Credit Card Chargebacks - The Real Scoop

Arondite

snlf25 wrote:

Punisher5784 wrote:

The point is, if you do not like the recent changes to the game then you either deal with it and adapt or you stop playing. Calling you credit card company to request money back is ridiculous. While I do not agree with some of D3's refund policies (delete the entire character), they do at least attempt to soften the blow.

Or option three, ask for a refund, state your case and await a decision from apple or google. Which does not constitute fraud so long as you do not lie about why you feel you are entitled a refund. AND NO I have not ever spent money on covers or asked for or received a refund! I just understand where people are coming from and I think this fraud talk is silly. Except when it comes to chargebacks, that IS dirty pool and highly unethical.

This. You can get your money back without issuing a chargeback lol.

Usually Apple will give it to you in the form of iTunes credit. I suppose that's not the worst, but it is worth noting.

Unknown

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

Arondite

bonfire01 wrote:

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

You're 100% correct.

Contacting Apple/Google and asking for a refund is just that. A refund. Given that it would be freely given of the company's accord at the discretion of a customer service representative the company appointed to handle such issues in all good faith, there's also no legal or monetary recourse to this outlet.

A chargeback is going directly to your credit card company and stating that the charges for MPQ were invalid charges and getting the money refunded that way. This is more in line with what OP is talking about.

Tl;Dr - you can still go to google/Apple just fine. Just be ready to quit, as if they make d3 foot the bill for it they still can and might sandbox your account.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

You're 100% correct.

Contacting Apple/Google and asking for a refund is just that. A refund. Given that it would be freely given of the company's accord at the discretion of a customer service representative the company appointed to handle such issues in all good faith, there's also no legal or monetary recourse to this outlet.

A chargeback is going directly to your credit card company and stating that the charges for MPQ were invalid charges and getting the money refunded that way. This is more in line with what OP is talking about.

Tl;Dr - you can still go to google/Apple just fine. Just be ready to quit, as if they make d3 foot the bill for it they still can and might sandbox your account.

Going a step further.... at least in UK law (and AFAIK fairly universally but couldn't swear to it) an action taken by a person can alter a contract in your favour as long as the person taking the action can be considered to reasonably have authority to take the action they have undertaken. So a customer services representative could be considered a reasonable individual to alter the terms of a sale in your favour. Also works the other way with your actions being usable to alter a contract in the favour of someone else.

That's at least part of the reason why companies always pop in a bit about actions being a one time thing as an act of good faith etc etc. It's because they could otherwise be considered to be altering your contract in a more general sense. So when Steam give me a refund "as an act of good faith" it's to make sure I can't refund whatever I like under similar circumstances in the future citing their actions.

Unknown

bonfire01 wrote:

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

I work for a domain registrar. We register domain names aka website addresses. Huge customer base, lots of credit card transactions daily from call centers. Also, no physical goods change hands and it's all done with credit cards.

Refunds and chargebacks are two entirely separate animals. If you want a refund, you call and ask for one, the phone rep determines if you qualify for one and issues it. If not, perhaps it goes to a supervisor to vet before issuing. But if you're entitled to one, you will get one. However, if you don't qualify for a refund, or decide you don't like the terms of the refund, and are insistent on getting it, that's when the type of chargebacks I'm speaking of here come in.

If you contact Apple or Google for a refund for an in-app purchase, they'll refund you no problem. They recoup that from the developers. When you call your credit card provider and have the charges reversed, that's a chargeback. Chargebacks always happen at the credit/debit card provider level, because you have to have them reverse the charge. If my company happened to deal with debit cards, then we would also deal with banks for the same thing.

Unknown

garbageman72 wrote:

I work for a domain registrar. We register domain names aka website addresses. Huge customer base, lots of credit card transactions daily from call centers. Also, no physical goods change hands and it's all done with credit cards.

Refunds and chargebacks are two entirely separate animals. If you want a refund, you call and ask for one, the phone rep determines if you qualify for one and issues it. If not, perhaps it goes to a supervisor to vet before issuing. But if you're entitled to one, you will get one. However, if you don't qualify for a refund, or decide you don't like the terms of the refund, and are insistent on getting it, that's when the type of chargebacks I'm speaking of here come in.

