I think the problem is with the Australian case (I am Australian FWIW) is that typically these consumer laws apply to physical goods, and it works quite well in

I think the problem is with the Australian case (I am Australian FWIW) is that typically these consumer laws apply to physical goods, and it works quite well in that domain. If your fridge breaks in a short amount of time, say 6 months after you bought it, you are entitled to receive a refund or replacement, as long as you can prove your purchase (this doesn't necessarily require a receipt). There is an acceptable amount of time that a product should last that is covered. This is much harder to assess with non-physical items, because they may be released broken, later broken by the devs, or in perfectly working condition, and depending on the situation it is essentially impossible for the vendor to assess whether it's the fault of the dev, the customer's hardware, or the customer just wants their money back because they finished the title. FWIW I love the Australian consumer laws, I think they are extremely beneficial to the general public and they put the onus on companies to produce and stock well-produced goods and services. I'm just not sure how to appropriately apply this to the non-physical goods market.