17 ms·

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people realize. This is very common in many tech companies like Uber/Doordash/Sony/etc. where if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. It would be amazing if this starts to end this practice, and you can actually have authority to get your money back from your credit card and not be penalized by the service for it when they refuse to actually help.

Kiro 4y ago
Why would you chargeback in Fortnite instead of just refunding? The only reasons I can think of are fraudulent ones.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with the Fortnite cash shop, but do they refund hard currency or just "points"/ fun bucks?
  - elpool2 4y ago
    If you purchased something in-game with "v-bucks" then you can get your v-bucks back if you still haven't actually used the item in a game yet, or if it was purchased in the last 30 days (up to 3 times). They don't usually refund actual money, as far as I can tell.
    - account42 4y ago
      So effectively they don't provide refunds at all? Non-withdrawable store credit should probably be illegal too.
      - Falkon1313 4y ago
        V-bucks aren't really store credit though. They're non-refundable and it makes sense because you can also get them through in-game actions. Maybe an 'Oops! I didn't mean to do that.' undo button immediately after buying some. But it would be better just to make the checkout process explicit like they do on PC.
        account42 4y ago
        I'm sure they can manage to track which fakebux you paid for and which ones they gifted you. The is zero consumer benefit to having intermediate currrencies that cannot be be changed back into real money. It's entirely a dark pattern used to make you spend more by obscuring costs and generating leftover amounts that you can't really use without inserting more cash.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bluetidepro 4y ago
  I take it you have never tried to use the support system of many of these services? Yeah, you may sometimes get a good rep that will actually help you and refund you. More often times than not you are forced to jump through massive hoops, auto replies, no help, etc. to the point that you have to do a chargeback. Also, chargebacks are not always a guarantee, VISA (or whoever) does their own investigation to make sure you're in the right, so you would only likely go that route when you're confident that the service is in the wrong.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    I refund routinely on Steam. The only times it doesn't work is if I've played more than 2 hours which seems fair. I don't see why I would be entitled to making a chargeback after I've played the game for that long. That would be like renting a movie, watch it and then make a chargeback.
    - jabroni_salad 4y ago
      > Why would you chargeback in Fortnite instead of just refunding? It's really cool that Steam has a working refund system but I'm not sure it helps with the explanation of why refunding on Epic is an insurmountable challenge.
    - bluetidepro 4y ago
      You're missing the point. The point being there is plenty of use cases that are not fraudulent ones.
    - piperswe 4y ago
      Steam will even still give you refunds after 2 hours if you have a reason that convinces the customer service rep (e.g. performance or compatibility issues that you spent 3 hours running the game trying to fix)
      - account42 4y ago
        I hope you are not trying to suggest that something Steam should be commended for rather than just the bare minimum. If the product being defective only becomes apparent after two hours then the product is still defective.
- LanceH 4y ago
  They weren't getting refunded because kids were genuinely using their parents' credit cards. Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally. Just so we are on the same page, is the issue that they are not calling the police and saying "my kid has used my creditcard, could you prosecute them for fraud?"
    - LanceH 4y ago
      That's what's really happening, right? Parents have handed over their credit cards and are having some misgivings about the purchases their children are making. Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions. > The company also made it easy for children to make purchases while playing Fortnite without requiring any parental consent. So the kids had their parent's credit card on file for a free to play game and this is Epic's fault? Wouldn't having their credit card on file to buy anything they want be consent at some level? The same level of consent as any other online shop? The only reason for the settlement is that this is one of those "cost of doing business" fines for Epic. They are out of this for a relatively small amount of money, and the FTC gets a "win" out of it. Oh, so yes to your question.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions Exactly, thats why you are not allowed to sell them alcohol, drugs and worst of all, financial products like loans. > That's what's really happening, right? Parents have handed over their credit cards and are having some misgivings about the purchases their children are making Children below age of criminal responsibility can't be prosecuted. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
This order doesn't broadly apply beyond Epic. It seems to me that they're blocking Epic from locking accounts specifically because of the dark patterns they used to get users to accidentally spend money. I doubt this would be applied to other companies unless they also found those companies used confusing UIs to get people to pay. Which is still good news nonetheless, as the main issue for me is all these dark patterns in the first place.