If you contact Apple or Google for a refund for an in-app purchase, they'll refund you no problem. They recoup that from the developers. When you call your credit card provider and have the charges reversed, that's a chargeback. Chargebacks always happen at the credit/debit card provider level, because you have to have them reverse the charge. If my company happened to deal with debit cards, then we would also deal with banks for the same thing.

OK, gotcha. In that case I agree with you....

I'm not sure many ppl have been advocating credit card chargebacks though. Just talking about approaching Apple/Google (no point going to Steam) for a refund.

Maybe edit your first post to remove Apple/Google from that list about ppl to go to. Cause that's what made me think you weren't talking purely about CC chargebacks.... unless Apple and Google now have their own credit cards too....

Unknown

Thanks, I was reading another thread earlier and people were all about the chargebacks. I just thought I could give people my point of view on how it works behind the scenes.

lokiagentofhotness

bonfire01 wrote:

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

that was me - i can guarantee you that there is no-one suing these people or giving them a bad credit rating because they asked for a refund for a product they didn't mean to purchase or in some cases purchased but didn't like.

look, putting aside all discussion on "fraud" for a moment - these are still customers. if i ask for my money back because i'm angry over the xf nerf, i might leave and i might not. heck, i might ask for my money back, delete the character, use that money to buy more HP to max out profX for all D3 knows. why would you risk alienating your customer base? to be honest even sandboxing for that is silly. if i asked for a refund of $100 but i'd spent $500 in-game and didn't ask for a refund for that - what happens if i get sandboxed? i'm not getting that $500 back - i'd be flaming mad? apple only refunds for the past 3 months, remember. most people with fully maxed tgt/xf have been here far longer than that.

Unknown

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

bonfire01 wrote:

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

that was me - i can guarantee you that there is no-one suing these people or giving them a bad credit rating because they asked for a refund for a product they didn't mean to purchase or in some cases purchased but didn't like.

No, no one is going to get sued. You can end up with a bad credit rating by having a charge reversed, and then having the reversal reversed when it's found to be... okay, not fraudulent, but invalid. The credit card companies generally frown upon false claims, and it will be recorded in your credit history. How much that might affect anyone would be different depending on the person. I had an opportunity once where I've seen a customer not be able to buy groceries because of some kind of snafu between his bank and his credit card provider due to a chargeback we reported as invalid. It involved some kind of NSF-like charge or hold on his account I believe. Never did hear from him again afterwards.

Adam12

garbageman72 wrote:

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

bonfire01 wrote:

SO in question to the OP are you dealing with direct purchases to your company or people paying money to an entirely different company and them passing the money onto you because in general parlance a refund and a credit card chargeback are entirely different things.

If I go to a company for a refund I don't instigate a credit card chargeback with my credit card company, they simply refund me my money.

What I'm getting at is.... is your experience and therefore your advice relevant to the actual case at hand.

Also... someone goes to Apple for a refund and apple make a decision then give a refund as a company refunding an individual for a purchase made to Apple. They are not a credit card company cancelling a payment made to another company. As I understand it If Apple decide to refund you and you were accurate with respect to the information provided to Apple then that's it.... they refunded you your money. Anything after that is between apple and D3 and nothing to do with you.

There was someone who worked for a company that had an app with in app purchases who posted in a prior thread... so literally a like for like example. He said Apple give the customer their money, then take the money from his company and that's it.

Unless it's being lost in translation I don't see how your experience of credit card chargebacks applies to seeking a refund from Apple/Google. I would think it only applies to an actual credit card chargeback requested from your credit card company and it would be apple/google coming after you, not D3.

that was me - i can guarantee you that there is no-one suing these people or giving them a bad credit rating because they asked for a refund for a product they didn't mean to purchase or in some cases purchased but didn't like.

No, no one is going to get sued. You can end up with a bad credit rating by having a charge reversed, and then having the reversal reversed when it's found to be... okay, not fraudulent, but invalid. The credit card companies generally frown upon false claims, and it will be recorded in your credit history. How much that might affect anyone would be different depending on the person. I had an opportunity once where I've seen a customer not be able to buy groceries because of some kind of snafu between his bank and his credit card provider due to a chargeback we reported as invalid. It involved some kind of NSF-like charge or hold on his account I believe. Never did hear from him again afterwards.

