8 ms·

Valve appeals $2.4M fine as Australian legal battle rages on

bigB 9y ago
Its pretty simple really, Valve just need to get over its god complex and abide by a countries laws. Lets be honest, the Policy in Australia mandates that it must be "fit for purpose" and it pretty fair with its judgement on such things. I know through personal experience that some games state controller support when they dont actually have it, ive got a couple of games which say co-op when its not actually true, I have a VR game which was VR then pulled VR support a month after I got it ( though it was a free to play game so cant complain there). The fact is they have to offer a fair refund policy and in Valves case this would be best to be decided on a case by case basis. All they have to do is state in its current refund policy that it doesn't revoke any users refund rights within their countries laws. Many refund and warranty statements say this and they are perfectly legal. Its not an issue of abuse, its an issue of doing the lawful thing when its the law
- sgift 9y ago
  > Its pretty simple really, Valve just need to get over its god complex and abide by a countries laws. I'd like to sign this and hammer it down for every software company that has customers in more than one country. All this ridiculous discussions about "why should we abide by EU law just because we do business with EU citizens" ... because we are not in a Cyberpunk world, you are not some extra-legal entity which makes their own laws. At least, Australia does something to remind the companies of that. Good for them.
  - tutts 9y ago
    Businesses don't have to abide by EU law when doing business with EU citizens, but when doing business in the EU. It's a small, but sometimes meaningful, distinction.
    - shakna 9y ago
      Check the GDPR. The EU requires certains things of businesses not in the EU, who interact with EU citizens.
      - danieltillett 9y ago
        Even worse it is EU residents and who may or may not be in the EU when they interact with you.
- bdz 9y ago
  "fit for purpose" Does that mean in Australia you can return your iPhone when it slows down?
  - shakna 9y ago
    > If you have a minor problem with a product or service, the business can choose to give you a free repair instead of a replacement or refund. No. But you can get Apple to give you a new battery without charging you for it.
mmanfrin 9y ago
I hope they lose. There is no legitimate argument against Steam having a good refund policy. Strict refund policies for games came around because people could buy a game, copy the disc, then return it. That is explicitly not possible with Steam, their whole system prevents that kind of abuse and so they should have a much more relaxed return policy than they do now.
- xedrac 9y ago
  And what if you buy a Steam game, play it to completion, and decide you didn't like it very much? What if you only played half way through? At what point does it become unreturnable? I tend to agree with you, but it just seems like Steam would need a way to prevent people from abusing the system.
  - lovich 9y ago
    Id say the companys can refund the whole thing or start applying value to the parts of their game which they can refund if they were used. Physical goods dont just stop having user protections if 90% of the item works but the last piece doesnt
  - jph00 9y ago
    The Australian law in question requires refunds be made available if you can show that the product was not "fit for the purpose for which they were sold". It is an entirely reasonable expectation for a purchaser to make of a product, and entirely reasonable that they should receive a refund where that expectation is not met.
    - abiox 9y ago
      i wonder what 'the purpose' of video games are, in the judiciary's eyes. if i didn't like the ending of a game, is it thereby not fit for purpose?
      - chii 9y ago
        whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised. For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund. A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.
abtinf 9y ago
> All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business is based overseas. Does that mean that pretty much all software licenses are illegal in Australia, since most specifically include a phrase stating the software is not fit for any purpose?
- gpm 9y ago
  It likely means that that for sold software that term of the license is void and does nothing. It might, but probably doesn't, void the entire EULA/license. It almost certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that it's perfectly legal to send people contracts that don't do anything because they are legally void. I don't know Australian law, this is just me guessing from the mix of Canadian and American law I am somewhat familiar with (and I am still not a lawyer even there).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mkj 9y ago
  Probably. "Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful" https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_AC...
- rmccue 9y ago
  If the software is free (no cost), I don’t think it would count as a sale. It would apply to paid software though. (It also doesn’t apply if it costs more than $40k though, since that’s no longer a business-to-consumer transaction.)
  - shakna 9y ago
