Just get on with it Bring on the new meta
@DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level. You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT. I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them. But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody.
@DAZ0273 said:
@Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level.
@Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction.
Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level.
You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT.
I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them.
But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody.
It'd be a small claims court track 27. It definitely wouldn't be a case that got scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't be a defining case.
Your damages would be limited to the refund you were owed. Most probably be less than three hundred pound. Cases like this will get zero attention as most claims would not even use solicitors due to the way small claim tracks work.
And I can tell you're not knowledge in this area. As someone that was knowledge in this area would know that a T&C can't limit a companies liability for the rights outlined in the consumer rights act. They automatically considered violations of the unfair contract act. As they are violating rights the law is trying to protect.
https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/
So...where are all of these cases?
There are hundreds of these games, maybe thousands, and they've done thousands of nerfs and balance changes. Surely there would be a significant number of these cases filed, and companies would regularly be coughing up monetary compensation for changes
Can you find even one example of this law being used in this way, in practice?
There is one and the claimer lost, of course. https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ Also a character in a gacha game belongs to its IP and of course they can do what they want with him.
@entrailbucket said: So...where are all of these cases? There are hundreds of these games, maybe thousands, and they've done thousands of nerfs and balance changes. Surely there would be a significant number of these cases filed, and companies would regularly be coughing up monetary compensation for changes Can you find even one example of this law being used in this way, in practice?
@entrailbucket said: So...where are all of these cases?
As I say no one cares.
Would you take someone to court over £100 refund? Or just get on with it?
If you was a company, and you received a suit for a hundred pound refund, would you defend it? Or eat the loss and settle as it is less than the solicitor fees you'd pay? As in small claims each side has to pay for their own legal costs win or lose. And then sandbox the account.
It'd go uncontested most probably.
If you was a judge, would think this might be better sorted out through ARD services and kick it that way? I think most would. It should be the second step in all dispute cases anyway.
And even if a case managed to get to court, who the hell reports on small claims track cases? No one would even know it happened. As no cares about a £100 refund case processed in the lowest court possible. There could have been hundreds - how'd we know? Who records this stuff?
The fact these cases don't exist is due to it not being a consumer rights violation. It's that there are more pragmatic solutions to court for small sums.
@Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level. You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT. I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them. But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody. It'd be a small claims court track 27. It definitely wouldn't be a case that got scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't be a defining case. Your damages would be limited to the refund you were owed. Most probably be less than three hundred pound. Cases like this will get zero attention as most claims would not even use solicitors due to the way small claim tracks work. And I can tell you're not knowledge in this area. As someone that was knowledge in this area would know that a T&C can't limit a companies liability for the rights outlined in the consumer rights act. They automatically considered violations of the unfair contract act. As they are violating rights the law is trying to protect. https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/> Show me the precedent/law cases that define what those terms mean because without that your link is worthless. UCTA doesn't define what these things mean - a judge would have to do that. If you can show me legal precedent in the UK that defines an alteration to a digital character in an online game as being incapable of being an enforceable exclusion clause in a contract then I will take you seriously. What UCTA would strike down would be something like you can never have a refund under any circumstances ever. Interpretation of what is or isn't covered is on a contract by contract basis.
@Blergh said:
https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/>
Show me the precedent/law cases that define what those terms mean because without that your link is worthless. UCTA doesn't define what these things mean - a judge would have to do that. If you can show me legal precedent in the UK that defines an alteration to a digital character in an online game as being incapable of being an enforceable exclusion clause in a contract then I will take you seriously. What UCTA would strike down would be something like you can never have a refund under any circumstances ever. Interpretation of what is or isn't covered is on a contract by contract basis.
A moneyonlineclaims case - if the buyer wants a refund they generally deal with the seller on the terms that the contract is offered on, there is no legal argument involved just the point of whether a refund is due or not on the basis of the contract. What you are arguing all thread is that the contract is invalid because of the Consumer Protection Act and so if the vendor refused a refund the buyer would have to take them to increasingly higher Courts in the UK to establish this. I am happy to be wrong but I am unaware of any such implementation of the Consumer Protection Act to digital goods in UK courts in terms of definition or perceived value.
I can't reasonably add any further to this to be honest and I wish you luck if your intention is to sue should Chasm be nerfed with nothing offered!
Show me the case that demonstrates what you said above.
@DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level. You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT. I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them. But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody. It'd be a small claims court track 27. It definitely wouldn't be a case that got scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't be a defining case. Your damages would be limited to the refund you were owed. Most probably be less than three hundred pound. Cases like this will get zero attention as most claims would not even use solicitors due to the way small claim tracks work. And I can tell you're not knowledge in this area. As someone that was knowledge in this area would know that a T&C can't limit a companies liability for the rights outlined in the consumer rights act. They automatically considered violations of the unfair contract act. As they are violating rights the law is trying to protect. https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/> Show me the precedent/law cases that define what those terms mean because without that your link is worthless. UCTA doesn't define what these things mean - a judge would have to do that. If you can show me legal precedent in the UK that defines an alteration to a digital character in an online game as being incapable of being an enforceable exclusion clause in a contract then I will take you seriously. What UCTA would strike down would be something like you can never have a refund under any circumstances ever. Interpretation of what is or isn't covered is on a contract by contract basis. A moneyonlineclaims case - if the buyer wants a refund they generally deal with the seller on the terms that the contract is offered on, there is no legal argument involved just the point of whether a refund is due or not on the basis of the contract. What you are arguing all thread is that the contract is invalid because of the Consumer Protection Act and so if the vendor refused a refund the buyer would have to take them to increasingly higher Courts in the UK to establish this. I am happy to be wrong but I am unaware of any such implementation of the Consumer Protection Act to digital goods in UK courts in terms of definition or perceived value. I can't reasonably add any further to this to be honest and I wish you luck if your intention is to sue should Chasm be nerfed with nothing offered! Show me the case that demonstrates what you said above.
I am not suing anyone.
I don't care Chasm is getting nerfed. Shrugs
Just pointing out that there are possible consumer rights violations that offering compensation for would save 505 a lot of hassle and headache.
That was all I said.
@Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: So...where are all of these cases? There are hundreds of these games, maybe thousands, and they've done thousands of nerfs and balance changes. Surely there would be a significant number of these cases filed, and companies would regularly be coughing up monetary compensation for changes Can you find even one example of this law being used in this way, in practice? As I say no one cares. Would you take someone to court over £100 refund? Or just get on with it? If you was a company, and you received a suit for a hundred pound refund, would you defend it? Or eat the loss and settle as it is less than the solicitor fees you'd pay? As in small claims each side has to pay for their own legal costs win or lose. And then sandbox the account. It'd go uncontested most probably. If you was a judge, would think this might be better sorted out through ARD services and kick it that way? I think most would. It should be the second step in all dispute cases anyway. And even if a case managed to get to court, who the hell reports on small claims track cases? No one would even know it happened. As no cares about a £100 refund case processed in the lowest court possible. There could have been hundreds - how'd we know? Who records this stuff? The fact these cases don't exist is due to it not being a consumer rights violation. It's that there are more pragmatic solutions to court for small sums.
These decisions are not legally binding in the UK court system in terms of being able to be used in other cases, so nobody records or notes them. Law cases are not reported in terms of contract law until they reach the High Court and decisions of the High Court are only persuasive. The first level of binding UK court decisions is at the Court of Appeal.
@Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level. You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT. I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them. But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody. It'd be a small claims court track 27. It definitely wouldn't be a case that got scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't be a defining case. Your damages would be limited to the refund you were owed. Most probably be less than three hundred pound. Cases like this will get zero attention as most claims would not even use solicitors due to the way small claim tracks work. And I can tell you're not knowledge in this area. As someone that was knowledge in this area would know that a T&C can't limit a companies liability for the rights outlined in the consumer rights act. They automatically considered violations of the unfair contract act. As they are violating rights the law is trying to protect. https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/> Show me the precedent/law cases that define what those terms mean because without that your link is worthless. UCTA doesn't define what these things mean - a judge would have to do that. If you can show me legal precedent in the UK that defines an alteration to a digital character in an online game as being incapable of being an enforceable exclusion clause in a contract then I will take you seriously. What UCTA would strike down would be something like you can never have a refund under any circumstances ever. Interpretation of what is or isn't covered is on a contract by contract basis. A moneyonlineclaims case - if the buyer wants a refund they generally deal with the seller on the terms that the contract is offered on, there is no legal argument involved just the point of whether a refund is due or not on the basis of the contract. What you are arguing all thread is that the contract is invalid because of the Consumer Protection Act and so if the vendor refused a refund the buyer would have to take them to increasingly higher Courts in the UK to establish this. I am happy to be wrong but I am unaware of any such implementation of the Consumer Protection Act to digital goods in UK courts in terms of definition or perceived value. I can't reasonably add any further to this to be honest and I wish you luck if your intention is to sue should Chasm be nerfed with nothing offered! Show me the case that demonstrates what you said above. I am not suing anyone. I don't care Chasm is getting nerfed. Shrugs Just pointing out that there are possible consumer rights violations that offering compensation for would save 505 a lot of hassle and headache. That was all I said.