- bluetidepro 4y ago
  You could be right, but at least it start to set some sort of tone to this practice, even if it's not the final nail in the coffin for ending it.
xahrepap 4y ago
I wonder if CC companies have a way of punishing companies for this. At least in my circles, the sense of security from having charge-backs is a huge reason a lot of people even use CCs. If Visa told Uber/Epic/etc "you can't use our network if you're going to undermine our features". Though it would smell a bit like a giant squashing ants... anti-trust and all that. :/ So maybe government getting a handle on Dark Patterns is the best way to do things.
- wobblykiwi 4y ago
  They kind of did, see #46 here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1923203EpicGamesComplaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1923203EpicGame...
- jdquey 4y ago
  > I wonder if CC companies have a way of punishing companies for this. Yes, if they get enough people doing chargebacks. The challenge is most of these big co's seem to be in the "too big to punish" camp. This is both you need a large amount of chargebacks and perhaps they may not want to fire the companies (though this is speculative). > At least in my circles, the sense of security from having charge-backs is a huge reason a lot of people even use CCs. I'm with you that this is still important and valuable because many companies don't blacklist you. Furthermore I'd rather have that protection and testing a service which could be no service than no service at all.
  - everforward 4y ago
    I wouldn't expect them to drop the company as a client; I don't think that really serves anyone. My suggestion would be to levy higher transaction fees on the business, and provide refunds to customers out of that. If a company is going to ban users for filing chargebacks, raise their transaction fees by 0.5% or 1% and have the CC company issue refunds themselves out of that pool. At the end of the day, it's really a problem for the government to solve, though. Companies being able to get away with such blatantly anti-consumer policies is indicative of a substantial distortion in the market. I don't think this is something that would happen if there were robust competition in the market.
ceejayoz 4y ago
I'd love to see this formalized as a rule/right. I essentially can't file a chargeback against Amazon or Steam, ever, because of the likely repercussions to the rest of my libraries there.
- vuln 4y ago
  > my libraries You may have curated but you do not own your library. You purchased _access_ to said library.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    My understanding of that semantic distinction (one virtually everyone on HN holds, I'd wager) is quite clear from context, I think, or I wouldn't be worried about the scenario.
  - MagicMoonlight 4y ago
    “You purchased access to your house, you do not own it. Move along citizen.”
    - gnaritas99 4y ago
      [dead]
paulmd 4y ago
Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't charge me for it. It should really be a blanket rule against revoking access to previously purchased items in any form. If I get hacked and the perp buys something on my amazon account, I shouldn't lose access to music I've purchased etc. And as someone else notes - this also is a problem with Google revoking your account (or losing access to it) and then losing access to other services that auth against Google single-sign-on.
- hunter2_ 4y ago
  > music I've purchased They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination." If they simply used a word better suited to the reality of the situation, then it wouldn't be a surprise that the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for. Maybe something like "micro-upgrade [my account]." Obviously eliminating that dependency is even better, but baby steps.
  - sirmarksalot 4y ago
    The bigger issue is that because of the market power of these digital storefronts, it doesn't matter what your mental model of the transaction is, you don't have a choice in the matter. Yes, online stores with better terms exist, but they don't tend to have the games that you'd want to buy. I always get a warm feeling when a game I'm interested in has an itch.io link, but I'm not gonna delude myself into thinking it'll ever replace Steam, even if Steam had to stop calling itself a store. Steam is just far too established, and the network effect is just way too strong.
    - cwkoss 4y ago
      I think a lot of platforms would change the terms of their digital products if they could not use the term "Buy" otherwise.
Ekaros 4y ago
I think it is reasonable. On other side the companies should then be able to sue you and you need to prove that charge was fraudulent. If you fail, you will carry full costs of both sides. Thus cutting down the fraud by chargebacks.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > On other side the companies should then be able to sue you Companies can sue you for false, damaging claims you make, or failure to complete your end of a contractual arrangement. > and you need to prove that charge was fraudulent Well, no, the initial burden of proof should remain on the entity seeking a remedy, but civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) means that that initial burden is not hard to meet.
- indymike 4y ago
