Blogger Denied Refund for Game EA Won't Let Him Play

[CheckD3]

I understand where EA and XBL are coming from, since sales are final, however, if he can't play the game, why would they allow him to buy the game? That's trickery, deceitful, and just plain wrong. And the fact that they're trying to "be the parent" is one of the biggest problems games are facing. You either have the game companies saying no (after they've taken your money of course), or you have parents who are so inattentive that the kid plays games their parents wouldn't normally let them play and when the parents find out they blame the company.

The dad wasn't doing anything wrong here, and the fact that they're treating him badly just because he wants his money back since they won't let his son play a game and punishing him for telling the truth is wrong. Hopefully he can get his money back.

 

[mjc0961]

Well, the item is clearly marked with a warning that you need to be 13+ to sign up for an EA account. Guy's fault for not paying more attention and just assuming his kid could play because he had played other games.

Although I do dislike the EA account crap for EA's games in general and wish that would go away. But still, sorry man. The item was clearly marked and you are not entitled to a refund.

 

[jp201]

When you buy a game from the marketplace it's specifically stated you can't gain a refund in large bold letters...

Doesn't matter.

EA has a legal responsibility to make the father aware of ALL of the terms of the contract BEFORE the purchase. He didn't consent to those terms because he didn't know those terms were there to consent to. Therefore, there was not a meeting of the minds, and the contract is void.

Simply putting "no refunds" on your product doesn't make it true. If I put "I get to kill you if you piss me off" on my ebay sales, does that make it legal for me to murder angry customers? No. Policy does not allow you to break the law, and that is what EA is doing by not fulfilling their end of the contract. The contract is whatever is presented to the father at the time of purchase, and ONLY what is presented to him then. If EA doesn't put age restrictions in the initial purchase description, they don't have a legal right to impose those EVER. You cannot add additional terms to a contract after the customer has already fulfilled his end and given his consent.

By your logic, if EA threw in "Oh and by the way, you have to take us out to a lobster dinner.", somehow they'd be in the right? A lobster dinner was not detailed during the initial purchase, so EA cannot impose a lobster dinner on the father, just as they can't impose an age restriction on the father, because an age restriction wasn't detailed during the initial purchase either.

The father is legally entitled to a functional game that lets his son in. If the age restrictions weren't put in the terms BEFORE the father paid for it, they don't have a legal right to add those restrictions in AFTER. You cannot change the terms of the agreement after it's already been agreed upon, especially if the customer has already fulfilled his end of the bargain. And the father did, indeed, fulfill HIS end of the bargain. He therefore is legally entitled to a game that doesn't restrict his son from playing, because the age restrictions weren't specified from the start. Thus, the age restrictions cannot be imposed upon him. If EA insists on imposing those restrictions on him, that is a BREACH OF CONTRACT on their part, and he's entitled to his money back.

If he took this to court, I'd honestly say that he does have a case.

A case for a $15 dollar purchase that he was IGNORANT about? Most likely won't ever touch court as it would be a joke.


Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Andy Chalk]

This is a direct quote from Thomas' blog post:

"Just about every weekend, Tommy and I play EA?s online FPS Battlefield 1943 together, taking turns by passing the controller between us. About a month ago, I decided I?d had enough of playing hotseat and decided to get the kid his own copy of the game for his Xbox 360 on the Xbox Live Marketplace.

I paid Microsoft $14.99 for 1200 points to buy the game, and used the points to purchase the game on the Xbox Live Marketplace. The game downloaded fine without any warnings and I started the game up.

Since the game is an EA title, I had the misfortune to have to deal with EA.com's online game authentication. Tommy didn?t play any EA online games prior to BF1943, so I had to create an account for him. I went through the steps and hit the Connect button and the game just sat there endlessly spinning it?s 'Connecting...' indicator.

I waited 15 minutes, reset the Xbox 360 and tried again with the same result. I tried this probably a dozen times over the day, and never got any closer to getting into the game.