They have almost certainly no need to worry but that doesn't mean they won't offer.
Got it. So out of the probably hundreds of thousands of possible times this law could have been used, to extract millions in compensation from game companies, on behalf of tens of thousands of gamers...
it's been used zero times, because no one has ever thought to do so until this thread, right now.
@DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: So...where are all of these cases? There are hundreds of these games, maybe thousands, and they've done thousands of nerfs and balance changes. Surely there would be a significant number of these cases filed, and companies would regularly be coughing up monetary compensation for changes Can you find even one example of this law being used in this way, in practice? As I say no one cares. Would you take someone to court over £100 refund? Or just get on with it? If you was a company, and you received a suit for a hundred pound refund, would you defend it? Or eat the loss and settle as it is less than the solicitor fees you'd pay? As in small claims each side has to pay for their own legal costs win or lose. And then sandbox the account. It'd go uncontested most probably. If you was a judge, would think this might be better sorted out through ARD services and kick it that way? I think most would. It should be the second step in all dispute cases anyway. And even if a case managed to get to court, who the hell reports on small claims track cases? No one would even know it happened. As no cares about a £100 refund case processed in the lowest court possible. There could have been hundreds - how'd we know? Who records this stuff? The fact these cases don't exist is due to it not being a consumer rights violation. It's that there are more pragmatic solutions to court for small sums. These decisions are not legally binding in the UK court system in terms of being able to be used in other cases, so nobody records or notes them. Law cases are not reported in terms of contract law until they reach the High Court and decisions of the High Court are only persuasive. The first level of binding UK court decisions is at the Court of Appeal.
Right, and assuming your law works roughly like ours, here's how this goes: one lower court judge hears a small claims case and decides that digital goods are protected under this law and grants some gamer a £100 refund.
This has now set a precedent, under which any gamer, a customer of any game or games company, can now sue under this law to recover any amount of money.
At this point the multibillion-dollar companies in this space get their lawyers involved, the decision is appealed to the highest possible courts...and they win. A company like Epic or Tencent would be immediately be on the hook for billions in damages to millions of gamers, once this precedent is set. There is no way they'd allow something like this to stand, and they will outlawyer and outlobby you, because that's how this works now.
If any lower court anywhere decided this, we'd absolutely hear about it immediately.
Source:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf
A lot of sources, even the one used by the government commission point to the fact that a misdescription is cause for unfair contract judgement.
It might not be argued in a case yet, but unfair terms list it as a reason for a contract being unfair.
If the judge agreed it was misdescribed, they agree it was an unfair contract.
The software they sold said it would do this. But they later changed it so it did this instead. You'd just have to find something like that in case law. Add-ons to software that were described wrong for it to be relevant. And there might be lots of those in business litigation.
Don't think you'd really need to define it down to a character in a game. As it is just an add on to software you've bought.
@entrailbucket said: Got it. So out of the probably hundreds of thousands of possible times this law could have been used, to extract millions in compensation from game companies, on behalf of tens of thousands of gamers... it's been used zero times, because no one has ever thought to do so until this thread, right now.
@entrailbucket said: Got it. So out of the probably hundreds of thousands of possible times this law could have been used, to extract millions in compensation from game companies, on behalf of tens of thousands of gamers...
This is actually the first time it has ever applied to anything man. Get it strait.
