Live data from Hacker News

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

ftc.gov

91–100 of 318 posts

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

#91
post #74
post #71

Who gets this penalty? The FTC? Why do these penalties always end up as a fine for the company? They should also be forced to simply go and refund the amount they overcharged at least and preferably add a multiple too.

>Under the FTC’s order, Epic must pay $245 million, which will be used to provide refunds to consumers.

I will anxiously await my check for $0.25

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

#92
post #45
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…

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.

The button needs to say "rent" or "lease". A "buy" button should not result in a rental.

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

#93

> In Spring 2018, Epic executives and managers discussed adding a confirm purchase button to prevent accidental purchases. Though employees were concerned that “it is a bit of a dark UX pattern to not have confirmation on ‘destructive’ actions,” Epic feared that adding a confirmation button would add “friction,” “result in a decent number of people second guessing their purchase,” and reduce the number of “impulse pu…

Somewhat ironic. Remember Epic's attack on Apple's game store? At least Apple does not apply that many controversial patterns to their customer experience.

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

#94
post #84

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has…

I think a lot of us do push back on the product owners and designers when something seems obviously bad. But I don't think it's good advice to encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code.

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

#95
post #26

> 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 think it is reasonable. On other side the companies should then be able to sue you and you need to prove that charge was fraudulent. If you fail, you will carry full costs of both sides. Thus cutting down the fraud by chargebacks.

This is really how the system works in most places. If a chargeback result is unjust, the merchant can sue. In most places court costs and attorney fees are awarded to the winner. Most of the time, merchants just assign the account to a collection agency after 90 days and hope for something.

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

#96
post #60

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…

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

Same?

I don't disagree, but this is as much flamebait as the response you're complaining about...

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

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the businesses have made customer's ability to access their previous purchases dependent upon continuing to have a business relationship with the account. If, when closing the account, the business paid back full value for everything they were removing access to, the ruling might be different. But they aren't doing that. If you are a business doing more normal business, selling something with no s…

It might be even easier than being paid back full value (which is difficult). How about you still have your account but you can no longer purchase anything else?

This would be a just way to do it. Making a dispute over $20 cost the complainer $2000 in digital goods seems like a good way to create hate and discontent... and lawsuits.

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

#98

> 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.

It's common, but not universal. I once charged back gift cards that had been purchased through my hacked Zune store account (which tied into my main Microsoft account). I had some email back and forth with support and informed them that that's what I had done and why and they unlocked my account. That said, I wouldn't rely on that today.

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

#99
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-…

The bigger issue is that because of the market power of these digital storefronts, it doesn't matter what your mental model of the transaction is, you don't have a choice in the matter. Yes, online stores with better terms exist, but they don't tend to have the games that you'd want to buy.

I always get a warm feeling when a game I'm interested in has an itch.io link, but I'm not gonna delude myself into thinking it'll ever replace Steam, even if Steam had to stop calling itself a store. Steam is just far too established, and the network effect is just way too strong.

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

#100
post #84

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has…

> 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.

Post reply on HN