EA Bans Users for Asking for Refunds

[Church185]

The title is deliberately misleading.

But that doesn't change the fact that EA threatening to ban people (an action which would likely effect your whole Origin account, costing you any other games you had on there) for trying to get their money back, for a product that doesn't work, is bad.

That much is true, and what little anger that nugget of truth might stir isn't irrational.

Ah yes, but the actions of one CS rep does not equal "EA threatening to ban people". Other people have been able to get refunds without a problem. I find it suspicious that the picture of the dialogue between the customer and the rep is posted in a forum, instead of a screen cap of the customer service chat window.

 

[unstabLized]

Oh hey, when did Sergey Titov start working for EA?

Oh well, just the usual EA business. I tried to warn all of my friends, that they're wasting money and shouldn't spend money on this right away, but nope, no one listened. Well I hate to say..actually no, i love saying I Told You So in these situations,therefore, I TOLD YOU SO I TOLD YOU SO I TOLD YOU SO.

Ah,refreshing.

 

[Rachmaninov]

The title is deliberately misleading.

But that doesn't change the fact that EA threatening to ban people (an action which would likely effect your whole Origin account, costing you any other games you had on there) for trying to get their money back, for a product that doesn't work, is bad.

That much is true, and what little anger that nugget of truth might stir isn't irrational.

Ah yes, but the actions of one CS rep does not equal "EA threatening to ban people". Other people have been able to get refunds without a problem. I find it suspicious that the picture of the dialogue between the customer and the rep is posted in a forum, instead of a screen cap of the customer service chat window.

The actions of one CS rep does not equal "EA threatening to ban people" but it does appear to point to an awful part of their returns policy, which would be them banning people for trying to get refunds (if they attempted to use a charge-back).

And I see what you mean about it being on a forum instead of a customer service chat window. That is suspect.

But if it highlights a part of EA's return policy which does in fact ban people for attempting chargebacks, then in truth, whether it's real or not doesn't matter, because the point it is making is still true.

And we don't really have any evidence either way, that it's fake. Only an (admittedly justified) suspicion.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Are you kidding me? This is just... is their someone in EA who just sits in an arm chair in front of a globe laughing maniacally while twidling his mustache?

/me stops twiddling his moustache.
What? I have no idea what you're talking about!

/me mumbles into intercom, "Erase Spartandude, now; he knows too much".

Captcha: red-handed

 

[MrMan999]

EA is evil. In other News the sky is blue and Rare will never reclaim its former glory. News at 11.

 

[aguspal]

My thoughts on EA's online support:

I'm not really surprised when EA does something retarded or quasi-illegal. I can only hope that they eventually go under in the face of new, young video game developer-publishers.

I Saw.

I Read.

I LOL´D so hard than I woke up my family and proceed to LOL´D even more.


But really, this image is fake right?

 

[Rachmaninov]

So basically I'm reading that EA are doing what everybody is doing on charge-backs...

OH THE SHAME EA! OH TEH SHAME!!!

Except that's not true. As we saw evidenced earlier in this thread, Valve don't do the same.

Banning someone would likely affect their whole Origin service.

Because "I disagree that you provided me that game, and I'm going to get a refund." definitely should be rewarded with "Well, you'll be banned from your entire library of games with us, then".

 

[Church185]

The actions of one CS rep does not equal "EA threatening to ban people" but it does appear to point to an awful part of their returns policy, which would be them banning people for trying to get refunds (if they attempted to use a charge-back).

And I see what you mean about it being on a forum instead of a customer service chat window. That is suspect.

But if it highlights a part of EA's return policy which does in fact ban people for attempting chargebacks, then in truth, whether it's real or not doesn't matter, because the point it is making is still true.

And we don't really have any evidence either way, that it's fake. Only an (admittedly justified) suspicion.

I'm not sure if banning people for chargebacks is a bad return policy or not. Earlier in the thread someone who claimed to deal with people skirting the system like that said it reflects negatively on the company in the financial realm when a consumer claims that something was a false charge to their account (which is what a chargeback is).