@entrailbucket said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @entrailbucket said: So...where are all of these cases? There are hundreds of these games, maybe thousands, and they've done thousands of nerfs and balance changes. Surely there would be a significant number of these cases filed, and companies would regularly be coughing up monetary compensation for changes Can you find even one example of this law being used in this way, in practice? As I say no one cares. Would you take someone to court over £100 refund? Or just get on with it? If you was a company, and you received a suit for a hundred pound refund, would you defend it? Or eat the loss and settle as it is less than the solicitor fees you'd pay? As in small claims each side has to pay for their own legal costs win or lose. And then sandbox the account. It'd go uncontested most probably. If you was a judge, would think this might be better sorted out through ARD services and kick it that way? I think most would. It should be the second step in all dispute cases anyway. And even if a case managed to get to court, who the hell reports on small claims track cases? No one would even know it happened. As no cares about a £100 refund case processed in the lowest court possible. There could have been hundreds - how'd we know? Who records this stuff? The fact these cases don't exist is due to it not being a consumer rights violation. It's that there are more pragmatic solutions to court for small sums. These decisions are not legally binding in the UK court system in terms of being able to be used in other cases, so nobody records or notes them. Law cases are not reported in terms of contract law until they reach the High Court and decisions of the High Court are only persuasive. The first level of binding UK court decisions is at the Court of Appeal. Right, and assuming your law works roughly like ours, here's how this goes: one lower court judge hears a small claims case and decides that digital goods are protected under this law and grants some gamer a £100 refund. This has now set a precedent, under which any gamer, a customer of any game or games company, can now sue under this law to recover any amount of money. At this point the multibillion-dollar companies in this space get their lawyers involved, the decision is appealed to the highest possible courts...and they win. A company like Epic or Tencent would be immediately be on the hook for billions in damages to millions of gamers, once this precedent is set. There is no way they'd allow something like this to stand, and they will outlawyer and outlobby you, because that's how this works now. If any lower court anywhere decided this, we'd absolutely hear about it immediately.
@entrailbucket said:
Pretty much. What
@Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: @DAZ0273 said: @Blergh said: I'd argue the any in front of the description is pretty important when talking about that clause. Implies a lack of restriction. Pretty sure any court case is a gamble on some level. You can argue that all you like but it means nothing. A moneyclaimonline case would mean nothing in terms of defining these terms. We cannot claim strict liability on what you want the act to mean because you want the Act to be defined in your (and your legal teams) definition and 505 disagree with you. So you would have to go the High Court. However the High Court does not set binding precedent so that binds nobody to that Judges interpretation, the Court of Appeal does. So even if you win then 505 appeal that and look to have a precedent set in their favour. Then it goes to the Supreme Court if you can appeal THAT. I have 25 years working in a section of the law (not this one) and can promise you that these sort of defining cases are not happening all the time and are quite rare.The fact that companies are continuing with this business model and not being struck down by UK courts suggests to me there is no legal precedent and interpretation of the legal precedent you claim is definitely applicable in this thread has no legally enforceable basis regardless of what the dictionary tells you these terms mean. If any such decision existed I can guarantee that a consortium of interested parties would be appealing any such case and attempting to use the UK legal concept of "Distinguishing" as an argument as to why it does not apply to them. But I am no expert and would never claim the law cannot surprise me and even though I know HOW a Judge approaches statutory interpretation, no way would I pretend what conclusions they would come to on the very not defined wording we want applied to what a nerf to Chasm means to anybody. It'd be a small claims court track 27. It definitely wouldn't be a case that got scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't be a defining case. Your damages would be limited to the refund you were owed. Most probably be less than three hundred pound. Cases like this will get zero attention as most claims would not even use solicitors due to the way small claim tracks work. And I can tell you're not knowledge in this area. As someone that was knowledge in this area would know that a T&C can't limit a companies liability for the rights outlined in the consumer rights act. They automatically considered violations of the unfair contract act. As they are violating rights the law is trying to protect. https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/unfair-contract-terms-a-A76062D32725/> Show me the precedent/law cases that define what those terms mean because without that your link is worthless. UCTA doesn't define what these things mean - a judge would have to do that. If you can show me legal precedent in the UK that defines an alteration to a digital character in an online game as being incapable of being an enforceable exclusion clause in a contract then I will take you seriously. What UCTA would strike down would be something like you can never have a refund under any circumstances ever. Interpretation of what is or isn't covered is on a contract by contract basis. A moneyonlineclaims case - if the buyer wants a refund they generally deal with the seller on the terms that the contract is offered on, there is no legal argument involved just the point of whether a refund is due or not on the basis of the contract. What you are arguing all thread is that the contract is invalid because of the Consumer Protection Act and so if the vendor refused a refund the buyer would have to take them to increasingly higher Courts in the UK to establish this. I am happy to be wrong but I am unaware of any such implementation of the Consumer Protection Act to digital goods in UK courts in terms of definition or perceived value. I can't reasonably add any further to this to be honest and I wish you luck if your intention is to sue should Chasm be nerfed with nothing offered! Show me the case that demonstrates what you said above. "Any business selling goods or digital content (whether paid for directly or indirectly) to consumers is legally bound to accept certain obligations. These are the consumer’s ‘statutory rights’. Key statutory rights are that goods and digital content (if paid for as described) must match the description given to them, and be of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose. Contract terms that deny consumers these rights, or their right to their full available legal remedies where goods or digital content (paid for as described) are misdescribed or defective, are blacklisted under Part 1 of the Act. See the glossary on ‘digital content’ for the meaning of ‘paid for directly or indirectly’. " Source:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf A lot of sources, even the one used by the government commission point to the fact that a misdescription is cause for unfair contract judgement. It might not be argued in a case yet, but unfair terms list it as a reason for a contract being unfair. If the judge agreed it was misdescribed, they agree it was an unfair contract. The software they sold said it would do this. But they later changed it so it did this instead. You'd just have to find something like that in case law. Add-ons to software that were described wrong for it to be relevant. And there might be lots of those in business litigation. Don't think you'd really need to define it down to a character in a game. As it is just an add on to software you've bought.