This is just ****. Failed chargebacks don't get reported on your credit report, and they won't affect your creditworthiness going forward. If you chargeback a claim, and the merchant provides sufficient evidence that it is an invalid chargeback, then the credit card company will inform you that they've ruled against you and you'll have to pay the bill. There aren't additional fees involved.

If you make it a habit of filing many invalid chargebacks, it's likely your bank might get tired of you and close your account. But you are greatly exaggerating the penalties of a failed chargeback attempt.

This post should not be construed as encouraging fraudulent chargebacks.

evil panda

I am not going to opine on the "morality" of opening chargebacks in this situation, but there is a TON of misinformation in the OP if it's addressed to the United States consumer.

The right to raise a chargeback is United States law, and part of the Truth in Lending Act. Paraphrasing, the consumer has the right to assert that a cc charge is not correct, and the issuer has the obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation (note: not necessarily reverse the charge in all cases, but investigate and reverse the charge if they cannot prove that the consumer is wrong). While the charge is in dispute, the cc company cannot attempt to collect the money, which is why all cc networks have this process where they charge back the merchant, but reverse it later and re-bill the consumer if the dispute is unfounded.

A consumer cannot be punished for exercising his consumer rights, and the government regulators will unleash unholy hell on any bank that decides to tarnish someone's credit rating for asserting their right.

So yes, if you call your cc company they'll likely charge back the merchant - who btw, is Apple/Google, not D3. It's now Apple/Google's responsibility to submit evidence that no, you actually got what you paid for. But if they can prove it, then you'll get billed again. I don't know how involved D3 would get in these cases, or what kind of pain would be passed along to them, but there you have it.

I note that the OP is in Canada, so the above US law does not apply to him unless Canada has a TILA equivalent. But the cc chargeback process in Canada is equivalent to the U.S. process.

DaveR4470

Evil P: You're correct -- but only with respect to good faith claims. I think the OP is pointing out (or trying to argue) that a chargeback in this scenario is more likely to be viewed as a retaliatory/nuisance claim against a vendor on a valid charge. And the TILA doesn't extend protection to those cases.

Imagine someone went to a restaurant and didn't like the waiter, so they left no tip and then filed a chargeback claim for the bill they paid with their credit card. The TILA provisions do require the card company to suspend collection of that debt pending an investigation. But if the investigation shows that the charge was valid, and a reasonable person would have realized that the claim was valid, the card company can take action against the claimant. My understanding is that they usually won't unless there are recurring problems with that customer, but it's certainly allowed. Think about it: if the right to claim a chargeback was absolute and without any potential consequence other than having to pay the amount eventually, nobody would ever be late with a credit card payment, because you'd just file a chargeback for everything on your card the day before it was due.

And the hazard is that if this does happen repeatedly (chargebacks claimed on valid charges), the card company will probably close your account and mark the reason as "fraud" on the credit report -- which will KILL you if you want to go get a mortgage or a student loan or anything that's not another credit card. (It's amazing how flexible banks will be with your history when they're charging you 28% interest....)

TILA protects the person who, say, orders something online that doesn't show up, files a chargeback claim, and then, later on, the item shows up and they forget to call the credit card company to tell them.

Arondite

DaveR4470 wrote:

Evil P: You're correct -- but only with respect to good faith claims. I think the OP is pointing out (or trying to argue) that a chargeback in this scenario is more likely to be viewed as a retaliatory/nuisance claim against a vendor on a valid charge. And the TILA doesn't extend protection to those cases.

Imagine someone went to a restaurant and didn't like the waiter, so they left no tip and then filed a chargeback claim for the bill they paid with their credit card. The TILA provisions do require the card company to suspend collection of that debt pending an investigation. But if the investigation shows that the charge was valid, and a reasonable person would have realized that the claim was valid, the card company can take action against the claimant. My understanding is that they usually won't unless there are recurring problems with that customer, but it's certainly allowed. Think about it: if the right to claim a chargeback was absolute and without any potential consequence other than having to pay the amount eventually, nobody would ever be late with a credit card payment, because you'd just file a chargeback for everything on your card the day before it was due.