  This is really how the system works in most places. If a chargeback result is unjust, the merchant can sue. In most places court costs and attorney fees are awarded to the winner. Most of the time, merchants just assign the account to a collection agency after 90 days and hope for something.
JohnFen 4y ago
> if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. Although, to be honest, if a problem has deteriorated to the point where I need to do a chargeback, I've already written off doing any further business with that company anyway.
- bluetidepro 4y ago
  Yes and no. Sometimes it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash where it could be at the fault of one bad apple and not the company at a whole. Or as others said, sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive library of content if you get blacklisted like on Steam or Amazon, for example.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner. If the company doesn't make something right, that's on the company in the end regardless of who specifically did something wrong. So it doesn't look gray to me. > sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive library of content True, and that's a tough spot. Personally, that risk is why I never use a service that can put me in that sort of position. But I do understand that others may be willing to take this risk. It's still a risk, though, and I expect that the people who choose these sorts of services are aware of that and accept that they might lose.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner. Companies like Uber claim that the people are self employed when it suits them, and that they are not when it doesn't.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        True, but I'm saying that the employment status of them isn't relevant. It's a "buck stops here" situation. If people are working under their banner, regardless of whether those people are contractors, employees, volunteers, whatever, then in the end the company is responsible for what they do.
criley2 4y ago
I don't think this concept will fly broadly in America, it violates the way the American constitution sets up private vs public. Forcing private businesses to do businesses with the public without discrimination is only allowed in certain cases. Are you open to the public, providing an important service? (Like taxi, hotel, etc?) Then you cannot discriminate. Are you not-essential, with limited rules based membership? Then you can discriminate. In this case, telling a private business they are forced to entertain customers who have robbed them, it's outrageous. And while I understand that chargebacks CAN be legitimate, they also CAN and often are illegitimate. When I worked in small business computer repair, we literally got out of the business of selling expensive machines because more than half of all orders were fraudulent and were charge backed with zero recourse -- we lose the machine, we lose the money. We lost an incredible sum of money to thieves this way, and so being told we are forced to do business with them would have destroyed our business. If you wanted to create a new class of online public service like Twitter and Google and increase regulation on them as one might do hotels, that's one thing. But a blanket requirement that all businesses must entertain customers who chargeback is a nonstarter, imo.
- SkyBelow 4y ago
  The problem is that the businesses have made customer's ability to access their previous purchases dependent upon continuing to have a business relationship with the account. If, when closing the account, the business paid back full value for everything they were removing access to, the ruling might be different. But they aren't doing that. If you are a business doing more normal business, selling something with no sort of required subscription, something the customer does not depend upon you for, then you are still free to stop doing business with them (minus a few cases related to protected classes).
  - lancesells 4y ago
    It might be even easier than being paid back full value (which is difficult). How about you still have your account but you can no longer purchase anything else?
    - 4y ago
afterburner 4y ago
This is just common in general. Nobody that you chargeback is going to want your business again. It's just that tech companies usually hold something you want (your account) effectively hostage, whereas a restaurant or whatever you can just stop going to. This does make it worse.
- SkyPuncher 4y ago
  That’s fine for a hotel, but it’s not fine for services where you also loose access to your inventory.
  - gnaritas99 4y ago
    [dead]
- luckylion 4y ago
  We could regulate that: if you want to close the account (and thus withdraw all the bought items), refund all the money they paid for it.
  - afterburner 4y ago
    That won't work for something like Steam. It would mean you got unlimited games for free.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      That's why it's a great deterrent against punitive account closures. Right now, you pay 100% and get 0%. In that case, you'd get 100% of what you currently have on your PC, but pay 0%. There's a compromise: they stop accepting any new business from you, but keep everything you've bought available: you pay 100%, you get 100%. It's what they should do, but they don't want to, because the current situation gives them a lot of power. Hence a new regulation that tips the scales in the other direction to make Steam & co adopt a reasonable stance. The alternative would be to flat out force them to provide access indefinitely, but why not give them a chance to buy you out of your account if they really don't want to do business with you?
