what people getting real refunds are saying...

Unknown

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

I may be wrong here but are we now just discussing replacing the word innocent with liable? Not a specialist so just throwing this out there it is seems like a potato-potato argument.

Heartburn

so if d3 decided to make all characters bagman. Are just expected to say darn that is not a good change. oh well lets see what pittance will d3 will offer to refund me if they even choose to? are we only allowed to be slaves to the changes with no input or recourse? this is where i have an issue. my only recourse seems to be 1) to complain and voice my disdain about the change and offer alternatives if possible , which forumites get mad about for some reason . 2) accept change and continue to play 3)stop playing. if I paid a significant amount of money( and the pricing in this games seems so) do i have to simplly have to chalk it up to a loss and move on?
it would nice to have a function where i give them back their stuff i get my stuff back( everything is still there except for iso/hp spent on consumables or opponent switching plus the extra rewards won offset this) and we go our separate ways, but they are a business and they are looking to make money so that may just be a pipe dream ( they could always open an auction house and resell all the cashed out heroes for HP)
there are other ways to balance like if they made an xforce counter, i don't think anyone would ask for a refund on xforce or at least, most, would just buy the xforce killer, so why did they choose to nerf wolverine in the first place?

none of this refund stuff makes too much sense on either side like many extremes. the people in the who bought xforce months ago are in the same boat that bought it yesterday, which doesn't seem fair, but this will get to crazy if they go on a case by case investigation.

I can find parts i agree with on both sides. d3 changed something for the worst(cause no one would be asking refunds if it was for the better). the only direct way to get it is through HP, there is no $25 to buy xforce cover option so any whoever wants to buy an xforce cover is required to buy HP first no way around it. HP purchases seem to be a one way purchase, as there is no hp to money conversion. With this being said why aren't d3 doing full hp reimbursement they have your money if would create goodwill to know that if you don't like their new change you can spend that resource elsewhere. if they worried about abuse make it an option that requires a ticket or make the refund based on an 8 hour timer and can only refund cover within that period of the players choosing( ie they activate it) within a certain time limit(a few weeks). ( i originally thought 3 hours but sometimes life gets in the way).

Unknown

Heartburn wrote:

there are other ways to balance like if they made an xforce counter, i don't think anyone would ask for a refund on xforce or at least, most, would just buy the xforce killer, so why did they choose to nerf wolverine in the first place?

This may be the root of my distain and why I have been so vocal on here recently regarding the changes/nerfs. These people work for a development team in a creative environment yet they so often turn to the lowest common denominator and choose the path of nerfs. Creating rival/counter cards would expand and give new choices that people would probably want to play with.

TxMoose

if space mountain was down all day (or a better analogy, worked for 2 hrs, then was down all day), does Disney have an obligation to refund the purchased ticket? answer should be obvious, but it is NO. disappointments and learning from them are life, get used to it. I have taken a risk and poured everything into Lthor and Loki to start my transition. if their nerf comes soon I will be pretty upset and cry foul but I won't be demanding a refund of $ because I got what I bought - the hp.

udonomefoo

unco_dan wrote:

for those arguing on the side of fraud, dutiful children of the empire ya'll must be . arguing on the side of the hegemonic powers that be? on the side of the law? oh holy gatekeepers of the 'truth' you're allegiance to your own self-constructed sense of justice has really rendered you blind. after all, isn't justice blind? indeed, blind to those it oppresses of course. all i'm reading from those claiming 'fraud!' is moral relativism at its finest. and hermeneutical bigotry on top of that. its really not difficult to tease out the paradoxical and/or hypocritical stances that are taken once conversation devolves into 'i'm right', no 'i'm right'. one doesnt have to look much further than government to understand the inherently contradictory relation between justice and governance. a law is only as efficacious as the person interpreting it. laws are no ends in themselves, they are no litmus test of right or wrong, they are merely instrumental means by which one claims some arbitrary perception of value in that given moment. and because interpretations are always changing, the meaning of laws are perpetually subject to transformations.

I am simultaneously impressed and mystified at how someone could possess such an advanced vocabulary (not gonna lie, I had to google hermeneutical) and such a complete inability to use punctuation, capitalization and sentence formation. I want to give this to an english teacher just to see their head explode.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I swear. I just really am impressed and confused.

_RiO_

TaoSpoons wrote:

American law doesn't have anything comparable (at least, not that I'm aware of). How contracts/etc designed to accommodate American law intermingle with people protected under EU law is murky to the point where I wouldn't want to speak to it.