    It wouldn't be a sale anyway, it's a contract, and contracts aren't required to transfer monetary means, only benefits. If the free software includes analytics or automatic bug reporting, then the company has a significant benefit, so the contract is active. Other things may also make such a contract live. However, unfair terms in a contract, such as MIT's no warranty or claim under any circumstances, would simply get ignored. The entire contract isn't void if unfair terms are present, just those terms. I should probably note, the last time I explored this area, the only software licenses I could find that had decent legal terminology where the Creative Commons, everyone else tends to forget to precede broad statements with classifiers like "to the extent permittable by law".
foodislove 9y ago
Most commenters seem not to have read the actual case. This is not about Steam "preventing abuse". The case here is purely about Steam MISLEADING buyers about what their rights are. The law is very specific here. For example, if you buy a game off Steam that says it's compatible with Mac, but turns out not to be, you are entitled to a refund. This case is about the fact that Steam's policies misleading people by saying there are no refunds even though consumer protection law in Australia states so. This is a warning to companies who sell software- don't tell people they don't have rights and protections when they actually do.
- meta_AU 9y ago
  I recently bought some Bose headphones and saw that they had a big booklet of warranty terms and conditions. Then on the front of the booklet it said they none of it was applicable in Australia or New Zealand. I expect this is due to the same "don't mislead the consumer as to their rights" issue.
  - SyneRyder 9y ago
    Bose actually has great customer service in my experience, though. I've had problems with two pairs of QC25s after a year of heavy use (the early models had a bug where one of the earcups would stop working) and on both occasions Bose replaced them for free. The first time was swapped out on the spot in a Bose store, the second time they did it via RMA. The Bose store also told me they have a policy that if you're ever unhappy with the product, even years down the track for any reason, bring them to the store & they will swap them with a new pair for half price. (I realize this means there must be at least 60% markup on the headphones, but I still thought it was a great policy.)
    - mezzode 9y ago
      I've had similarly good experiences with Bose. Had a pair of SoundSport earphones which stopped working after like a year, just went to a store and they replaced it for free. Eventually same thing happened to that pair, and got those replaced for free too.
simion314 9y ago
I had issue with a game that crashed at launch but Steam continued clocking it as running. Other issue is if you buy a game when it is on sale but you do not have time to play it in the 14 days.
jen729w 9y ago
The ACCC is great. They just stung MSY - one of the cheaper components suppliers - $750,000 for misleading signs about consumer rights. If you buy stuff here, you’re protected pretty well. As a consumer, I think that’s terrific. For example, a friend bought a hard drive from one of MSY’s competitors. Very shortly afterwards, it failed. The law says he’s entitled to a replacement from the shop that sold it to him, but they refused and claimed that it had to be sent back to the manufacturer. From a consumer’s perspective, that’s ridiculous: you just sold me a thing, and it doesn’t work! I don’t want a repair, I want a thing that works. The shop he got that from - Scorptec - used to have similar signs to MSY. We checked last week. They’re gone. ACCC notice: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/msy-technology-ordered-to-pay-penalties-of-750000-for-consumer-guarantee-misrepresentations https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/msy-technology-ordered... MSY home page with court-ordered notice, as of 25/01/18: http://www.msy.com.au/home.php http://www.msy.com.au/home.php
- ianhowson 9y ago
  Unless you're buying food, electricity, superannuation, health insurance, a mortgage, mobile phone service, Internet service, streaming TV, news media, cars or housing. For some reason the ACCC can't find evidence of anticompetitive behaviour in those industries.
  - markwakeford 9y ago
    rekt!
  - bigB 9y ago
    While they are not as good as they could be, there have been many cases awarded against Telcos, ISP's, Banks and Energy providers. It can only operate within our laws though so I do agree they could be given more powers, but only a decent government can do that, sadly which we havent had for a long time now.
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
Does that mean- if i have a chip, which gets speed reduced by 30 % via patch, that i can return it under australian consumer law?
- jazoom 9y ago
  Haha. Oh dear. I can't think of a good reason why not, according to Australian Consumer Law. That's interesting.
- imtringued 9y ago
  If the vendor explicitly promised you 30% more performance then yes. Except I doubt that intel releases raw benchmark scores or explicitly tells you the baseline they compare against. So in practice no.
- shakna 9y ago
  This may be one of the reasons Intel is trying so hard to ensure (through shoddy software design) that such a patch would not be active during benchmarks, so they could hide behind such a statement being harder to prove.