I contacted EA support about the issue, and was advised to download another EA online game demo and use it to create the user account. I downloaded the latest iteration of Madden and started it up. I was presented the EA Terms of Service agreement and when I hit the button to accept the terms, I was told I had to be at least 13 to play EA games online.

At no point during my purchase of BF1943 using my son's account was I warned that there were any age requirements for the game."

I don't have Xbox Live myself so I can't verify the claims. D_987 says a statement indicating you have to be 13 or older to "register with EA Online," which for the record isn't the same as playing the game, is available at Xbox.com, but is the same information also available during the purchase process on Xbox Live? And if it is, but buried in section 27 of some EULA, is that kosher? Do publishers not have some obligation to provide adequate warning to gamers that they may not be able to access content they're purchasing above and beyond a line of text two-thirds of the way down a huge legal document that nobody reads anyway?

 

[SwimmingRock]

I largely agree with your post, but had to respond to this bit. Mainly because it's true and shouldn't be. Punishing people for honesty and (worse, in my opinion) taking away a parents right to decide how to raise their child in a way which doesn't conflict with the law, is absolutely unacceptable from any company. EA does not get to raise other peoples children for them. That's not their damn business.

No it isn't their business. But there are too many knee-jerk "Save/Protect the childrens" groups out there with too much public sway for these companies to ignore.
Everyone is looking for a convenient scapegoat.

Unfortunately, this is very true. If I had some brilliant alternative, I would have mentioned it. All I can really think of is giving the companies less responsibility and the parents more, but you know as well as I do how that ends: lawsuits from lazy parents.

 

[CustomMagnum]

EA offered him a refund. In fact, they offered him 5 bucks more than he spent. He turned it down because it wasn't what he wanted.

Because the credit for the EA store would mean that his kid wouldn't be allowed to play whatever game on his own account anyway.

If there wasn't a single game in the store that would be playable by kids, why would they offer him the credit to begin with? Sure, he couldn't play THAT game, but he could have gotten something else.

But wouldn't those other games, if they have online play, require an EA Store account, which you need to be 13 or older to register for, and therefore couldn't be used for his son's account?

 

[Belated]

When you buy a game from the marketplace it's specifically stated you can't gain a refund in large bold letters...

Doesn't matter.

EA has a legal responsibility to make the father aware of ALL of the terms of the contract BEFORE the purchase. He didn't consent to those terms because he didn't know those terms were there to consent to. Therefore, there was not a meeting of the minds, and the contract is void.

Simply putting "no refunds" on your product doesn't make it true. If I put "I get to kill you if you piss me off" on my ebay sales, does that make it legal for me to murder angry customers? No. Policy does not allow you to break the law, and that is what EA is doing by not fulfilling their end of the contract. The contract is whatever is presented to the father at the time of purchase, and ONLY what is presented to him then. If EA doesn't put age restrictions in the initial purchase description, they don't have a legal right to impose those EVER. You cannot add additional terms to a contract after the customer has already fulfilled his end and given his consent.

By your logic, if EA threw in "Oh and by the way, you have to take us out to a lobster dinner.", somehow they'd be in the right? A lobster dinner was not detailed during the initial purchase, so EA cannot impose a lobster dinner on the father, just as they can't impose an age restriction on the father, because an age restriction wasn't detailed during the initial purchase either.

The father is legally entitled to a functional game that lets his son in. If the age restrictions weren't put in the terms BEFORE the father paid for it, they don't have a legal right to add those restrictions in AFTER. You cannot change the terms of the agreement after it's already been agreed upon, especially if the customer has already fulfilled his end of the bargain. And the father did, indeed, fulfill HIS end of the bargain. He therefore is legally entitled to a game that doesn't restrict his son from playing, because the age restrictions weren't specified from the start. Thus, the age restrictions cannot be imposed upon him. If EA insists on imposing those restrictions on him, that is a BREACH OF CONTRACT on their part, and he's entitled to his money back.

If he took this to court, I'd honestly say that he does have a case.