When there are people telling me that they had no problems getting a refund for the same game in the same time window, I don't think jumping to getting the bank involved should be your first choice. At least try to return the item again (yes I know wait times are crazy long right now) so you can at least determine if you were dealing with a lazy CS rep. After that point if they still refuse, and your reason for wanting a refund is reasonable (like the case we are discussing) then you can get the bank involved. After all that, yeah getting banned is stupid and people should rage.

But I'm sure people try to use chargebacks so they don't have to pay for items or want to return something without a reasonable cause, which is fraud and causes the company you do it to headaches because they have to go around afterwards and prove that they weren't taking money out of your account without your permission. So to me it is kind of understandable when they start banning people when that happens, and even going so far as to put it in their return policy.

In response to your last line, yeah I know there is no proof either way, I just like pointing out inconsistency.

(points to tinfoil hat atop his head)

 

[Sargonas42]

Wow talk about using an inflammatory post title thats not true. He was threatened with a ban *if* he filed a chargeback. This is something the TOS *already* warns you will happen, and is common practice with *ALL* online retailers, including even Steam.

Chargebacks are not something to be tossed around lightly. They are a tool to protect you against illegal transactions, not an unsatisfying experience. They cost everyone involved TONS of money. It is NOT something you just whip out every time you can't get a refund. Using one for purposes it is not intended for *IS CONSIDERED FRAUD*. Common practice world wide is that when a customer chargebacks against a commercial entity, they put them on a list and never again do business with this person because they are a fiscal liability. Amazon, Steam, Origin, BestBuy, Wal*Mart, Blizzard, they *all* do this.

 

[Aeonknight]

Wow talk about using an inflammatory post title thats not true. He was threatened with a ban *if* he filed a chargeback. This is something the TOS *already* warns you will happen, and is common practice with *ALL* online retailers, including even Steam.

Chargebacks are not something to be tossed around lightly. They are a tool to protect you against illegal transactions, not an unsatisfying experience. They cost everyone involved TONS of money. It is NOT something you just whip out every time you can't get a refund. Using one for purposes it is not intended for *IS CONSIDERED FRAUD*. Common practice world wide is that when a customer chargebacks against a commercial entity, they put them on a list and never again do business with this person because they are a fiscal liability. Amazon, Steam, Origin, BestBuy, Wal*Mart, Blizzard, they *all* do this.

inb4 people claiming "Steam doesn't do it!" as being a standard response.

Overall I agree with you, Steam is being nice, a lot nicer than they need to be.

Kinda sad how badly people want to hate EA that they'll drum up any excuse they can, and watch the masses swarm to it like it reinforces their opinion about the company.

 

[aguspal]

Wow talk about using an inflammatory post title thats not true. He was threatened with a ban *if* he filed a chargeback. This is something the TOS *already* warns you will happen, and is common practice with *ALL* online retailers, including even Steam.

Chargebacks are not something to be tossed around lightly. They are a tool to protect you against illegal transactions, not an unsatisfying experience. They cost everyone involved TONS of money. It is NOT something you just whip out every time you can't get a refund. Common practice world wide is that when a customer chargebacks against a commercial entity, they put them on a list and never again do business with this person because they are a fiscal liability. Amazon, Steam, Origin, BestBuy, Wal*Mart, Blizzard, they *all* do this.

Thats harsh and unfair as hell for the customer but OK its true than they all do this lol.

 

[VladG]

Why am I not surprised.

Also why aren't people doing something to stand up to this?

There is no way this abusive, anti-consumer policy can hold if even a few people with good legal know-how get into it. Seriously, it's shit like this that makes me want to see EA go down in flames and lost lawsuits.

 

[Church185]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122565-EA-Wont-Ban-Origin-Accounts-For-Demanding-SimCity-Refunds

That seems kind of final, and once again calls into question the legitimacy of the original claim.

 

[MPerce]

Wow. Pretty misleading title you got there.

Charge backs and refunds are two very different things. While it's dickish to refuse to refund the customer, the customer is overreacting like crazy by saying he'll chargeback. Any other company would say the exact same thing EA did.

But again, it's ridiculous not to just give him the refund. Here's hoping this was just an isolated incident.

 

[Bostur]

Just the fact that EA can use banning as a tool makes me very cautious about buying games with online DRM. If there is a disagremeent between the two parties the customer will always be the loser, no matter who has the better case.