pjmlp 4y ago
I wonder how they manage that on countries that have proper consumer rights government agencies.
camhart 4y ago
There is the business side of this to consider. Disputes are expensive--companies are forced to pay significant fees whether they win or lose the dispute. A dishonest customer lying to their bank about your product/service should be able to be banned from using your product/service. Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? To be clear, I'm talking about a different case, where the customer doesn't reach out for help, and doesn't give you an opportunity to correct the problem (which most banks ask them to do first but they just lie about it). With my business, this is the case for 9 out of every 10 disputes (and I have a very low dispute rate). The other 1 time is they just mistakingly reported it as a dispute because they didn't recognize it, but after you reach out they correct it with their bank (but guess what, you still have to pay the dispute fee when that happens). When your SAAS product costs $5 / month, and the dispute fees are $15 / dispute or more, and customers go back and file disputes on the previous X months of charges, and they never give you a chance to make it right, it becomes a problem worth banning them over.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  > Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? Their bank?
  - camhart 4y ago
    The bank profits from it... no incentive on the banks part to stop it.
    - naniwaduni 4y ago
      What part of a chargeback do you think is profitable for the bank?
      - camhart 4y ago
        My understanding is the dispute fee goes mostly to the bank.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Banning users who charge back is standard practice on all video game stores. They equate it to fraud in their terms of service. Imagine having an account worth thousands of dollars and losing everything because you decided to exercise your rights. I'm so happy to see authorities are finally doing something about this abuse.
- smugma 4y ago
  Does Apple App Store do this?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Absolutely. Check out this document for example: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term... > All Transactions are final. Purchased something by mistake? Tough. > If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple. Unhappy? Your only recourse is to beg Apple for your money back. They may say no. > From time to time, Apple may suspend or cancel payment or refuse a refund request if we find evidence of fraud, abuse, or unlawful or other manipulative behavior that entitles Apple to a corresponding counterclaim. These corporations think charge backs are evidence of abuse and fraud, so yeah. > c. Termination. This Standard EULA is effective until terminated by you or Licensor. Your rights under this Standard EULA will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with any of its terms. Your fraudulent chargebacks are reason enough for them to kill your account, invalidating every dime you ever spent on it. There's no point in even reading these silly documents. They're all the same, everywhere. Always assume they do this.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
smugma 4y ago
Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft/XBox and Google do this. It's not relevant to Netflix. Does Apple also do this?
AussieWog93 4y ago
I run an ecommerce business, and pretty much always always block customers who file a chargeback or dispute. They're completely draining to deal with, usually fraudulent, and the only way to win one is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the buyer is lying.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  We do this too, but also, if someone asks for a refund, pretty much regardless of circumstances, we issue a refund. So the only excuse turns into "I felt like being a dick" or it was actual fraud anyways.
varispeed 4y ago
This is also why I never pursued any GDPR complaints out of fear that I will be locked out of my account. When I told about my issue to ICO, they basically gave advice to use different service... that's it. There should be some sort of legal protection that if you want to exercise your rights, company shouldn't be allowed to cut you out for doing so.
xyzelement 4y ago
Can you help me make sure I follow this right. You do a charge back in cases where you can't reach an agreeable resolution with the company, right. Presumably that's the end of the relationship - you claw your money back via the CC and say good bye to the company. What's the argument for being able to charge back but then wanting to (and the company being forced to, as I think you are suggesting) doing business with each other? I suspect I am missing something.
- akira2501 4y ago
  The lack of any other viable means of customer support seems to be the issue. The only way to manage these problems is the use of the app, and these companies can definitely make usage of the app and the ability to hail a ride separate. Or they can provide better customer service, or an alternative mechanism for people to resolve any ongoing issues they've created.
jhanschoo 4y ago
Note of course that these are the terms of a settlement, and I don't think this has any legal implications on digital licensing and identity management.

