Steam Re-Interating Australian Consumer Rights after Rejection by The High Court

Notice: https://store.steampowered.com/consumer_rights_notice/
Consumer Protection Article: http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/695290/Dodd-Frank+Wall+Str…

On 24 March 2016, the Federal Court of Australia found that Valve Corporation had engaged in misleading conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law in representing to Australian consumers via the Steam Subscriber Agreement and Steam Refund Policy that consumers had no entitlement to a refund in any circumstances and that Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees of acceptable quality. A link to the Federal Court judgment appears here:

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca…

When you buy video games from Valve Corporation as a consumer located in Australia, the video games come with guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law that cannot be excluded, including a guarantee that the video games are of acceptable quality. You are entitled to a replacement or refund from the retail supplier of the video games for a major failure and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the video games repaired or replaced by the retail supplier of the video games if the video games fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure. Certain other rights are available directly against manufacturers that cannot be excluded or limited.

The test for acceptable quality is whether a reasonable consumer, fully aware of the state and condition of the video games, would find them:

  • safe, durable and free from defects;
  • acceptable in appearance and finish; and
  • fit for all the purposes for which video games of that kind are commonly supplied. This must take into account the nature and price of the video games, and any statements on packaging or labelling.

For further information on consumer rights in Australia, visit www.consumerlaw.gov.au and www.accc.gov.au/consumerguarantees.

Looks like someone managed to claim a refund on the basis that a refund was denied prior to Steam implementing their current refund system.

Related Stores

Steam
Steam

Comments

  • -3

    wow, this is pretty interesting.

    the Aust legal system enforcing consumer rights for electronic goods purchased from an International company.

    however - how enforceable is this?

    answer - unenforceable.

    Valve/Steam is located in the US.

    However there may be further ramifications for companies who have a physical location in Australia - e.g. Ebay. Amazon, etc ; who sell any goods (digital or physical)

    i.e. paying Tax.

    but I don't hold my breath. these companies find marvellous loopholes to avoid paying tax. (Starbucks corporation does not pay tax in Australia because all profit is off set by the cost of "research")

    maybe the consumer rights angle is a further attempt to reap tax revenue for the government?
    maybe it's them just flexing their muscle?

    will be interesting to see what happens

    • +4

      lol are you serious? Of course it's enforceable, otherwise they won't be able to operate within Australia. They won't be able to sell in Australia if they don't follow the law.

      • -2

        you mean it's enforceable just like the Australian government has blocked torrent sites from Aus IP addresses? /s

        and so no person living in Australia can access torrent sites? /s

        or do you mean, "enforceable" like when I'm a child a I don't want to hear something so I put my hands over my ears, close my eyes and shout "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-"

        or as you trolling?

        because how the hell the would the Aus Gov/ACL reall hold these companies (that are located in another country, which has it's own consumer laws, and there is no bilateral international consumer protection agreement in place) to Australian Legislation.

        These are digital goods. you don't need a B&M shop on Aus soil to sell them. digital. internet.

        • +4

          Steam - a completely legal service to use that is worth billion$

          Torrents - a well-known dodgy medium for illegally downloading media

          Altomic: They're the same

          Can't argue with that logic, dude.

          Remember Apple? Remember them? Remember their warranty only covering one yr, even though Australian law says it has to be two for electronics? Ya?

        • @ThithLord: I just don't understand what you are saying.

          are you saying that if Steam don't abide by ACL then they will be banned from australia?

        • +2

          @altomic: I'm saying that /ValveSteam will abide by ACL if they want to trade here. Which I am more than sure they want to - Aussie gaming market is huge!

        • -2

          @ThithLord: so you are saying they will voluntarily abide by ACL?

          I just don't understand how ACL will be enforceable upon Steam if they don't abide by it.

          How will the government enforce them to follow ACL if they aren't abiding by?

        • @altomic: Probably the same way they enforced Apple to honour the 2 year ACL.

        • @ThithLord: you are comparing a B&M store in Australia to a purely digital product which is located not in Australia.

          hence my comparison of torrents & steam.

          the government "blocked" torrent sites but people in Australia still access them because it is so easy to do.

          what I am asking is : "without a physical presence in Australia then how will ACL be enforceable upon Steam?"

        • +1

          @ThithLord: VALVe does not operate officially in Australia so it's not the same as dealing with Apple. I get what altomic is trying to say. Take a second and re-read it.