A case for a $15 dollar purchase that he was IGNORANT about? Most likely won't ever touch court as it would be a joke.


Ignorance is not an excuse.

Nice try, but think again.

"Ignorance is not an excuse." is applied to LAW, not to contract terms. EA's "We will not let you allow your kid to play this, even if you give consent as his parent." term is NOT a law. It is a term. A term that they have an obligation to make aware to the father before he signs the contract. How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play? That part of the agreement wasn't outlined to him in the beginning. That doesn't make him ignorant. EA's at fault for not telling him this. What was he supposed to do? Magically read their minds and know what the second sheet of terms would be? Tell you what. Blow up that banana on my kitchen table. With your mind. Do it. And I'll believe that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you can win this argument.

But seriously, "Ignorance is not an excuse."? How gullible do you think I am? That's like saying "Stop drop and roll!" when telling somebody how to clean cake frosting off their face. It's the wrong phrase for the wrong situation. As I said, that phrase only applies to an actual law. EA's term is not a law, it is their term. A term they did not state in the initial contract.

 

[mjc0961]

If EA doesn't put age restrictions in the initial purchase description, they don't have a legal right to impose those EVER.

The problem with your rant is that they did put them in the initial purchase description.

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Battlefield-1943/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8025841097e?cid=search&DownloadType=Game
Click the "description" link and bam:

REGISTRATION AND GOLD SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED. EA ONLINE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND FEATURE UPDATES ARE FOUND AT www.ea.com. YOU MUST BE 13+ TO REGISTER WITH EA ONLINE.

And here it is on the 360 itself:

Spoiler

Notice that I accessed this screen WITHOUT buying the product. I still have to select that "confirm purchase" option to actually trade my MS Points for a copy of the game. I have not purchased Battlefield 1943 yet, and I am being told that I must be 13+ to register with EA Online, which is required to play (as seen in the above quote's first sentence, "REGISTRATION AND GOLD SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED."). There is no scam going on here, it told you before you purchased that you need to be 13 or older. And I am not pulling any tricks here; here's a picture of what you see on a game if you have already bought it:

Spoiler

Thus, if your description of how "legal" things are is correct, EA does have the right to enforce this and MS does have the right to enforce the no refunds policy.

If he took this to court, I'd honestly say that he does have a case.

I'd honestly say that he doesn't, and that you don't know all the facts of this story yet.

I don't have Xbox Live myself so I can't verify the claims. D_987 says a statement indicating you have to be 13 or older to "register with EA Online," which for the record isn't the same as playing the game, is available at Xbox.com, but is the same information also available during the purchase process on Xbox Live? And if it is, but buried in section 27 of some EULA, is that kosher?

No, it's right there on the page. You can scroll through the text with the right stick to ensure that you read at your own pace and don't miss anything. It seems quite clear to me, registration is required and you must be 13+ to register.

[hr]

As far as I'm concerned, the dad should have paid more attention before making his purchase and isn't entitled to a refund because the information is indeed provided before you buy anything.

 

[FalloutJack]

Allow me to put this into a very simple notion.

EA is selling defective games. (Namely, if you can't play it, it's a defective product. Period. End of story.) Defective games are to be refunded or the suing starts. The customer IS right on this occasion.

 

[mjc0961]

How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play?

By reading ALL of the information on the page before agreeing to purchase the game. Very simple.

 

[AKmontalvo]

Though it's morally reprehensible, and I would love to sit here and think of ways that these other two fellas are wrong, the guy should have paid more attention. Microsoft and EA are both guilty of being terrible to their customers, exploiting customers, and overall lousy business practices (We all know how bad EA is). I wish to hell the guy paid more attention.

This is the only important bit; we can have all the arguments over morals and so forth, but at the end of the day the person in question didn't pay attention - and legally lost their money as a result. The system should be fixed, but I don't agree by any means that it's entirely the big companies fault here.