Kiro 4y ago

Why would you chargeback in Fortnite instead of just refunding? The only reasons I can think of are fraudulent ones.

cool_dude85 4y ago
I'm not familiar with the Fortnite cash shop, but do they refund hard currency or just "points"/ fun bucks?
- elpool2 4y ago
  If you purchased something in-game with "v-bucks" then you can get your v-bucks back if you still haven't actually used the item in a game yet, or if it was purchased in the last 30 days (up to 3 times). They don't usually refund actual money, as far as I can tell.
  - account42 4y ago
    So effectively they don't provide refunds at all? Non-withdrawable store credit should probably be illegal too.
    - Falkon1313 4y ago
      V-bucks aren't really store credit though. They're non-refundable and it makes sense because you can also get them through in-game actions. Maybe an 'Oops! I didn't mean to do that.' undo button immediately after buying some. But it would be better just to make the checkout process explicit like they do on PC.
      - account42 4y ago
        I'm sure they can manage to track which fakebux you paid for and which ones they gifted you. The is zero consumer benefit to having intermediate currrencies that cannot be be changed back into real money. It's entirely a dark pattern used to make you spend more by obscuring costs and generating leftover amounts that you can't really use without inserting more cash.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bluetidepro 4y ago
I take it you have never tried to use the support system of many of these services? Yeah, you may sometimes get a good rep that will actually help you and refund you. More often times than not you are forced to jump through massive hoops, auto replies, no help, etc. to the point that you have to do a chargeback. Also, chargebacks are not always a guarantee, VISA (or whoever) does their own investigation to make sure you're in the right, so you would only likely go that route when you're confident that the service is in the wrong.
- Kiro 4y ago
  I refund routinely on Steam. The only times it doesn't work is if I've played more than 2 hours which seems fair. I don't see why I would be entitled to making a chargeback after I've played the game for that long. That would be like renting a movie, watch it and then make a chargeback.
  - jabroni_salad 4y ago
    > Why would you chargeback in Fortnite instead of just refunding? It's really cool that Steam has a working refund system but I'm not sure it helps with the explanation of why refunding on Epic is an insurmountable challenge.
  - bluetidepro 4y ago
    You're missing the point. The point being there is plenty of use cases that are not fraudulent ones.
  - piperswe 4y ago
    Steam will even still give you refunds after 2 hours if you have a reason that convinces the customer service rep (e.g. performance or compatibility issues that you spent 3 hours running the game trying to fix)
    - account42 4y ago
      I hope you are not trying to suggest that something Steam should be commended for rather than just the bare minimum. If the product being defective only becomes apparent after two hours then the product is still defective.
LanceH 4y ago
They weren't getting refunded because kids were genuinely using their parents' credit cards. Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally. Just so we are on the same page, is the issue that they are not calling the police and saying "my kid has used my creditcard, could you prosecute them for fraud?"
  - LanceH 4y ago
    That's what's really happening, right? Parents have handed over their credit cards and are having some misgivings about the purchases their children are making. Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions. > The company also made it easy for children to make purchases while playing Fortnite without requiring any parental consent. So the kids had their parent's credit card on file for a free to play game and this is Epic's fault? Wouldn't having their credit card on file to buy anything they want be consent at some level? The same level of consent as any other online shop? The only reason for the settlement is that this is one of those "cost of doing business" fines for Epic. They are out of this for a relatively small amount of money, and the FTC gets a "win" out of it. Oh, so yes to your question.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Have you met children? They don't need dark patterns to make bad decisions Exactly, thats why you are not allowed to sell them alcohol, drugs and worst of all, financial products like loans. > That's what's really happening, right? Parents have handed over their credit cards and are having some misgivings about the purchases their children are making Children below age of criminal responsibility can't be prosecuted. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

