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

51–60 of 318 posts

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

#51

Post by Kiro »

bluetidepro wrote: post #30
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.

I take it you have never tried to use the support system of many of these services? Yeah, you may sometimes get a good rep that will actually help you and refund you. More often times than not you are forced to jump through massive hoops, auto replies, no help, etc. to the point that you have to do a chargeback. Also, chargebacks are not always a guarantee, VISA (or whoever) does their own investigation to make sure…

I refund routinely on Steam. The only times it doesn't work is if I've played more than 2 hours which seems fair. I don't see why I would be entitled to making a chargeback after I've played the game for that long. That would be like renting a movie, watch it and then make a chargeback.

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

#52

Post by vuln »

paulmd wrote: post #50
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.

That may be true, but the EU can simply outlaw those types of contractual arrangements going forward, and require that prior purchases be either defaulted into the new purchase arrangement or refunded. Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens. It doesn't have to be the way it is in the US with corporations holding all the cards, that's just regulatory capture in action. That's…

It would be interesting to see the EU try and force a company to host something in perpetuity. Interesting thought exercise.

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

#53

Post by JohnFen »

hunter2_ wrote: post #41
JohnFen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you do a chargeback, you often get blacklisted on their service. Although, to be honest, if a problem has deteriorated to the point where I need to do a chargeback, I've already written off doing any further business with that company anyway.

For many, that depends entirely on the availability of alternatives. With duopolies like Uber/Lyft, you survive after one kill and then you're done. Amazon hardly has a direct competitor. For merchants with plenty of direct competitors, I agree with you.

I understand. I prefer to minimize risk, though, so I don't use services like Uber/Lyft, and I stopped using Amazon and eBay entirely.

Interestingly, I stopped using eBay precisely because they left me stuck with a fraudulent charge. The process of trying to dispute it using their system was so drawn out, though, that by the time eBay told me to go pound sand, it was too late to do a chargeback. But even so, I'm certainly not willing to risk trusting them again.

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

#54

Post by ceejayoz »

vuln wrote: post #48
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see this formalized as a rule/right. I essentially can't file a chargeback against Amazon or Steam, ever, because of the likely repercussions to the rest of my libraries there.

> my libraries You may have curated but you do not own your library. You purchased _access_ to said library.

My understanding of that semantic distinction (one virtually everyone on HN holds, I'd wager) is quite clear from context, I think, or I wouldn't be worried about the scenario.

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

#55

Post by SkyPuncher »

afterburner wrote: post #43
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…

This is just common in general. Nobody that you chargeback is going to want your business again. It's just that tech companies usually hold something you want (your account) effectively hostage, whereas a restaurant or whatever you can just stop going to. This does make it worse.

That’s fine for a hotel, but it’s not fine for services where you also loose access to your inventory.

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

#56

Post by wantsanagent »

"After receiving five comments, the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the complaint and order against Epic and the responses to the commenters."

What? Were these just five people who happened to be in the room? How do you receive only 5 comments?

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

#57

Post by drstewart »

spacemadness wrote: post #47
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 could see these being difficult logistical problems for companies but that gives them no right to socialize the problem by playing hardball and holding accounts hostage. That problem is in their domain to solve, and sorry that being a profitable business is tough but, again, solving this is not on the customer.

How is it "socializing the problem" other than being a buzzword phrase that's been thrown around lately in other contexts that feels like it fits?

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

#58

Post by drstewart »

paulmd wrote: post #50
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.

That may be true, but the EU can simply outlaw those types of contractual arrangements going forward, and require that prior purchases be either defaulted into the new purchase arrangement or refunded. Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens. It doesn't have to be the way it is in the US with corporations holding all the cards, that's just regulatory capture in action. That's…

[flagged]

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

#60

Post by paulmd »

drstewart wrote: post #58
paulmd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true, but the EU can simply outlaw those types of contractual arrangements going forward, and require that prior purchases be either defaulted into the new purchase arrangement or refunded. Welcome to governments that are actually responsive to protecting their citizens. It doesn't have to be the way it is in the US with corporations holding all the cards, that's just regulatory capture in action. That's…

[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 bad-faith but to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you are asking me to provide a track record of the EU's previous pro-consumer legislation, some examples would be phone connector/cable standardization, charger standardization, mandatory warranties, etc.

Post reply on HN