Oh that's easy; the EU law prevails in totality and the US law is void. This is mandated by an EU directive that boils down to the fact that if a seller explicitly targets consumers in any EU member state for sales, then any transaction with a consumer in any EU member state must be treated as having taken place under the local laws of the member state of residence of said consumer. (The directive is set up this way to promote the existence of the single harmonized EU market: even if the seller would only explicitly target, e.g. , German consumers, then French consumers would still be covered. ) Any legal disputes must also be settled in a court in the EU member state of residence of the consumer.

Any company not abiding by this may not operate on the EU market and is susceptible to persecution from the EU if they still do. (If trade agreements exist with the country where the company resides, then those usually hold clauses that state that this country will force said company to comply.)

In D3P/Demiurge's case, they list their prices explicitly in EUR currency for EU consumers and they list the game as available in the EU storefront of Steam. Both constitute explicit targeting of atleast one EU member state and therefore they are bound by this directive. (Now if only I could recall exactly which code/id that directive had...)

Unknown

There's no way to gracefully ease a mistake like Thor or X Force who is simply out of whack. Either the players pay (losing value on stuff that's clearly P2W) or the company pays (by refunding a lot of stuff). There's a tendency in online games for make the customer pay simply because the latter option is much harder. There isn't even an infrastructure built into the game to say refund purchases in the last 30 days, unwind any cover purchases you made, but still give you the base character so that you don't end up losing character as we found out from Iron Fist. The problem here is that while some games have added infrastructure to support these things, it doesn't seem to get them more sales so there's no incentive to copy this. Note that in real life you've generous terms to return stuff not because the retailers are nice guys but that they've done their study and figure that it's needed both for competitive reasons and that it'll probably lead to extra sales of people who bought something they don't need and was too lazy to ever return it. For some reason the online world does not mirror this behavior even though it seems like this should work too.

Wonko33

Doesn't their EULA absolve you of asking them directly for the refund- why would I ask if it's their policy not to give any. And since the EULA is between consumer and D3 and not between you and Apple / Google, you have never agreed not to ask a refund from these entities

IDK - im just sayin

_RiO_

dkffiv wrote:

EULA be damned if I paid for virtual currency and they decided to eliminate all of it out of the blue, that's outright fraud. If you paid $100 for HP and the next day it was removed from your account, would you argue that's fine? You apparently agreed to the EULA so its in the right to do whatever they want to your account.

Luckily in the EU any contractual terms giving a seller this permission are likely to be regarded as unfair contract terms as per 93/13/EEC and are thus void.

I'm thinking of the non-exhaustive list of example terms in the directive's annex. Specially of term b, c, d and f, which are terms that have the object or effect of:

93/13/EEC wrote:

(b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realization depends on his own will alone;

(d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

(f) authorizing the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

TaoSpoons

CoolB76 wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

I may be wrong here but are we now just discussing replacing the word innocent with liable? Not a specialist so just throwing this out there it is seems like a potato-potato argument.

Yes and no. Legal burdens of proof are substantially different between the two circumstances. Criminal charges often come with a requirement to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because intent is often a factor in criminal activity and intent is notoriously difficult to prove.

Example: a drug dealer may get arrested for distributing illegal substances, but may only get charged with possessing illegal substances because the prosecution thinks they can't prove the dealer intended to sell the drugs to anyone else.

The standard that applies to civil suits is proof of specific claims. That usually boils down to "there was an agreement, one of the parties violated the agreement, here's how it was violated, this is the damage suffered by the injured party as a result of the violation and the restitution they're seeking". Short of incredibly extenuating circumstances (things in the arena of sudden onset of long-term illness, fire, flood, invasion by Ultron and his drone army, etc) intent matters much less than the failure to uphold the agreement.

Example: you work for a cleaning service and you sign an agreement to clean someone's house for money. They pay you up front. You go to their house and find unexpectedly that the person has over fifty cats so everything smells like cat pee and you hate it. If the agreement you signed has no "opt-out" clauses and the other party refuses to release you from the agreement, you either have to clean their house or risk civil action.

Bear in mind that both those examples are very, very simple for the sole purpose of illustrating the importance of intent.

_RiO_

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

I may be wrong here but are we now just discussing replacing the word innocent with liable? Not a specialist so just throwing this out there it is seems like a potato-potato argument.

Yes and no. Legal burdens of proof are substantially different between the two circumstances. Criminal charges often come with a requirement to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because intent is often a factor in criminal activity and intent is notoriously difficult to prove.

Example: a drug dealer may get arrested for distributing illegal substances, but may only get charged with possessing illegal substances because the prosecution thinks they can't prove the dealer intended to sell the drugs to anyone else.