This order doesn't broadly apply beyond Epic. It seems to me that they're blocking Epic from locking accounts specifically because of the dark patterns they used to get users to accidentally spend money. I doubt this would be applied to other companies unless they also found those companies used confusing UIs to get people to pay. Which is still good news nonetheless, as the main issue for me is all these dark patterns in the first place.

bluetidepro 4y ago
You could be right, but at least it start to set some sort of tone to this practice, even if it's not the final nail in the coffin for ending it.

xahrepap 4y ago

I wonder if CC companies have a way of punishing companies for this. At least in my circles, the sense of security from having charge-backs is a huge reason a lot of people even use CCs. If Visa told Uber/Epic/etc "you can't use our network if you're going to undermine our features". Though it would smell a bit like a giant squashing ants... anti-trust and all that. :/ So maybe government getting a handle on Dark Patterns is the best way to do things.

wobblykiwi 4y ago
They kind of did, see #46 here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1923203EpicGamesComplaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1923203EpicGame...
jdquey 4y ago
> I wonder if CC companies have a way of punishing companies for this. Yes, if they get enough people doing chargebacks. The challenge is most of these big co's seem to be in the "too big to punish" camp. This is both you need a large amount of chargebacks and perhaps they may not want to fire the companies (though this is speculative). > At least in my circles, the sense of security from having charge-backs is a huge reason a lot of people even use CCs. I'm with you that this is still important and valuable because many companies don't blacklist you. Furthermore I'd rather have that protection and testing a service which could be no service than no service at all.
- everforward 4y ago
  I wouldn't expect them to drop the company as a client; I don't think that really serves anyone. My suggestion would be to levy higher transaction fees on the business, and provide refunds to customers out of that. If a company is going to ban users for filing chargebacks, raise their transaction fees by 0.5% or 1% and have the CC company issue refunds themselves out of that pool. At the end of the day, it's really a problem for the government to solve, though. Companies being able to get away with such blatantly anti-consumer policies is indicative of a substantial distortion in the market. I don't think this is something that would happen if there were robust competition in the market.

ceejayoz 4y ago

I'd love to see this formalized as a rule/right. I essentially can't file a chargeback against Amazon or Steam, ever, because of the likely repercussions to the rest of my libraries there.

vuln 4y ago
> my libraries You may have curated but you do not own your library. You purchased _access_ to said library.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  My understanding of that semantic distinction (one virtually everyone on HN holds, I'd wager) is quite clear from context, I think, or I wouldn't be worried about the scenario.
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  “You purchased access to your house, you do not own it. Move along citizen.”
  - gnaritas99 4y ago
    [dead]

paulmd 4y ago

Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't charge me for it. It should really be a blanket rule against revoking access to previously purchased items in any form. If I get hacked and the perp buys something on my amazon account, I shouldn't lose access to music I've purchased etc. And as someone else notes - this also is a problem with Google revoking your account (or losing access to it) and then losing access to other services that auth against Google single-sign-on.

hunter2_ 4y ago
> music I've purchased They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination." If they simply used a word better suited to the reality of the situation, then it wouldn't be a surprise that the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for. Maybe something like "micro-upgrade [my account]." Obviously eliminating that dependency is even better, but baby steps.
- sirmarksalot 4y ago
  The bigger issue is that because of the market power of these digital storefronts, it doesn't matter what your mental model of the transaction is, you don't have a choice in the matter. Yes, online stores with better terms exist, but they don't tend to have the games that you'd want to buy. I always get a warm feeling when a game I'm interested in has an itch.io link, but I'm not gonna delude myself into thinking it'll ever replace Steam, even if Steam had to stop calling itself a store. Steam is just far too established, and the network effect is just way too strong.
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    I think a lot of platforms would change the terms of their digital products if they could not use the term "Buy" otherwise.