Oh, no, no, no. Let's set up an analogous situation (based on actual events). I send a 17 year old intern to buy dry ice at the store. What I don't know is that the state I am in does not allow anyone under 18 to purchase dry ice. You are saying that the clerk should take his money (my firm's money actually) and then refuse to give him the dry ice? Further, I should not be entitled to a refund? You, good sir, are off your rocker.

He spent 15 and they offered him 20, its not the option he wanted but it is a fair compromise to his request, if the company is willing to flex on their no refund policy it is perfectly reasonable to expect the man to flex on his part and except store credit (at a profit to boot)

 

[Belated]

How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play?

By reading ALL of the information on the page before agreeing to purchase the game. Very simple.

Yeah, remember when I said "Prove to me that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you'll win this argument."? It appears I stand corrected. Though ip201 didn't win on his own, you won for him by explaining this to me. Doesn't really matter who won though, because I just lost.

Actually I wasn't aware of that tidbit. I read the entire article but I guess either they failed to mention it, or I didn't read it hard enough. Well, um, well done then!

Though I will say that FalloutJack has made an interesting new argument, approaching this from a completely different angle. Can't really comment on his legal theory myself, but I think it's at least valid.

 

[EqualNOpposite]

No, I call shenanigans. I don't think EA has the right to say whether or not you are allowed to use material you purchase from them.

There are no actual laws regulating this sort of thing, it's all done with industry standards. EA is going beyond their bounds by flat-out denying game access to an owner of the game. They can make mercantile recommendations as purveyors of the product but the final say is and should be with the consumer (in this case, the consumer's legal advocate, the parent).

 

[aoeworth]

Which is why I'll never, ever, pay for an EA product.

 

[Dessembrae]

i have always wondered why halo has been rated pegi 18? there really isn't that much blood in it and there never was any gore. Swearing? What? someone said shit twice?

They aren't, every game in the halo series is rated PEGI 16.

OT: Well it did say you had to be 13+ to register online, and I assume you had to link his gamertag to to his EA online account in order to play so I really don't see what he is whining about.

...but to be somewhat fair, the kid shouldn't have been able to download the game in the first place in instances like these.

 

[jp201]

When you buy a game from the marketplace it's specifically stated you can't gain a refund in large bold letters...

Doesn't matter.

EA has a legal responsibility to make the father aware of ALL of the terms of the contract BEFORE the purchase. He didn't consent to those terms because he didn't know those terms were there to consent to. Therefore, there was not a meeting of the minds, and the contract is void.

Simply putting "no refunds" on your product doesn't make it true. If I put "I get to kill you if you piss me off" on my ebay sales, does that make it legal for me to murder angry customers? No. Policy does not allow you to break the law, and that is what EA is doing by not fulfilling their end of the contract. The contract is whatever is presented to the father at the time of purchase, and ONLY what is presented to him then. If EA doesn't put age restrictions in the initial purchase description, they don't have a legal right to impose those EVER. You cannot add additional terms to a contract after the customer has already fulfilled his end and given his consent.

By your logic, if EA threw in "Oh and by the way, you have to take us out to a lobster dinner.", somehow they'd be in the right? A lobster dinner was not detailed during the initial purchase, so EA cannot impose a lobster dinner on the father, just as they can't impose an age restriction on the father, because an age restriction wasn't detailed during the initial purchase either.

The father is legally entitled to a functional game that lets his son in. If the age restrictions weren't put in the terms BEFORE the father paid for it, they don't have a legal right to add those restrictions in AFTER. You cannot change the terms of the agreement after it's already been agreed upon, especially if the customer has already fulfilled his end of the bargain. And the father did, indeed, fulfill HIS end of the bargain. He therefore is legally entitled to a game that doesn't restrict his son from playing, because the age restrictions weren't specified from the start. Thus, the age restrictions cannot be imposed upon him. If EA insists on imposing those restrictions on him, that is a BREACH OF CONTRACT on their part, and he's entitled to his money back.

If he took this to court, I'd honestly say that he does have a case.

A case for a $15 dollar purchase that he was IGNORANT about? Most likely won't ever touch court as it would be a joke.