          His query is, if push came to shove, could VALVe just simply not care and if Aussies purchase from their online (US) store then it's up to them kind of thing. The Australian government cannot enforce anything on that.

          I don't know the answer, just clarifying what he's asking.

          Edit: Another way of looking at it is if you ordered something from China on a Chinese website and it never arrived, can you lodge a Police fraud claim here and would they actually do anything? Probably not.

        • @altomic: Valve will want to operate complicity in Australia if told by the courts that they have to.

        • +1

          @ThithLord: You still don't get it. VALVe do NOT operate officially in Australia. Whom is the court going to tell?

        • +1

          @Hybroid:

          Yes you are right, absolutely nothing stopping Valve from continuing to do what they do.

          TBH Valve knows this and it is cheaper to pay the $3m fine every now and then as compared to giving refunds.

        • @plmko: or not even pay the fine and just keep trading.

        • @plmko: LMAO. If you think Valve will just pay $3m every now and then, then we have nothing further to discuss. Even to a company like Valve, $3M fine is fricken massive, dude. Y'all tripping and have no idea how these things work. In my line of work I deal with a lot of software based companies who do not operate a B&M store in Australia - why would they abide by the law if they didn't have to?

        • -4

          @ThithLord:

          Even to a company like Valve, $3M fine is fricken massive, dude.

          Right, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm done with this. Don't feed the troll.

        • @Hybroid: hahaha. You seriously think a three million dollar fine means nothing to a company, purely cos they make a shit tonne of cash? You're delusional and have zero idea on the world, boiky.

        • @ThithLord: >even though Australian law says it has to be two for electronics

          No it doesn't and if you believe Apple when they tell you you have no rights that's your problem. Apple are covered by ACL.

        • @Diji1: That was my point - ACL kicked in and they now provide a 2yr warranty, Diji1

        • @ThithLord: >In my line of work I deal with a lot of software based companies who do not operate a B&M store in Australia - why would they abide by the law if they didn't have to?

          I don't understand what you mean by this, as in, that has been my entire point "why would they abide by the law if they didn't have to?"

        • +1

          @altomic: I'm saying that Valve will abide by this ruling and subsequent rulings - they will want to operate in good faith in Australia. Valve took this to the High Courts and Valve's case wad dismissed (as in, the fine has to be paid).

          If Valve could flaunt not having to pay the fine, like Hybroid seems to think, why would Valve even bother taking it to court?

        • -1

          @altomic:
          Someone obviously believes that Australian law applies to anyone who sells to an Australian.

          I reckon it should. Those unsolicited tuk tuk drivers have a lot to answer to.

        • @Hybroid:

          What are you talking about? Valve does sell to Aussie consumers, has options for Australian consumers when signing up, recognises Aussie addresses etc. - this means their service is not only directed to US customers but also Aussie customers. That is enough to make them culpable and liable.

          The government/ACCC here could simply issue an enforcement with the US courts (after Valve has been sued in Oz and a judgment has been obtained) and then the US courts will enforce it against Valve in the US. It is that simple. You can still sue entities not present here - I am not sure who started spreading the myth that a physical presence in the country is necessary.

          Comparing the US to China where things like that are difficult due to the fact it is a dictatorship who condones theft of IP rights and disregards many rights, including human rights, and the rule of law is a bit too simple.

          Source: my work and my colleagues - all lawyers

          Note: if you are interested in this there is a very simplified explanation on Wikipedia. Keep in mind it is Wikipedia meaning there are a lot more rules, exemptions, explanations etc regarding jurisdiction and territoriality principles for private international and commercial law.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws

    • -1

      You appear blissfully unaware that Australia has an extradition treaty with the USA.

      however - how enforceable is this?

      answer - unenforceable.

      • i'm very much aware of bilateral extradition treaty (I've dealt with it recently in my line of work).

        I don't know what international cooperation in the management of criminals has to do with consumer legislation.

        I also deal with Hague Convention matters on a regular basis.i.e. I'm quite aware international treaties/agreements.

      • Extradition applies to criminal activity. Non-compliance to trade laws not applicable to foreign entities hardly qualifies.

  • +3

    Yeah I was surprised too as i thought the transaction didnt take place in Australia.

    Hopefully ACCC takes up Adobe and other vendors for charging more in Australia than the US

Login or Join to leave a comment