3 ms·
> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. I really wish more companies were
by cornstalks 4y ago
> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges.
I really wish more companies were required to still allow account access after disputing a credit card charge.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI'd like something that broadly prohibited any company that 1) acts as a gatekeeper for any third party services, or 2) offers digital "purchases" from blocking user access to their account without having to first prove overt nefarious actions that disrupt the service. And not some hand-wavy TOS violation, but it should be impossible to block someone more than temporarily without going through some kind of arbitration process. If a company doesn't want to deal with this hassle, don't offer up "Sign in with Google/Apple/Facebook/whatever" (I'm talking about Google/Apple/FB/whatever in this scenario), and don't "sell" digital goods that are hosted online.
- vorpalhex 4y agoYeah, I would like to see where you at least maintain access to your existing (previous) purchases in the case of a dispute. I can understand cutting off a bad actor from making more purchases, but reclaiming their already paid for stuff feels pretty evil.
- ChickenNugger 4y agoThat's because it is evil. Specifically, greed.
- altairprime 4y agoThe FTC’s order can be reasonably interpreted as a warning shot to other US companies, but I’d still like to see “chargebacks may only reverse access to that which the purchase paid for, not to the right to access past and future purchases” enshrined in law.