Ignorance is not an excuse.

Nice try, but think again.

"Ignorance is not an excuse." is applied to LAW, not to contract terms. EA's "We will not let you allow your kid to play this, even if you give consent as his parent." term is NOT a law. It is a term. A term that they have an obligation to make aware to the father before he signs the contract. How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play? That part of the agreement wasn't outlined to him in the beginning. That doesn't make him ignorant. EA's at fault for not telling him this. What was he supposed to do? Magically read their minds and know what the second sheet of terms would be? Tell you what. Blow up that banana on my kitchen table. With your mind. Do it. And I'll believe that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you can win this argument.

But seriously, "Ignorance is not an excuse."? How gullible do you think I am? That's like saying "Stop drop and roll!" when telling somebody how to clean cake frosting off their face. It's the wrong phrase for the wrong situation. As I said, that phrase only applies to an actual law. EA's term is not a law, it is their term. A term they did not state in the initial contract.

yeah how about not being a complete prick?

whatever you just said was literally shit spewing out of your mouth because you couldn't respond well.


That is how I interpreted the agreement that was posted earlier in this forum. Perhaps the father did read it and interpreted another way? That would be a decision for the court to look at if that was the case if they feel that the wording was misleading, to me it wasn't.


And also yes he was suppose to read their minds obviously.

 

[jp201]

How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play?

By reading ALL of the information on the page before agreeing to purchase the game. Very simple.

Yeah, remember when I said "Prove to me that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you'll win this argument."? It appears I stand corrected. Though ip201 didn't win, you won for him by explaining this to me. Doesn't really matter who won though, because I just lost.

Actually I wasn't aware of that tidbit. I read the entire article but I guess either they failed to mention it, or I didn't read it hard enough. Well, um, well done then!

Though I will say that FalloutJack has made an interesting new argument, approaching this from a completely different angle. Can't really comment on his legal theory myself, but I think it's at least valid.

So you just realized that perhaps reading the whole agreement before he purchased the game?


You apparently had no idea what ignorant means and thought i was throwing around some cliche.

There was so much fail in your last post to me word can not begin to describe it.

 

[Belated]

When you buy a game from the marketplace it's specifically stated you can't gain a refund in large bold letters...

Doesn't matter.

EA has a legal responsibility to make the father aware of ALL of the terms of the contract BEFORE the purchase. He didn't consent to those terms because he didn't know those terms were there to consent to. Therefore, there was not a meeting of the minds, and the contract is void.

Simply putting "no refunds" on your product doesn't make it true. If I put "I get to kill you if you piss me off" on my ebay sales, does that make it legal for me to murder angry customers? No. Policy does not allow you to break the law, and that is what EA is doing by not fulfilling their end of the contract. The contract is whatever is presented to the father at the time of purchase, and ONLY what is presented to him then. If EA doesn't put age restrictions in the initial purchase description, they don't have a legal right to impose those EVER. You cannot add additional terms to a contract after the customer has already fulfilled his end and given his consent.

By your logic, if EA threw in "Oh and by the way, you have to take us out to a lobster dinner.", somehow they'd be in the right? A lobster dinner was not detailed during the initial purchase, so EA cannot impose a lobster dinner on the father, just as they can't impose an age restriction on the father, because an age restriction wasn't detailed during the initial purchase either.

The father is legally entitled to a functional game that lets his son in. If the age restrictions weren't put in the terms BEFORE the father paid for it, they don't have a legal right to add those restrictions in AFTER. You cannot change the terms of the agreement after it's already been agreed upon, especially if the customer has already fulfilled his end of the bargain. And the father did, indeed, fulfill HIS end of the bargain. He therefore is legally entitled to a game that doesn't restrict his son from playing, because the age restrictions weren't specified from the start. Thus, the age restrictions cannot be imposed upon him. If EA insists on imposing those restrictions on him, that is a BREACH OF CONTRACT on their part, and he's entitled to his money back.