The standard that applies to civil suits is proof of specific claims. That usually boils down to "there was an agreement, one of the parties violated the agreement, here's how it was violated, this is the damage suffered by the injured party as a result of the violation and the restitution they're seeking". Short of incredibly extenuating circumstances (things in the arena of sudden onset of long-term illness, fire, flood, invasion by Ultron and his drone army, etc) intent matters much less than the failure to uphold the agreement.

Example: you work for a cleaning service and you sign an agreement to clean someone's house for money. They pay you up front. You go to their house and find unexpectedly that the person has over fifty cats so everything smells like cat pee and you hate it. If the agreement you signed has no "opt-out" clauses and the other party refuses to release you from the agreement, you either have to clean their house or risk civil action.

Bear in mind that both those examples are very, very simple for the sole purpose of illustrating the importance of intent.

In your civil suit example, you are taking a cleaning job which puts you in the role of a business. In the role of a consumer you are typically far more protected (atleast in the EU) and businesses are severly limited in what types of sleazeball terms they can cook into a contract with a consumer and get away with.

Readers should probably bear that in mind as well.

Unknown

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

I may be wrong here but are we now just discussing replacing the word innocent with liable? Not a specialist so just throwing this out there it is seems like a potato-potato argument.

Yes and no. Legal burdens of proof are substantially different between the two circumstances. Criminal charges often come with a requirement to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because intent is often a factor in criminal activity and intent is notoriously difficult to prove.

Example: a drug dealer may get arrested for distributing illegal substances, but may only get charged with possessing illegal substances because the prosecution thinks they can't prove the dealer intended to sell the drugs to anyone else.

The standard that applies to civil suits is proof of specific claims. That usually boils down to "there was an agreement, one of the parties violated the agreement, here's how it was violated, this is the damage suffered by the injured party as a result of the violation and the restitution they're seeking". Short of incredibly extenuating circumstances (things in the arena of sudden onset of long-term illness, fire, flood, invasion by Ultron and his drone army, etc) intent matters much less than the failure to uphold the agreement.

Example: you work for a cleaning service and you sign an agreement to clean someone's house for money. They pay you up front. You go to their house and find unexpectedly that the person has over fifty cats so everything smells like cat pee and you hate it. If the agreement you signed has no "opt-out" clauses and the other party refuses to release you from the agreement, you either have to clean their house or risk civil action.

Bear in mind that both those examples are very, very simple for the sole purpose of illustrating the importance of intent.

There is still a burden of proof in civil cases. It's just more likely than not (often stated as 51%) rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. I think that's what he's getting at.

IlDuderino

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

CoolB76 wrote:

Talk about dramatic. And here I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Depends on whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. If criminal, then yes. If civil, then no.

I may be wrong here but are we now just discussing replacing the word innocent with liable? Not a specialist so just throwing this out there it is seems like a potato-potato argument.

Yes and no. Legal burdens of proof are substantially different between the two circumstances. Criminal charges often come with a requirement to prove the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because intent is often a factor in criminal activity and intent is notoriously difficult to prove.

Example: a drug dealer may get arrested for distributing illegal substances, but may only get charged with possessing illegal substances because the prosecution thinks they can't prove the dealer intended to sell the drugs to anyone else.

The standard that applies to civil suits is proof of specific claims. That usually boils down to "there was an agreement, one of the parties violated the agreement, here's how it was violated, this is the damage suffered by the injured party as a result of the violation and the restitution they're seeking". Short of incredibly extenuating circumstances (things in the arena of sudden onset of long-term illness, fire, flood, invasion by Ultron and his drone army, etc) intent matters much less than the failure to uphold the agreement.

Example: you work for a cleaning service and you sign an agreement to clean someone's house for money. They pay you up front. You go to their house and find unexpectedly that the person has over fifty cats so everything smells like cat pee and you hate it. If the agreement you signed has no "opt-out" clauses and the other party refuses to release you from the agreement, you either have to clean their house or risk civil action.

Bear in mind that both those examples are very, very simple for the sole purpose of illustrating the importance of intent.

I like the logic - you could have got all charges dropped against 'Shorty' Guzman

rednailz

GothicKratos wrote:

snlf25 wrote:

Nobody here is claiming their kid did it or any such tinykitty. So the idea that they are committing fraud is laughable. No attorney would touch it and even if they did it would get laughed out of court.

