5 ms·
> I never thought we'd see a no questions asked return policy for digital games and yet, with steam, it's a fairly simple process. That was however not Valve's
by grumbel 3y ago
> I never thought we'd see a no questions asked return policy for digital games and yet, with steam, it's a fairly simple process.
That was however not Valve's idea, but only came in response to EA Origin offering a return policy in 2013, Valve follow up in 2015 with their own.
One of the very rare cases where the competition was a little ahead for once.
- TAForObvReasons 3y agoValve's 2 hour refund option came in direct response to a 2014 lawsuit from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission[1]. Rod Sims, head of ACCC at the time, asserted that Valve's original no-refund stance broke Australian law. > Under Australian Consumer Law, everybody who buys a product or a service has a right to a refund if the product doesn’t work. They have a right to a refund, or a repair. Those rights are enshrined in Australian Law, and our allegation is that Valve sought to remove those consumer rights which is a breach of Australian Consumer Law [1] https://gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/accc-commissioner-heres-why-were-suing-valve/ https://gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/accc-commissioner-heres-why-w...
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoUK Consumer Rights Act gives you two weeks for no fuss return of items bought remotely. IME, Steam do not adhere to the law here.
- solardev 3y agoDigital items too?
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoYes, see eg https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15 section 34.
- angus-prune 3y agoNo, GP is incorrect. Digital goods are treated differently under the act.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoLast I looked they were specifically included. Can you maybe cite it as you're the opposing party. I'll save some time: Consumer Rights Act (CRA), 2015, UK: Section 34 Digital content to be of satisfactory quality (1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the digital content is satisfactory. (2)The quality of digital content is satisfactory if it meets the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of— (a)any description of the digital content, (b)the price mentioned in section 33(1) or (2)(b) (if relevant), and (c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)). (3)The quality of digital content includes its state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of digital content— (a)fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied; (b)freedom from minor defects; (c)safety; (d)durability. I can't cite caselaw on it, but S34(3)(a) would mean that you can finish the game, for example, so a bug preventing that would be a reason to return as the supplier failed to meet the required contractual terms under S34(1). Note that even minor defects S34(3)(b) are reasons a supply of digital content might not be acceptable.
- angus-prune 3y agoThis quote supports my position. Digital goods are treated differently by the act to other goods(hence them being mentioned specifically in this section). Purchasing non-digital goods online provides a greater right to return them even if they are not faulty. Digital goods, as your quoted section points out, can be returned if they are not of (objectively) satisfactory quality. The two week mandatory, no-fuss return you mentioned originally only applies to non-digital goods/services bought remotely.
- subtra3t 3y agofull form of GP?