If he took this to court, I'd honestly say that he does have a case.

A case for a $15 dollar purchase that he was IGNORANT about? Most likely won't ever touch court as it would be a joke.


Ignorance is not an excuse.

Nice try, but think again.

"Ignorance is not an excuse." is applied to LAW, not to contract terms. EA's "We will not let you allow your kid to play this, even if you give consent as his parent." term is NOT a law. It is a term. A term that they have an obligation to make aware to the father before he signs the contract. How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play? That part of the agreement wasn't outlined to him in the beginning. That doesn't make him ignorant. EA's at fault for not telling him this. What was he supposed to do? Magically read their minds and know what the second sheet of terms would be? Tell you what. Blow up that banana on my kitchen table. With your mind. Do it. And I'll believe that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you can win this argument.

But seriously, "Ignorance is not an excuse."? How gullible do you think I am? That's like saying "Stop drop and roll!" when telling somebody how to clean cake frosting off their face. It's the wrong phrase for the wrong situation. As I said, that phrase only applies to an actual law. EA's term is not a law, it is their term. A term they did not state in the initial contract.

yeah how about not being a complete prick?

whatever you just said was literally shit spewing out of your mouth because you couldn't respond well.


That is how I interpreted the agreement that was posted earlier in this forum. Perhaps the father did read it and interpreted another way? That would be a decision for the court to look at if that was the case if they feel that the wording was misleading, to me it wasn't.


And also yes he was suppose to read their minds obviously.

Kindly direct your attention over here:

How was he supposed to know he wouldn't be allowed to let his son play?

By reading ALL of the information on the page before agreeing to purchase the game. Very simple.

Yeah, remember when I said "Prove to me that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you'll win this argument."? It appears I stand corrected. Though ip201 didn't win on his own, you won for him by explaining this to me. Doesn't really matter who won though, because I just lost.

Actually I wasn't aware of that tidbit. I read the entire article but I guess either they failed to mention it, or I didn't read it hard enough. Well, um, well done then!

Though I will say that FalloutJack has made an interesting new argument, approaching this from a completely different angle. Can't really comment on his legal theory myself, but I think it's at least valid.

Though I couldn't have expected you to read every post between my last one and this one. So I did actually know that this moment was coming. However, I didn't see much I could do to stop it. So uh, sorry about that? Anyway, looks like you were right after all.

Just a side note: The crucial detail is the fact that the registration details WERE made available to him before he consented to the agreement. I was under the impression that these terms WEREN'T made available to him, based on the article. It appears that either the article failed to mention that, or I wasn't reading hard enough.

But what I said wasn't "shit spewing out of my mouth". Y'know for somebody who fancies me a prick, you aren't trying very hard to rise above me. What I said was an explanation of American law in this regard. Unfortunately, that explanation simply doesn't apply here, based on the new information I've now been made aware of.

 

[mjc0961]

Yeah, remember when I said "Prove to me that psychic powers exist. That is the ONLY way you'll win this argument."? It appears I stand corrected. Though ip201 didn't win, you won for him by explaining this to me. Doesn't really matter who won though, because I just lost.

Actually I wasn't aware of that tidbit. I read the entire article but I guess either they failed to mention it, or I didn't read it hard enough. Well, um, well done then!

Though I will say that FalloutJack has made an interesting new argument, approaching this from a completely different angle. Can't really comment on his legal theory myself, but I think it's at least valid.

I don't care about winning so much as clearing the air about what is disclosed to the customers before they buy. And it does say that.

The defective game thing? I can't buy that for this one. It does work, you just have to meet the age requirement to sign in to an EA account. And again; I think the whole EA account thing is shitty on its own, but there's nothing illegal about having customers sign up for that sort of thing, so they can do it if people keep putting up with it (and they seem to be doing so).

That information wasn't in the article because it's written about what the dad claimed. Usually if the article author knows that something is amiss, they will put that in the end of the article. And as Andy said on page 2, he doesn't have a 360 to check out what happens before you buy the game.