If anything is laughable, it's your logic. You're committing fraud. Point blank. It's like arguing that piracy isn't theft. It is and you know it is, but you'd never admit it out loud because that would make you "a bad person"

Of topic but piracy isn't always theft. I don't have PVR, but I pay for cable and internet, and netflix. I recently downloaded a few episodes of a show from a torrent site that actually airs on a cable channel i pay for. I'd rather watch a few episodes back-to-bakc when I want. then my ISP gives me my first "warning" in nearly 20 years of downloading. I've also downloaded a movie I've paid to see in the theatre. I can rent a movie for $7 and watch it a dozen times before I return it. Instead I paid $15 to see it once, and downloaded it for free to watch it 1 more time...deleted after I watched it. I gave that movie production more money than the dude who rented it and watched it more than I did. You black and white people grind my gears.

dleezphone

Fantastic **** in here

Unknown

The EULA can say whatever it wants, and it doesn't make it law just because you click 'I agree' or implicitly agree to it by playing the game. Contrary to popular opinion it is not a good idea to sneak in clause like 'you agree to give us your firstborn' because those kind of conditions will not likely hold up in court. I remember seeing a case where some guy sued Lineage or Aion or something for ruining his life and the standard 'our EULA covers it' was ruled as invalid because a judge said that you can't have a clause that says 'you can't sue us for ruining your life' since ruining someone's life is some pretty serious stuff. Now I think that guy went on to lose the case anyway because he can't prove that it was the game's fault that he ruined his life, but that's a pretty clear example of you can't just always say 'it's in the EULA'.

TaoSpoons

bonfire01 wrote:

There is still a burden of proof in civil cases. It's just more likely than not (often stated as 51%) rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. I think that's what he's getting at.

To clarify my response, I read the original question as "Isn't it just a matter of swapping labels?" because of the way it was phrased. My response was to clarify that it's not just a matter of using a different word that means the same thing; the meanings are different in specific ways. As long as they get that, I'm good.

_RiO_ wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

American law doesn't have anything comparable (at least, not that I'm aware of). How contracts/etc designed to accommodate American law intermingle with people protected under EU law is murky to the point where I wouldn't want to speak to it.

Oh that's easy; the EU law prevails in totality and the US law is void. This is mandated by an EU directive that boils down to the fact that if a seller explicitly targets consumers in any EU member state for sales, then any transaction with a consumer in any EU member state must be treated as having taken place under the local laws of the member state of residence of said consumer. (The directive is set up this way to promote the existence of the single harmonized EU market: even if the seller would only explicitly target, e.g. , German consumers, then French consumers would still be covered. ) Any legal disputes must also be settled in a court in the EU member state of residence of the consumer.

Any company not abiding by this may not operate on the EU market and is susceptible to persecution from the EU if they still do. (If trade agreements exist with the country where the company resides, then those usually hold clauses that state that this country will force said company to comply.)

In D3P/Demiurge's case, they list their prices explicitly in EUR currency for EU consumers and they list the game as available in the EU storefront of Steam. Both constitute explicit targeting of atleast one EU member state and therefore they are bound by this directive. (Now if only I could recall exactly which code/id that directive had...)

The EU is kind of a weird legal patchwork so I try not to assume I know things when I haven't specifically researched an area of it. What little I knew suggested that they're pretty good on the consumer protection front so I'm not surprised this is the case. Kudos to you for sharing that info.

IlDuderino wrote:

I like the logic - you could have got all charges dropped against 'Shorty' Guzman

Ha! Mexico, man. Great tacos and tequila, terrifying criminal organizations.

Vankysher

Vankysher wrote:

Tannen wrote:

You spent your money, you got your hps.

Digital currency for IAP is a tool in order to psychologically influence a customer from disassociating the "true cost" of their IAP.

While I don't think there is much existing case law (and I'm being lazy about doing a web search at the moment), the mere fact that you're "purchasing" a virtual currency makes it a legally tricky thing for them to make the argument that HP is the product/service being offered since the in-game economy revolves around HP and ISO which are all tied to the characters for customers to collect for use in-game. I would think companies engaged in this business model are very reluctant to want to have this tested in court.

Yowza. Looks like this thread generated a lot discussion that I've quickly scanned through but since I'm lazy - I'll just quote myself.

There does appear to be some legal rulings in regards to digital currency but, like I figured, it is a lot more complicated than even I ever expected.

This article sheds some light on this topic, at least in regards to the US, and references a specific ruling by the US Treasury that created quite a bit of uncertainty in the landscape. In fact, it explains the very reasons why Facebook Credits and Microsoft Points were phased out.

From the US Treasury FinCEN:

On March 18, 2013, FinCEN issued guidance on the application of FinCEN’s regulations to transactions in virtual currencies (the “Guidance”). FinCEN's regulations define “currency” as “[t]he coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that circulates and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” In contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. The Guidance addresses “convertible” virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.

