of abuse required to get banned from a game, go back and re-read the guy's comment : "my nephew said some stupid things in chat". What does that tell you? It says he doesn't think his nephew did anything wrong.
Maybe that is what he thinks. The thing is, maybe he's also right. I don't k
Re: After I got banned from even playing single-pl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially seeing as how TF2 is a free to play game you can get by signing up an account.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, aside from the fact that a lot of the game content - in effect, multiple entire classes, and occasionally even strict upgrades - is only available if you've got the various drops/unlocks. Even if you bought the game, back when it cost money, you may not (in a very real sense, separate from the DRM thing) own the (whole) game if you haven't been playing enough to have the latest gear.
I don't give Valve money anymore. I don't agree with their business practices, and I don't consider convenience an excus
Re: (Score:2)
tf2 isn't pay-to-win. they've done their best, and a decent job of making all individual things side-grades and not pure upgrades. and the drop rate is good enough that you can usually craft any weapon you've gotta have any way.
you do not need to pay additional money to unlock any of the non-cosmetics you're looking for. unless you're classifying the cosmetics as a core part of the experience... in which case i think we're talking two different "games"
the point being, everything is unlockable with minimal
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with his nephew signing up for an account rather than using his account?
I got TF2 with the Orange Box, that doesn't mean it isn't free now.
Re: (Score:2)
Just be glad they still allowed you to play the rest of the games you bought.
This. I can no longer play Half-Life 2 after my nephew said some stupid things in chat in TF2. I paid for the game. I should be allowed to play it!
Don't let other people use your account. That would have solved your particular problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excessive regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno about you, but I like to have at least the minimum protection that the products I buy somewhat resemble what it says on the box, rather than simply being a box full of a picture of a duck in a funny hat. Because fuck you, that's why.
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno about you, but I like to have at least the minimum protection that the products I buy somewhat resemble what it says on the box, rather than simply being a box full of a picture of a duck in a funny hat. Because fuck you, that's why.
If you pre-order you deserve whatever you get, even if it turn out to be the watching paint dry game. I'm still amazed people do that. Otherwise - just read the reviews (not the bought-and-paid-for magazine reviews, of course, the player reviews),.
Still, I do have to wonder if this was an old case. I've gotten Steam refunds twice now "because fuck you, that's why" no problem at all. Is Steam's 2 week / 2 hours gameplay limit too strict for Aussie law? It's certainly worked well for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Steam's 2 week / 2 hours gameplay limit too strict for Aussie law?
I think that's too strict in general. The problem is it's not 2 hours of gameplay, it's 2 hours of having the game open. I might easily spend 2 hours trying to get a buggy game to work. This can be especially problematic with games that use their own download/update system rather than distributing their payload via steam, since Steam would track that time where the launcher is open, downloading the game/updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every refund I've gotten has been for "didn't like it".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the key part in the legislation is the product must be free from manufacturing defects for a "reasonable" length of time, which is interpreted according to the typical lifespan of that type of product, whether you paid more for a premium product, etc. There's no minimum or maximum period specified, but is rarely less than the manufacturer's own warranty period.
Re: (Score:2)
Has to be unfit for sale to be returned under statutory warranty, and "fit for sale" is pretty broad.
The issue with Valve was they advertised that there were no returns for any reasons and didn't include the standard "except statutory warranties" disclaimer.
Re:Excessive regulation (Score:4, Informative)
It has to be as described and do whatever you were led to believe it would do. The term is actually "fit for purpose".
The other issue with valve is refusing to comply with the Australian consumer protection laws - refusing to give refunds for a nonworking product.
Re: (Score:3)
If you drink an entire can of soda, can you return the empty can?
In South Australia, you can. You only get 10c back for the aluminium.
The answer to your question is "no", not for any reason. However, under Australian consumer law, there is no statutory limit on how long after purchase you can seek a remedy (e.g. repair, replace, refund) if it is not of acceptable quality. The only limit is reasonableness, and that depends on the product.
For example, if you buy a new car, and the manufacturer decides to stop making spare parts 15 years later (even if the initial warranty
Re: (Score:2)
If you return the empty can then you aren't returning the product, since the soda inside was the product and the can is simply the packaging.
There is no decent analogy because digital media is fundamentally different, not only could you potentially have completed the game but you could also have made a copy for yourself. That said, consumers still need to be protected - what if the game didn't work or failed to live up to the claims presented prior to sale? Consumers should absolutely have the right to rece
Re: (Score:2)
You can, buying from an offshore vendor bypasses your consumer rights (i'm not even sure you have whatever rights you would have had in the vendor's home country)... This only applies if the vendor has no presence in your country and doesn't market the product in your country, or they do and you intentionally buy from a foreign supplier instead of the local one.
If the vendor has a presence in the country and/or is directing marketing at residents then those people have no reason to believe they wouldn't be
Re: (Score:3)
Further to this, the Australian laws don't automatically apply whenever you buy from somebody overseas, they only apply when the seller is targeting Australians.
Valve are clearly targeting Australians: they charge in $AUD, and they have special cut-down versions of games specifically to comply with Australian laws.
Re: (Score:3)
they charge in $AUD
No, they charge in US$.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected, prices are indeed in USD. Not sure why I thought it was AUD. Maybe I was confused with some other store - it's been over 2 years since I looked at the steam store - I stopped after filing a complaint with the ACCC about their failure to comply with Australian consumer protection laws.
But my other point stands: if they're selling a cut-down version of Left 4 Dead 2 to Australians to comply with our censorship laws, they're targeting Australians.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is valve paying you to post here?
Relatively friendly? They're downright draconian
The post you're replying to said consumer-friendly. Which they are. They're only "Draconian" if you're a dodgy operator.
They force the retailer (not the manufacturer or the importer) to assume all risk for the products sold
No. Because the retailer is also entitled to the same protections.
But even if this were true, a good way to not run afoul of the laws would be to just not sell shit products.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, when you invent future vision so nobody ever sells products that turn out to be crap, let me know.
It's really not that difficult: you test products before you sell them, and you don't overstate your claims about how capable they are. Also, you can look at the number of returns you've had compared with the number you've sold and get a failure rate from that. Based on this, you can make your claims more accurate.
But, again, as a retailer, it's not a big deal, because you can just return the defective products to the manufacturer you bought them from, since you're covered by the same consumer protections.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a batch of foul eggs, would you try to figure out what farm they originally cam
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer deals with the retailer, not directly with the manufacturer, they already have contact with the retailer and it might be difficult for them to contact the manufacturer... This also comes from the days when the retailer was a physical entity based locally to you, while the manufacturer could be anywhere.
Those laws prevent the retailer from passing the buck and washing their hands of any responsibility, and provide (in theory) a local and convenient point of contact for the customer to deal with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is completely unconscionable and ought to get them taken to court, but of course their EULA says you waive your right to sue them. Which itself ought to be illegal, or at least unenforceable, but it's probably been upheld in the USA at least.
Less-corrupt countries, where it's slightly harder for corporations to simply buy a politician's favor, might have better laws here. In my case, I just stopped giving Valve any money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French sold the USA to the USA, which was doubly cheeky because it actually belonged to Spain.
It was Britain's fault, though.