Ekaros 4y ago

I think it is reasonable. On other side the companies should then be able to sue you and you need to prove that charge was fraudulent. If you fail, you will carry full costs of both sides. Thus cutting down the fraud by chargebacks.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> On other side the companies should then be able to sue you Companies can sue you for false, damaging claims you make, or failure to complete your end of a contractual arrangement. > and you need to prove that charge was fraudulent Well, no, the initial burden of proof should remain on the entity seeking a remedy, but civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) means that that initial burden is not hard to meet.
indymike 4y ago
This is really how the system works in most places. If a chargeback result is unjust, the merchant can sue. In most places court costs and attorney fees are awarded to the winner. Most of the time, merchants just assign the account to a collection agency after 90 days and hope for something.

JohnFen 4y ago

> if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. Although, to be honest, if a problem has deteriorated to the point where I need to do a chargeback, I've already written off doing any further business with that company anyway.

bluetidepro 4y ago
Yes and no. Sometimes it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash where it could be at the fault of one bad apple and not the company at a whole. Or as others said, sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive library of content if you get blacklisted like on Steam or Amazon, for example.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner. If the company doesn't make something right, that's on the company in the end regardless of who specifically did something wrong. So it doesn't look gray to me. > sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive library of content True, and that's a tough spot. Personally, that risk is why I never use a service that can put me in that sort of position. But I do understand that others may be willing to take this risk. It's still a risk, though, and I expect that the people who choose these sorts of services are aware of that and accept that they might lose.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner. Companies like Uber claim that the people are self employed when it suits them, and that they are not when it doesn't.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      True, but I'm saying that the employment status of them isn't relevant. It's a "buck stops here" situation. If people are working under their banner, regardless of whether those people are contractors, employees, volunteers, whatever, then in the end the company is responsible for what they do.

criley2 4y ago

I don't think this concept will fly broadly in America, it violates the way the American constitution sets up private vs public. Forcing private businesses to do businesses with the public without discrimination is only allowed in certain cases. Are you open to the public, providing an important service? (Like taxi, hotel, etc?) Then you cannot discriminate. Are you not-essential, with limited rules based membership? Then you can discriminate. In this case, telling a private business they are forced to entertain customers who have robbed them, it's outrageous. And while I understand that chargebacks CAN be legitimate, they also CAN and often are illegitimate. When I worked in small business computer repair, we literally got out of the business of selling expensive machines because more than half of all orders were fraudulent and were charge backed with zero recourse -- we lose the machine, we lose the money. We lost an incredible sum of money to thieves this way, and so being told we are forced to do business with them would have destroyed our business. If you wanted to create a new class of online public service like Twitter and Google and increase regulation on them as one might do hotels, that's one thing. But a blanket requirement that all businesses must entertain customers who chargeback is a nonstarter, imo.

SkyBelow 4y ago
The problem is that the businesses have made customer's ability to access their previous purchases dependent upon continuing to have a business relationship with the account. If, when closing the account, the business paid back full value for everything they were removing access to, the ruling might be different. But they aren't doing that. If you are a business doing more normal business, selling something with no sort of required subscription, something the customer does not depend upon you for, then you are still free to stop doing business with them (minus a few cases related to protected classes).
- lancesells 4y ago
  It might be even easier than being paid back full value (which is difficult). How about you still have your account but you can no longer purchase anything else?
  - 4y ago

afterburner 4y ago

This is just common in general. Nobody that you chargeback is going to want your business again. It's just that tech companies usually hold something you want (your account) effectively hostage, whereas a restaurant or whatever you can just stop going to. This does make it worse.

SkyPuncher 4y ago
That’s fine for a hotel, but it’s not fine for services where you also loose access to your inventory.
- gnaritas99 4y ago
  [dead]
luckylion 4y ago
We could regulate that: if you want to close the account (and thus withdraw all the bought items), refund all the money they paid for it.
- afterburner 4y ago
  That won't work for something like Steam. It would mean you got unlimited games for free.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    That's why it's a great deterrent against punitive account closures. Right now, you pay 100% and get 0%. In that case, you'd get 100% of what you currently have on your PC, but pay 0%. There's a compromise: they stop accepting any new business from you, but keep everything you've bought available: you pay 100%, you get 100%. It's what they should do, but they don't want to, because the current situation gives them a lot of power. Hence a new regulation that tips the scales in the other direction to make Steam & co adopt a reasonable stance. The alternative would be to flat out force them to provide access indefinitely, but why not give them a chance to buy you out of your account if they really don't want to do business with you?