bigB 9y ago

Its pretty simple really, Valve just need to get over its god complex and abide by a countries laws. Lets be honest, the Policy in Australia mandates that it must be "fit for purpose" and it pretty fair with its judgement on such things. I know through personal experience that some games state controller support when they dont actually have it, ive got a couple of games which say co-op when its not actually true, I have a VR game which was VR then pulled VR support a month after I got it ( though it was a free to play game so cant complain there). The fact is they have to offer a fair refund policy and in Valves case this would be best to be decided on a case by case basis. All they have to do is state in its current refund policy that it doesn't revoke any users refund rights within their countries laws. Many refund and warranty statements say this and they are perfectly legal. Its not an issue of abuse, its an issue of doing the lawful thing when its the law

sgift 9y ago
> Its pretty simple really, Valve just need to get over its god complex and abide by a countries laws. I'd like to sign this and hammer it down for every software company that has customers in more than one country. All this ridiculous discussions about "why should we abide by EU law just because we do business with EU citizens" ... because we are not in a Cyberpunk world, you are not some extra-legal entity which makes their own laws. At least, Australia does something to remind the companies of that. Good for them.
- tutts 9y ago
  Businesses don't have to abide by EU law when doing business with EU citizens, but when doing business in the EU. It's a small, but sometimes meaningful, distinction.
  - shakna 9y ago
    Check the GDPR. The EU requires certains things of businesses not in the EU, who interact with EU citizens.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Even worse it is EU residents and who may or may not be in the EU when they interact with you.
bdz 9y ago
"fit for purpose" Does that mean in Australia you can return your iPhone when it slows down?
- shakna 9y ago
  > If you have a minor problem with a product or service, the business can choose to give you a free repair instead of a replacement or refund. No. But you can get Apple to give you a new battery without charging you for it.

mmanfrin 9y ago

I hope they lose. There is no legitimate argument against Steam having a good refund policy. Strict refund policies for games came around because people could buy a game, copy the disc, then return it. That is explicitly not possible with Steam, their whole system prevents that kind of abuse and so they should have a much more relaxed return policy than they do now.

xedrac 9y ago
And what if you buy a Steam game, play it to completion, and decide you didn't like it very much? What if you only played half way through? At what point does it become unreturnable? I tend to agree with you, but it just seems like Steam would need a way to prevent people from abusing the system.
- lovich 9y ago
  Id say the companys can refund the whole thing or start applying value to the parts of their game which they can refund if they were used. Physical goods dont just stop having user protections if 90% of the item works but the last piece doesnt
- jph00 9y ago
  The Australian law in question requires refunds be made available if you can show that the product was not "fit for the purpose for which they were sold". It is an entirely reasonable expectation for a purchaser to make of a product, and entirely reasonable that they should receive a refund where that expectation is not met.
  - abiox 9y ago
    i wonder what 'the purpose' of video games are, in the judiciary's eyes. if i didn't like the ending of a game, is it thereby not fit for purpose?
    - chii 9y ago
      whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised. For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund. A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.

abtinf 9y ago

> All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business is based overseas. Does that mean that pretty much all software licenses are illegal in Australia, since most specifically include a phrase stating the software is not fit for any purpose?

gpm 9y ago
It likely means that that for sold software that term of the license is void and does nothing. It might, but probably doesn't, void the entire EULA/license. It almost certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that it's perfectly legal to send people contracts that don't do anything because they are legally void. I don't know Australian law, this is just me guessing from the mix of Canadian and American law I am somewhat familiar with (and I am still not a lawyer even there).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mkj 9y ago
Probably. "Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful" https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_AC...
rmccue 9y ago
If the software is free (no cost), I don’t think it would count as a sale. It would apply to paid software though. (It also doesn’t apply if it costs more than $40k though, since that’s no longer a business-to-consumer transaction.)
- shakna 9y ago
  It wouldn't be a sale anyway, it's a contract, and contracts aren't required to transfer monetary means, only benefits. If the free software includes analytics or automatic bug reporting, then the company has a significant benefit, so the contract is active. Other things may also make such a contract live. However, unfair terms in a contract, such as MIT's no warranty or claim under any circumstances, would simply get ignored. The entire contract isn't void if unfair terms are present, just those terms. I should probably note, the last time I explored this area, the only software licenses I could find that had decent legal terminology where the Creative Commons, everyone else tends to forget to precede broad statements with classifiers like "to the extent permittable by law".