And the hazard is that if this does happen repeatedly (chargebacks claimed on valid charges), the card company will probably close your account and mark the reason as "fraud" on the credit report -- which will KILL you if you want to go get a mortgage or a student loan or anything that's not another credit card. (It's amazing how flexible banks will be with your history when they're charging you 28% interest....)

TILA protects the person who, say, orders something online that doesn't show up, files a chargeback claim, and then, later on, the item shows up and they forget to call the credit card company to tell them.

I don't know that I'd consider filing a chargeback after eating a meal and not liking the service provided can be equated to making a purchase and subsequently having the subject of that purchase substantially changed.

Unlike every other poster in this thread, (and all the others) I'm not gonna make a metaphor/simile of my own to replace yours as any that can be designed will fall remarkably short of the mark being that law regarding digital goods and virtual currency is still young and severely lacking in precedent.

Here are the facts.

Consumers make purchases of an intermediary (HP).
Consumers use that intermediary (HP) to purchase the good of intent (Character covers, roster slots, token packs...essentially, all purchases share a common purpose - advancing your characters. Yes, that even includes shields and health packs, as these things are used to compete for characters.)
Consumers receive the good(s) of intent.
Some time of indeterminant length later, D3 changes the good of intent substantially, either increasing or decreasing its value in the eyes of the consumer.

Nothing else is relevant. That is all the information any company would need to make a ruling. I am not commenting on which way they would, should, will or might rule. I'm just saying that your restaurant metaphors and transformer metaphors are all **** and pee because they don't equate to the actual situation, which is listed above.

That's it's. That's all.

evil panda

Dave, I agree with you also regarding the letter of the law. The good faith provision is in TILA (basically TILA protects consumers only when they are acting in good faith and not trying to screw the bank)

But in practice no bank is going to deny a chargeback claim for one or two hundred bucks. Not when in order to do so, they are going to have to convince someone like a federal regulator that they are absolutely certain this customer is acting fraudulently. It's just not worth it when all they have to do is charge back Google and see if they contest it.

Same goes with credit bureau reporting. It's absolutely not worth risking legal action or regulatory scrutiny to report this to the bureau unless a very large loss was involved. the bank doesn't benefit from it in any way.

And while I'm not a litigator, I am going to go out on a limb and say that it's going to be virtually impossible to prove bad faith. You at least have to listen to the diminution of value argument here, even if you don't ultimately agree with it

evil panda

Btw some variant of that restaurant chargeback scenario gets filed thousands of times a year. Not saying whether it's right or wrong, or saying that the consumer ultimately won the case every time,but it's not uncommon consumer behavior

Unknown

garbageman72 wrote:

They will then contact D3's Fraud team directly with your credit card charge (time, date, amount, card #, and IP address), and advise that you contacted them and rejquested a chargeback. D3 will review the charge and inform Apple/Google/Visa/Mastercard/whomever that this is a valid charge and therefore is a fraudulent chargeback and will likely point to the EULA terms - which will clearly show that you were not entitled to a refund, and therefore the chargeback is fraudulent.

Why does it read like you skipped steps just to get to this point? I ask because you finish the first paragraph saying, you get your money back, then go on saying D3 won't let you after reviewing it, and bans you. Definitely something missing...

Unknown

There's a lot of information in the thread. However I think most refund ppl request will be thru Google play or App Store.

I am not here to say whether that's right or wrong to ask for a refund, I am just going to add some facts

if Google/apple decided to issue the refund, they will NOT disclose the transaction ID to the respective company (some privacy policy). Hence no one EVER get banned or sandboxed from requesting refunds from IAP as the company has no way to find out who asked for it

The worst case scenario is that apple/Google refuses the refund, and you will have more trouble getting refunds in the future if they deem your account to be abusing the refund feature. You credit ratings etc will never be affected

Now my take in the matter, I strongly advise ppl to think in the shoes of D3 team. They have put in a lot of work in the game, they have a family just like you and me. How would you feel if you were them? I paid some $ and I had lots of fun. Despite the changes I feel the amount of fun and entertainment I got is worth the money I spent.