pjmlp 4y ago

I wonder how they manage that on countries that have proper consumer rights government agencies.

camhart 4y ago

There is the business side of this to consider. Disputes are expensive--companies are forced to pay significant fees whether they win or lose the dispute. A dishonest customer lying to their bank about your product/service should be able to be banned from using your product/service. Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? To be clear, I'm talking about a different case, where the customer doesn't reach out for help, and doesn't give you an opportunity to correct the problem (which most banks ask them to do first but they just lie about it). With my business, this is the case for 9 out of every 10 disputes (and I have a very low dispute rate). The other 1 time is they just mistakingly reported it as a dispute because they didn't recognize it, but after you reach out they correct it with their bank (but guess what, you still have to pay the dispute fee when that happens). When your SAAS product costs $5 / month, and the dispute fees are $15 / dispute or more, and customers go back and file disputes on the previous X months of charges, and they never give you a chance to make it right, it becomes a problem worth banning them over.

naniwaduni 4y ago
> Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? Their bank?
- camhart 4y ago
  The bank profits from it... no incentive on the banks part to stop it.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    What part of a chargeback do you think is profitable for the bank?
    - camhart 4y ago
      My understanding is the dispute fee goes mostly to the bank.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Banning users who charge back is standard practice on all video game stores. They equate it to fraud in their terms of service. Imagine having an account worth thousands of dollars and losing everything because you decided to exercise your rights. I'm so happy to see authorities are finally doing something about this abuse.

smugma 4y ago
Does Apple App Store do this?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Absolutely. Check out this document for example: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term... > All Transactions are final. Purchased something by mistake? Tough. > If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple. Unhappy? Your only recourse is to beg Apple for your money back. They may say no. > From time to time, Apple may suspend or cancel payment or refuse a refund request if we find evidence of fraud, abuse, or unlawful or other manipulative behavior that entitles Apple to a corresponding counterclaim. These corporations think charge backs are evidence of abuse and fraud, so yeah. > c. Termination. This Standard EULA is effective until terminated by you or Licensor. Your rights under this Standard EULA will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with any of its terms. Your fraudulent chargebacks are reason enough for them to kill your account, invalidating every dime you ever spent on it. There's no point in even reading these silly documents. They're all the same, everywhere. Always assume they do this.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

smugma 4y ago

Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft/XBox and Google do this. It's not relevant to Netflix. Does Apple also do this?

AussieWog93 4y ago

I run an ecommerce business, and pretty much always always block customers who file a chargeback or dispute. They're completely draining to deal with, usually fraudulent, and the only way to win one is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the buyer is lying.

bcrosby95 4y ago
We do this too, but also, if someone asks for a refund, pretty much regardless of circumstances, we issue a refund. So the only excuse turns into "I felt like being a dick" or it was actual fraud anyways.

varispeed 4y ago

This is also why I never pursued any GDPR complaints out of fear that I will be locked out of my account. When I told about my issue to ICO, they basically gave advice to use different service... that's it. There should be some sort of legal protection that if you want to exercise your rights, company shouldn't be allowed to cut you out for doing so.

xyzelement 4y ago

Can you help me make sure I follow this right. You do a charge back in cases where you can't reach an agreeable resolution with the company, right. Presumably that's the end of the relationship - you claw your money back via the CC and say good bye to the company. What's the argument for being able to charge back but then wanting to (and the company being forced to, as I think you are suggesting) doing business with each other? I suspect I am missing something.

akira2501 4y ago
The lack of any other viable means of customer support seems to be the issue. The only way to manage these problems is the use of the app, and these companies can definitely make usage of the app and the ability to hail a ride separate. Or they can provide better customer service, or an alternative mechanism for people to resolve any ongoing issues they've created.

jhanschoo 4y ago

Note of course that these are the terms of a settlement, and I don't think this has any legal implications on digital licensing and identity management.