There is nothing new about this. These stories have appeared regularly, and EA has never denied that they use banning as a tool. Keep in mind that this will effectively cancel all previous transactions without any recompensation for the user.

Any company can refuse doing business with me, and they don't need a reason. But they can't come to my home and claim what I already paid for. With digital distribution services they have exactly that power.

 

[Sargonas42]

Thats harsh and unfair as hell for the customer but OK its true than they all do this lol.

Harsh? possibly. Unfair? Not really. Chargebacks exist for when a customer has had their credit card info stolen and used to buy things. Or if the company they dealt with has DEFRAUDED them. Not getting a refund is not fraud. People can argue the semantics on if EA delivered what the customer agreed to buy all they want, that is still not fraud. Fraud is a legal term that requires precise things to have happened to be true. In *THOSE* cases is when when chargebacks should be used... and when they are, it costs's everyone money.

I used to run the billing department at a web hosting company about 10 years ago. People liked to sign up for service, then issue a chargeback. When they did, I would have to spend several hours gathering documentation for the credit card company, filling out forms, etc. If they found in our favor great, we keep the money and the customer usually got dumped by their card provider. If they found for the customer however, we would loose the money we got form them, and get hit with tons of fees plus the cost of my time (which billed at about 35 an hour) and the time lost on other more important things I should have been doing.

Chargebacks are no joke and companies are within their right to sever and and all business relationships with someone who issue one against them falsely. As a matter of fact, the credit card companies ENCOURAGE them to do it to lower the likely hood of it happening again by that customer.

 

[UniversalRonin]

Are you kidding me? This is just... is their someone in EA who just sits in an arm chair in front of a globe laughing maniacally while twidling his mustache?

Just for the beautiful image you paint, I most sincerely hope so. And I hope that they are stroking a stereotypically bond villianish cat with the other hand, and they only drink the freshly cried tears of orphans and puppies.

 

[bug_of_war]

Damn it EA...I defend you so often but this...I, I just can't defend this. I mean Valve doesn't usually give refunds but at least they don't ban people. Damn it EA, just...fuck. I'm a still buy your games but lets just say they're all one console.

 

[ThriKreen]

That's a script??
I'm very used to dealing with disgruntled script-jockeys giving me the runaround and anti-consumer dodge, but what asshole wrote that?? Especially when it contradicts information EA released to their community ON THE SAME SYSTEM.

Either EA is completely unaware of what their outsourced customer service goons are saying on behalf of their company or they wrote the script and then outsourced it to create plausible-deniability.

Sorry yeah, bad choice of words - just limits on the policy for the online CSR component, so in a sense they are reading from a script, by declining refunds: "If caller asks for refund, decline".

I rarely hear of anyone getting a refund through them, as they're probably prevented from accessing the transaction database, being outsourced. But calling directly usually works better as those people usually are EA and DO have access to the database.

And that's the problem with the out-sourced, you commission the company, not the people they hire.

 

[TheRaider]

A chargeback is an extreme option and using it when you have recieved the product is illegal. Typically it is when you pay for something by credit card and the business goes busto without giving you the product.

That does depend where you are, here in Euroland it's perfectly legal to charge back on a product that is defective or inoperable if the seller refuses to offer a refund or return. Software is a bit of a grey area, but in the case of complete non-functioning like this it's more or less a certainty to get the money back.

Since the chances of actually getting a refund out of EA are slim to nil (current hold times on the phone are over 48 hours!), forcing a charge back is the only option if you want to see your money again.

What I want to know is, do these bans only run as far as SimCity or would be a blanket 'all your games are belong to us' type ban like they issue to forum users who are linked to Origin accounts? Given EA's history of handing out those bans anyone and everyone...

I agree they would blanket ban.

Consumer watchdogs would normally be the way to start.

I would imagine in this case they would be given fair chance to rectify the problem with the product. The software if the grey area, it is one thing to have a coffee maker which won't switch on. I guess this is simular to getting cable installed and the workers leave and it doesn't work. Do you immediately void the contract or they get a chance to for fill the contract as promised. Software use is basically licensing/contract related since you don't own the actual product!