DaveR4470

Panda -- I'm totally listening to the diminution in value argument. The problem is that that argument, as it's argued by folks like Arondite, is only applicable between the consumer and D3/Demiurge. It's a great argument for a refund. But in the chargeback situation, where the conflict is ultimately between the customer's credit card issuing bank and the merchant's credit card clearing bank, it's not going to be relevant to them. They're going to look at whether, at the time of the charge, the charge was valid and the items purchased were provided as promised. If, after that, the vendor who's providing ongoing services to you pulls the rug out from under what you bought, that's between you and them. If you lost value due to their actions, you badger them for a refund or sue them for the diminution in value. Either way, it's not a matter for the banks.

[For those who don't know: when you make a chargeback, your card company does its check to see if you have a non-frivolous claim (and chargebacks claimed in this circumstance are at least colorable, if not strong, so that test is certainly clearable), and if they find that, they give you a provisional credit and then reverse the credit to the merchant (i.e. takes the money from them) plus charge them a fee. The ball then goes into the court of the merchant's credit card clearing bank, who is on the hook for that payment. That bank receives notice of the chargeback claim, and does its own investigation with the merchant. If the merchant can prove that the charge was valid, they go back to the original bank and counterclaim for validity. If not, they take the money from the merchant's account or future credits. If the original bank gets a counterclaim, they can fight it out in court (highly unlikely), or re-charge you the amount... plus a fee (and credit back the merchant's bank).]

Chargebacks are actually one of reasons developers are willing to take the haircut that Apple/Google takes on their app store sales. If a merchant's chargeback rate goes over a certain threshold, they run the risk of having Mastercard/Visa/Amex/etc ban them; as in, they can no longer accept those credit cards. If D3/Demiurge were a small developer, a concerted forum chargeback campaign could, hypothetically, actually force them out of business. Apple and Google are so huge w/r/t how many credit card transactions they process in a day that it's difficult for them to get over that level (unless Apple or Google are themselves actively defrauding their customers...) So going through Apple or Google shields you, in part, from some of the consequences of malicious chargebacks.

DaveR4470

Arondite wrote:

[
I don't know that I'd consider filing a chargeback after eating a meal and not liking the service provided can be equated to making a purchase and subsequently having the subject of that purchase substantially changed.

[snip]

I'm just saying that your restaurant metaphors and transformer metaphors are all **** and pee because they don't equate to the actual situation, which is listed above.

That's it's. That's all.

Respectfully, please practice a little reading comprehension. The restaurant metaphor, and that entire post, was in response to Evil Panda's post, which essentially argued that banks cannot retaliate against a consumer who makes a chargeback. I gave him an example of a bad faith chargeback where the banks absolutely could exercise "retaliation" against the consumer. I'm not using it as a parallel to the X-force nerf.

(Admittedly, I'm a little cranky because I'm now in day 4 of trying to successfully download a non-crashing-in-the-middle-of-the-prologue copy of [string of expletives exceeds maximum length of forum post] GTA 5 from RSC......)

evil panda

I don't disagree with any of the above. Other than I'm honestly not aware of the transactional fee that you refer to, but that's not material to the core argument anyway

I just want to clarify that I bring up diminution of value only as a way of proving good faith - i.e. I believe banks would not suspect bad faith on the part of the consumer because the consumer will tell them, I paid for OP Xforce and got bagforce instead. No receiving agent would immediately call foul on that request. They'll at least open an investigation to see what was promised vs what was delivered. So now TILA is invoked and the right to at least an investigation is granted. And then they go through the process that you described.

I am aware that I am going into minutiae now, but TILA also has a provision regarding "claims and defenses" which the cc associations have interpreted to mean that consumers can file claims that the product or services rendered is materially different from what is promised, and therefore a chargeback is warranted. I would not enjoy arguing the specific case of xforce nerf vs D3 EULA in arbitration. It would just be too surreal but maybe the arbitrator would turn out to be an mpq player and totally get it

the one thing I don't know is how Apple and Google hold their developers accountable to any financial or nonfinancial repercussions. Because the losses at this point accrue to Apple - they face off against the bank in the chargeback scenario