Look sorry but you have already defeated yourself. "It might not be argued in a case yet". That means nobody has successfully established this in law and that is the end of it. Seriously - go crowd fund and get this thing to the Court of Appeal - you could create history!
The lowest court in the UK that even matters would be the High Court so the £100 refund would not count for anything because that is too low to be heard there and these lower Courts do not have the power to set judicial precedent and absolutely yes you can guarantee that every single interested party would come together to fight against this because it fundamentally affects how they do business. Our two countries legal systems do not differ that much on this principle.
Right, like, if it worked this way, BCS or 505 might have to give aggrieved MPQ players a few thousand bucks total.
Meanwhile companies like Tencent, Epic, Blizzard, EA etc would be paying out billions, regularly. This would obliterate their business models completely.
Unfortunately Blergh is smashing together two legal concepts here. Nobody is saying that you can't go grumble to a company for a refund for something you are not satisfied with - more than likely they will just give that back to you without admitting liability for anything and if you are an ex player from then on so be it. His argument is that a claim for 100 bucks or whatever could be the basis of an entire determination of a legally binding principle that would effect millions of transactions moving forward. I won't put words in his mouth but by cherry picking a few things from the internet he seems to think that Chasm being nerfed translates into a legally enforceable law suit that is open and shut. My position is that to even get to the point where a Court could understand what a nerf is or what a superhero character in a game effectiveness is as opposed to what it was would cost several million pounds/dollars, dozens of specialist expert witnesses and until now never before tested legal arguments. And l hope it never gets there because who the hell wants some crusty old judge to define these things?
https://massivelyop.com/2020/04/13/player-who-claims-a-mobile-rpgs-gacha-mechanics-were-falsely-advertised-loses-court-case/ This case just confirms what I said many pages ago. Before installiing they ask you to agree with contract terms. Well, better said to read. The final button you must press is I agree. You can read it in more detail. If you don't agree, you won't be able to install the app. If you agree and play there is almost nothing you can claim on courts. And any harm you could argue it will be on you, as you are totally free to spend money or not.
This is in your App. Privacy - Terms and uses: I'd say it's a bit hard to claim nothing having agreed, isn't it?
@DAZ0273 said: Unfortunately Blergh is smashing together two legal concepts here. Nobody is saying that you can't go grumble to a company for a refund for something you are not satisfied with - more than likely they will just give that back to you without admitting liability for anything and if you are an ex player from then on so be it. His argument is that a claim for 100 bucks or whatever could be the basis of an entire determination of a legally binding principle that would effect millions of transactions moving forward. I won't put words in his mouth but by cherry picking a few things from the internet he seems to think that Chasm being nerfed translates into a legally enforceable law suit that is open and shut. My position is that to even get to the point where a Court could understand what a nerf is or what a superhero character in a game effectiveness is as opposed to what it was would cost several million pounds/dollars, dozens of specialist expert witnesses and until now never before tested legal arguments. And l hope it never gets there because who the hell wants some crusty old judge to define these things?
It's not really about nerfing a character in a game.
Its whether about whether a product was missold due to a change in the description.
If the item no longer matches the product description than it is no longer the item you bought. The digital content is no longer as described.Its core functionality has changed.