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

251–260 of 318 posts

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

#251

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

bena wrote: post #19
PurpleRamen wrote: post #6

That's the second time now I read about Epic Games paying a fine for doing something obviously shady and illegal. I slowly get the impression that Epic Games might be a bit more scammy than your average company.

Yeah, it makes their kerfuffle with Apple look a bit different. Because Apple charges 30%. And Apple can keep that if there is a refund. In this case, Epic is returning money. They would ideally be net zero on this whole debacle. You mistakenly bought $10 worth of skins, Epic collected that $10. Then you get refunded $10, Epic returns that $10. In the App Store scenario. You mistakenly bought $10 worth of skins, Appl…

This is completely false. Apple doesn't chargeback more than it paid out.

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

#252

Post by [deleted] »

camhart wrote: post #111
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…

There is the business side of this to consider. Disputes are expensive--companies are forced to pay significant fees whether they win or lose the dispute. A dishonest customer lying to their bank about your product/service should be able to be banned from using your product/service. Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? To be clear, I'm talking about a diff…

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by ClumsyPilot »

olliej wrote: post #69
vuln wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You purchased _access_ to the media for as long as the company decides to host it. You don't physically own the media. Think of it as renting or a lease.

Having it physically isn't relevant. Plenty of people still buy games as physical media, and those games, including single player, all stop functioning the moment the company turns off the DRM - errr, "advanced feature" -- servers. Having something physical is meaningless when every piece of software comes with T&Cs that say it's dependent on server support.

What happens legally if I buy a CD/DVD in a store, without signing a contract, with software, but the software doesn't work because servers don't?

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

#254

Post by javajosh »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #170
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…

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 somethi…

Totally agree. Either that or they should be forced to change the wording from "buy" to "conditionally gain access subject to revocation at any time for any reason without recourse".

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

#255

Post by kfrzcode »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #170
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…

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 somethi…

> only way to solve this

I dunno, I've had a solution on hand that has consistently provided high-quality, seaworthy FLAC, MP3, MKV, MP4, etc... of all of my favorite media content. Since around maybe 2003, 2004.

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

#256

Post by ClumsyPilot »

JohnFen wrote: post #44
bluetidepro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Sometimes it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash where it could be at the fault of one bad apple and not the company at a whole. Or as others said, sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive library of content if you get blacklisted like on Steam or Amazon, for example.

> it's more grey than that in services like Uber or Doordash I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner. If the company doesn't make something right, that's on the company in the end regardless of who specifically did something wrong. So it doesn't look gray to me. > sometimes you are at the mercy of losing a massive librar…

> I understand this perspective, but my opinion is that the company running things is responsible for the people working under their banner.

Companies like Uber claim that the people are self employed when it suits them, and that they are not when it doesn't.

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

#257

Post by naniwaduni »

camhart wrote: post #229
naniwaduni wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise, what's to stop them from maliciously charging then filing disputes over and over again? Their bank?

The bank profits from it... no incentive on the banks part to stop it.

What part of a chargeback do you think is profitable for the bank?

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

#258

Post by ClumsyPilot »

fidgewidge wrote: post #193
michpoch wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no problem with making chargebacks in Europe. Maybe you should move to another bank?

Maybe, but I've never heard anyone I know in Europe ever refer to making a chargeback or even raising the possibility of doing one. It certainly isn't common. Perhaps it depends on what country you're in.

Chargebacks are mandated by law on credit-cards in Europe, and they have saved the ass of many people, and stopped a lot of fraud.

When covid hapepned, many airplane companies were not refunding cancelled flights, everyone who bought tickets with a credit card could do a chargeback, and buy another ticket. Everyone else was stuck in disputes for months, some for years, some never got money back.

When you pay with a debit card, you are paying with your money. So you could lose all the money you have, that's bad.

But the credit-card is the Bank's money. You could loose all the money you don't have. You could lose unlimited amount of money - after all, the bank decides if to accept a transaction. That's Much Much Worse.

So let's say you bought something for $500 on the credit card, then the bank has to collect this money from you.

So the Chargeback is really you telling the bank that someone stole from them, it was the bank's money after all, and that they cannot collect from you. It is then between the bank and the merchant to fight it out.

Basically the bank is providing you credit, they decide how much credit to provide, and they are also in charge of security -> making sure it was you and not someone stealing your credit card. So they hold the buck.

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

#259

Post by lmm »

mahathu wrote: post #167
hunter2_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's still there although they emphasise it less and less (they want you on the monthly "unlimited" subscription instead). But only for music; their video offering is locked streams only, for example.

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

#260

Post by ClumsyPilot »

LanceH wrote: post #39
Kiro wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you chargeback in Fortnite instead of just refunding? The only reasons I can think of are fraudulent ones.

They weren't getting refunded because kids were genuinely using their parents' credit cards. Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally.

> Parents are alleging fraud to the cc companies, but not reporting this as fraud legally.

Just so we are on the same page, is the issue that they are not calling the police and saying "my kid has used my creditcard, could you prosecute them for fraud?"

Post reply on HN