Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 318 posts

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#161

Post by AussieWog93 »

bluetidepro wrote: post #5

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people realize. This is very common in many tech companies like Uber/Doordash/Sony/etc. where if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. It would be amazing if this starts to end this practice, and you can actually have authority to get your m…

I run an ecommerce business, and pretty much always always block customers who file a chargeback or dispute.

They're completely draining to deal with, usually fraudulent, and the only way to win one is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the buyer is lying.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#162

Post by matheusmoreira »

smugma wrote: post #156
matheusmoreira wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning users who charge back is standard practice on all video game stores. They equate it to fraud in their terms of service. Imagine having an account worth thousands of dollars and losing everything because you decided to exercise your rights. I'm so happy to see authorities are finally doing something about this abuse.

Does Apple App Store do this?

Absolutely. Check out this document for example:

https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term...

> All Transactions are final.

Purchased something by mistake? Tough.

> If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple.

Unhappy? Your only recourse is to beg Apple for your money back. They may say no.

> From time to time, Apple may suspend or cancel payment or refuse a refund request if we find evidence of fraud, abuse, or unlawful or other manipulative behavior that entitles Apple to a corresponding counterclaim.

These corporations think charge backs are evidence of abuse and fraud, so yeah.

> c. Termination. This Standard EULA is effective until terminated by you or Licensor. Your rights under this Standard EULA will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with any of its terms.

Your fraudulent chargebacks are reason enough for them to kill your account, invalidating every dime you ever spent on it.

There's no point in even reading these silly documents. They're all the same, everywhere. Always assume they do this.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#163

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Thaxll wrote: post #123
flangola7 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other reasons to use a chargeback than just fraud.

Which is?

Other examples would be the goods or services paid for never being actually delivered or being significantly differently that what was promised.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#164

Post by echelon »

bioemerl wrote: post #157
capableweb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also why steam is still the leader despite having a terrible UI: they have been very good to their customers. Steams core customer is the game developers/publishers, who they take a ~30% (last time I checked) cut from the profits from. The people who buy games are simply users of Steam, and Steam has to treat them well, otherwise their actual customers (developers/publishers) won't get as much profits, and indirect…

Developers don't pay that 30 percent, users do. You could even say that steam is a customer of the developers (I buy your game at x to sell for y), and the average person is a customer of steam and the devs. I don't really see the customers or the developers as the core. Both groups tie into each other in a big network effect.

Developers do. It comes out of their margins.

If game developers and publishers could get the same audience without steam and the 30% tax, they would in a heartbeat.

They'd probably cut the price a little to expand sales and enjoy the wider margin. Margin that could be spent on salaries and growth.

Thankfully Valve is investing its proceeds in developing competitive products that enrich the industry and not just skimming.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#165

Post by j_maffe »

bioemerl wrote: post #157
capableweb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also why steam is still the leader despite having a terrible UI: they have been very good to their customers. Steams core customer is the game developers/publishers, who they take a ~30% (last time I checked) cut from the profits from. The people who buy games are simply users of Steam, and Steam has to treat them well, otherwise their actual customers (developers/publishers) won't get as much profits, and indirect…

Developers don't pay that 30 percent, users do. You could even say that steam is a customer of the developers (I buy your game at x to sell for y), and the average person is a customer of steam and the devs. I don't really see the customers or the developers as the core. Both groups tie into each other in a big network effect.

They are neither buyers nor sellers, they have a marketplace business model. https://www.bluecart.com/blog/marketplace-business-model#:~:....

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#166

Post by _yrnr »

Errsher wrote: post #118
grog454 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.

Ah yes, the banality of evil. s/implementing a dark pattern/performing any immoral or unethical act/g

In capitalism, you're always free to starve. In Nazi Germany, you're always free to be executed or imprisoned for refusing orders.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#167

Post by mahathu »

hunter2_ wrote: post #35
paulmd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…

> music I've purchased They really ought to stop using "buy"/"purchase" metaphorically to mean something more like "one time fee for an indefinite lease that ends upon account termination." If they simply used a word better suited to the reality of the situation, then it wouldn't be a surprise that the account (which is a privilege, not a right) is a dependency of using what you paid for. Maybe something like "micro-…

Didn't they use to let users download mp3s when they bought an album? Did that change?

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#168

Post by chrononaut »

paulmd wrote: post #60
drstewart wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Or did you literally just try to make up something that the EU can do then use it to praise the EU and bash the US? The flamebait tone is unnecessary and is against the spirit of discussion here at HN as well as the rules, I'd kindly ask you to chill it a bit here. This isn't legislation that exists, this is me suggesting they should pass legislation, which is obvious from the ordinary context of my comment. Feels…

> The flamebait tone is unnecessary and is against the spirit of discussion here at HN as well as the rules, I'd kindly ask you to chill it a bit here.

Not OP, but I imagine your tone was likely a contributing factor to their response.

>> Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens.

..

>> Yeah bullshit. Mandatory binding arbitration in your contract of adhesion? Arbitrate on deez nuts.

>> The US is completely obscene by the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#169

Post by optionalsquid »

paulmd wrote: post #25
bluetidepro wrote: post #5

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people realize. This is very common in many tech companies like Uber/Doordash/Sony/etc. where if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. It would be amazing if this starts to end this practice, and you can actually have authority to get your m…

Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…

> Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks.

As far as I know, you won't actually lose your account if you perform a chargeback against Steam, but the account does get restricted in a number of ways, preventing further purchases, access to community features (including trading), multiplayer on VAT enabled serves, and more. The official documentation does not list the specific restrictions [0], but the (fairly old) screenshot in this thread does [1]. Moreover, the restrictions seem to temporary in some cases, even without the account holder reverting the charge-back [2]. Both sources are old, but I don't recall hearing of any changes in this regard, nor could I find anything in that vein.

[0] https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/783F-5E0F-9834-22...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/2inknm/help_steam_re...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/2qa7fx/visa_has_char...

Re: Epic Games to pay $245M for tricking users into making unwanted charges

#170

Post by CobrastanJorji »

paulmd wrote: post #25
bluetidepro wrote: post #5

> Additionally, the order bars Epic from blocking consumers from accessing their accounts for disputing unauthorized charges. This could be bigger than people realize. This is very common in many tech companies like Uber/Doordash/Sony/etc. where if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. It would be amazing if this starts to end this practice, and you can actually have authority to get your m…

Came here to say this too. This just needs to be the rule generally. Steam and Amazon do the same thing - get hacked and get charged for some items, if you dispute the Steam charge you lose your $5000 account, that's not a fair playing field and effectively negates the protection offered by credit card networks. Hopefully steam resolves it, that's always the first line of defense, but if they don't, you still can't c…

I think ultimately the only way to solve this is to legislate some notion of digital "ownership."

Steam SOLD me a game. Amazon SOLD me an e-book. Shut down my account or refuse to do further business with me as you like, that's your right, but if you SOLD me something, you can't have it back. You need to either make it available to me or return my money. If Amazon wants to put the word "buy" on a button, then something needs to be sold. Otherwise the button needs to read "acquire revokable license" or something.

And, of course, this leads to the reason it'll never happen: first sale doctrine. If I own something, I need to be able to transfer it to someone else.

Post reply on HN