foodislove 9y ago

Most commenters seem not to have read the actual case. This is not about Steam "preventing abuse". The case here is purely about Steam MISLEADING buyers about what their rights are. The law is very specific here. For example, if you buy a game off Steam that says it's compatible with Mac, but turns out not to be, you are entitled to a refund. This case is about the fact that Steam's policies misleading people by saying there are no refunds even though consumer protection law in Australia states so. This is a warning to companies who sell software- don't tell people they don't have rights and protections when they actually do.

meta_AU 9y ago
I recently bought some Bose headphones and saw that they had a big booklet of warranty terms and conditions. Then on the front of the booklet it said they none of it was applicable in Australia or New Zealand. I expect this is due to the same "don't mislead the consumer as to their rights" issue.
- SyneRyder 9y ago
  Bose actually has great customer service in my experience, though. I've had problems with two pairs of QC25s after a year of heavy use (the early models had a bug where one of the earcups would stop working) and on both occasions Bose replaced them for free. The first time was swapped out on the spot in a Bose store, the second time they did it via RMA. The Bose store also told me they have a policy that if you're ever unhappy with the product, even years down the track for any reason, bring them to the store & they will swap them with a new pair for half price. (I realize this means there must be at least 60% markup on the headphones, but I still thought it was a great policy.)
  - mezzode 9y ago
    I've had similarly good experiences with Bose. Had a pair of SoundSport earphones which stopped working after like a year, just went to a store and they replaced it for free. Eventually same thing happened to that pair, and got those replaced for free too.

simion314 9y ago

I had issue with a game that crashed at launch but Steam continued clocking it as running. Other issue is if you buy a game when it is on sale but you do not have time to play it in the 14 days.

jen729w 9y ago

The ACCC is great. They just stung MSY - one of the cheaper components suppliers - $750,000 for misleading signs about consumer rights. If you buy stuff here, you’re protected pretty well. As a consumer, I think that’s terrific. For example, a friend bought a hard drive from one of MSY’s competitors. Very shortly afterwards, it failed. The law says he’s entitled to a replacement from the shop that sold it to him, but they refused and claimed that it had to be sent back to the manufacturer. From a consumer’s perspective, that’s ridiculous: you just sold me a thing, and it doesn’t work! I don’t want a repair, I want a thing that works. The shop he got that from - Scorptec - used to have similar signs to MSY. We checked last week. They’re gone. ACCC notice: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/msy-technology-ordered-to-pay-penalties-of-750000-for-consumer-guarantee-misrepresentations https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/msy-technology-ordered... MSY home page with court-ordered notice, as of 25/01/18: http://www.msy.com.au/home.php http://www.msy.com.au/home.php

ianhowson 9y ago
Unless you're buying food, electricity, superannuation, health insurance, a mortgage, mobile phone service, Internet service, streaming TV, news media, cars or housing. For some reason the ACCC can't find evidence of anticompetitive behaviour in those industries.
- markwakeford 9y ago
  rekt!
- bigB 9y ago
  While they are not as good as they could be, there have been many cases awarded against Telcos, ISP's, Banks and Energy providers. It can only operate within our laws though so I do agree they could be given more powers, but only a decent government can do that, sadly which we havent had for a long time now.

WillReplyfFood 9y ago

Does that mean- if i have a chip, which gets speed reduced by 30 % via patch, that i can return it under australian consumer law?

jazoom 9y ago
Haha. Oh dear. I can't think of a good reason why not, according to Australian Consumer Law. That's interesting.
imtringued 9y ago
If the vendor explicitly promised you 30% more performance then yes. Except I doubt that intel releases raw benchmark scores or explicitly tells you the baseline they compare against. So in practice no.
shakna 9y ago
This may be one of the reasons Intel is trying so hard to ensure (through shoddy software design) that such a patch would not be active during benchmarks, so they could hide behind such a statement being harder to prove.