For purposes of the Guidance, FinCEN refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms “exchanger,” “administrator,” and “user.” An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services. Under the Guidance, both exchangers and administrators are considered to be money transmitters unless a limitation or exemption from the definition of money transmitter applies to that person

D3 is in the role of "exchanger" because they take real currency and convert it to virtual currency (HP). D3 is also the "administrator" since they are issuing the virtual currency (HP) and are the sole authority over it. Since they are in both these roles, this ruling classifies them as money transmitters and therefore fall under US Treasury regulation which makes them subject to the Bank Secrecy Act. Based on the article: "so-called exchanges and administrators are considered MSBs [money-services business] and are subject to BSA regulations" and is now " subject to MSB registration, reporting, and record-keeping regulations." Furthermore, while there is federal regulation there is also individual state regulations that need to be complied with! Now I can see why Facebook and Microsoft went ahead and abandoned this idea.

Looks like the legal side of things is slowly starting to catch up so the wild-west days of the digital marketplace are eventually going to come to an end.

GothicKratos

On the over-arching topic, I don't think anyone here is claiming that asking for a refund is fraud. Asking for a refund under false pretenses is. You might not agree with me that your pretenses are false, but you got what you paid for. You got your arcade tokens and you spent them where you wanted to spend them. Don't get mad at the manager because your "fun" didn't last as long as you wanted it to.

rednailz wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

snlf25 wrote:

Nobody here is claiming their kid did it or any such tinykitty. So the idea that they are committing fraud is laughable. No attorney would touch it and even if they did it would get laughed out of court.

If anything is laughable, it's your logic. You're committing fraud. Point blank. It's like arguing that piracy isn't theft. It is and you know it is, but you'd never admit it out loud because that would make you "a bad person"

Of topic but piracy isn't always theft. I don't have PVR, but I pay for cable and internet, and netflix. I recently downloaded a few episodes of a show from a torrent site that actually airs on a cable channel i pay for. I'd rather watch a few episodes back-to-bakc when I want. then my ISP gives me my first "warning" in nearly 20 years of downloading. I've also downloaded a movie I've paid to see in the theatre. I can rent a movie for $7 and watch it a dozen times before I return it. Instead I paid $15 to see it once, and downloaded it for free to watch it 1 more time...deleted after I watched it. I gave that movie production more money than the dude who rented it and watched it more than I did. You black and white people grind my gears.

Using a torrent to get digital goods is not always Piracy, on that, we can agree, however, none of your examples are good ones of what you're trying to say.

For example, when you rent a movie from Blockbuster, they have a licensed agreement with the content creators to 'lend' you a copy of the content for a period of time. That's how that service works. Cable is very similar - they have a licensed agreement with outside content creators to distribute that content within certain parameters and you pay to receive that content within those parameters. Yet again, movie theaters work very similar, getting permission form the content providers to provide the content to you at a perceived premium.

Paying money for something doesn't entitle to you to unlimited access to that thing. When you pay to see a movie in the theater, that's what you get. When you pay for cable, that's what you get. When you pay for a rental, that's what you get. You pay for Hero Points, that's what you get.

_RiO_

Vankysher wrote:

This article sheds some light on this topic, at least in regards to the US, and references a specific ruling by the US Treasury that created quite a bit of uncertainty in the landscape. In fact, it explains the very reasons why Facebook Credits and Microsoft Points were phased out.

From the US Treasury FinCEN:

On March 18, 2013, FinCEN issued guidance on the application of FinCEN’s regulations to transactions in virtual currencies (the “Guidance”). FinCEN's regulations define “currency” as “[t]he coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that circulates and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” In contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. The Guidance addresses “convertible” virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.

For purposes of the Guidance, FinCEN refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms “exchanger,” “administrator,” and “user.” An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency. A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services. Under the Guidance, both exchangers and administrators are considered to be money transmitters unless a limitation or exemption from the definition of money transmitter applies to that person

D3 is in the role of "exchanger" because they take real currency and convert it to virtual currency (HP). D3 is also the "administrator" since they are issuing the virtual currency (HP) and are the sole authority over it. Since they are in both these roles, this ruling classifies them as money transmitters and therefore fall under US Treasury regulation which makes them subject to the Bank Secrecy Act. Based on the article: "so-called exchanges and administrators are considered MSBs [money-services business] and are subject to BSA regulations" and is now " subject to MSB registration, reporting, and record-keeping regulations." Furthermore, while there is federal regulation there is also individual state regulations that need to be complied with! Now I can see why Facebook and Microsoft went ahead and abandoned this idea.

Looks like the legal side of things is slowly starting to catch up so the wild-west days of the digital marketplace are eventually going to come to an end.

Nice. I guess this is one point where the US actually is ahead of the EU then.