Valve May End Up Paying a $3 Million Fine for Failing to Offer Refunds in Australia

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
Valve May End Up Paying a $3 Million Fine for Failing to Offer Refunds in Australia

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1362/1362148.jpgValve's failure to offer Steam refunds to Australian customers in past years may wind up costing it millions.

Valve has taken a lot of flak over the years for its failure to offer refunds on Steam. That flak is likely what led the company to start offering Steam refunds in June of 2015. But before Valve started its refund program, a case was brought against it in Australia.

In 2014, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission filed suit against Valve over its refund policy. The suit says,

"Under the Australian Consumer Law, all consumer goods or services come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold. If they are not, consumers have a right to a remedy, which may include refund, repair or replacement in certain circumstances. These consumer rights cannot be excluded, restricted or modified."

Thanks to the lack of a refund policy prior to 2015, including stating in its Subscriber Agreement that it had a "standalone policy not to give refunds," the company was found to have violated Australian Consumer Law earlier this year. Valve initially argued that because it was based in Seattle, it shouldn't be subject to the same standards that Australian companies were held to. The court didn't find that argument compelling, as Valve was providing a service to Australian customers.

During a hearing last week, Kotaku AU [http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/11/accc-asks-court-to-fine-valve-3-million/] reports that the ACCC put forth its suggestion for Valve's punishment: a fine of $3 million AUD. Furthermore, the ACCC requested an injunction against Valve to make sure that its current refund policy is in compliance with Australian law.

Valve's attorneys proposed a fine of $250,000 instead, arguing that there had been "no finding that Valve's conduct was intended to mislead or deceive consumers." This suggestion prompted Justice Edleman to ask, "Your proposed penalty of $250,000 isn't even the price of doing business, it's next to nothing is it?"

In response to a query from the presiding justice as to whether Valve would resist paying any judgment as a foreign company, the company's attorney said that there were "no instructions that Valve at this time will resist the enforcement overseas of any of your Honour's orders."

While the requested fine of $3 million is unlikely to be levied, it also seems likely that the fine will wind up being higher than Valve's proposed $250,000. Justice Edleman said that he aimed to hand down his final ruling, covering both penalties and a decision on the injunction, by mid-December or January.






Permalink
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
While we are on the subject of Valve getting sued, how was that German class-action case going?
 

MatthewTheDark

The Meme Machine
Jun 13, 2014
66
0
0
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Wonder if this will get them to go after those CSGO gambling sites faster...
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
MatthewTheDark said:
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
All they need to do is make Half Life 3 and they'll recoup.
 

MatthewTheDark

The Meme Machine
Jun 13, 2014
66
0
0
RaikuFA said:
MatthewTheDark said:
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
All they need to do is make Half Life 3 and they'll recoup.
But that would require effort put into making games rather than skins and hats.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
MatthewTheDark said:
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
My off-hand guess is that the full 3 million plus lawyer fees would be covered by their Australian profits with room to spare. ...Valve makes a lot.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
MatthewTheDark said:
Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
Steam makes Valve billions of dollars every year, even if every country in the world fined them three million dollars they could pay it out of cash in hand and carry on with their business as if nothing happened.

Valve really have made a complete about turn from their image as a consumer rights focused company. They literally based their defense on the idea that the law shouldn't apply to them in countries they do business in, even Activision isn't that brazenly dickish these days.
 

distortedreality

New member
May 2, 2011
1,132
0
0
Given that they now have a refund policy in place, I think it would be a little dickish for the ACCC to go after Valve too hard.

Having said that, as others have pointed out, Valve can afford whatever punishment is meted out, so from a PR perspective, they probably shouldn't fight it too ferociously.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
MatthewTheDark said:
RaikuFA said:
MatthewTheDark said:
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
All they need to do is make Half Life 3 and they'll recoup.
But that would require effort put into making games rather than skins and hats.
Ah... why would you bother making skins and hats when you can let other people do it and making profit off their IP?
 

Janaschi

Scion of Delphi
Aug 21, 2012
224
0
0
Their whole refund policy still needs a ton of work - I still have not gotten a refund for The Stomping Grounds, for instance, even though the developer ran off with the money, and even left his own team in the dark, to the point where they had to recoup their losses by selling in-studio assets.

Ah well. I guess, at least, I learned a lesson in being more careful about EA games. But it still does not detract Steam from their client responsibilities in dealing with con developers.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
distortedreality said:
Given that they now have a refund policy in place, I think it would be a little dickish for the ACCC to go after Valve too hard.

Having said that, as others have pointed out, Valve can afford whatever punishment is meted out, so from a PR perspective, they probably shouldn't fight it too ferociously.
2 hours and/or 2 weeks might seem fair, but we Australians have actual consumer rights. And their current refund system is an insult.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
WoW.. Amount of research thatwent into this Article: 0.


ffronw said:
Valve has taken a lot of flak over the years for its failure to offer refunds on Steam. That flak is likely what led the company to start offering Steam refunds in June of 2015. But before Valve started its refund program, a case was brought against it in Australia.
Incorrect. Valve actually had a refund policy. The only change in 2015 was that is be came a mostly automated policy. Secondly the case is less about refunds and more that valve misrepresented the issue of refunds to Aussies. Essentially Valve lead some customers to believe they had no right to a refund and no ability to refund when they actually did.

Thanks to the lack of a refund policy prior to 2015, including stating in its Subscriber Agreement that it had a "standalone policy not to give refunds," the company was found to have violated Australian Consumer Law earlier this year. Valve initially argued that because it was based in Seattle, it shouldn't be subject to the same standards that Australian companies were held to. The court didn't find that argument compelling, as Valve was providing a service to Australian customers.
Basically says it right there. the SSA was typoed.

Furthermore, the ACCC requested an injunction against Valve to make sure that its current refund policy is in compliance with Australian law.

While the requested fine of $3 million is unlikely to be levied, it also seems likely that the fine will wind up being higher than Valve's proposed $250,000. Justice Edleman said that he aimed to hand down his final ruling, covering both penalties and a decision on the injunction, by mid-December or January.
Just in time for the Lunar and chriustmas sales. Sucks to be you Australia :p.
 

Creator002

New member
Aug 30, 2010
1,590
0
0
Now if they could go after Microsoft for the same shit on the Xbox store. Couldn't get a refund for the Master Chief Collection despite not being able to play it even after it was "fixed." (It's fine now, but still.)
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
3 million? How will valve ever survive such a harsh slap on the wrist.... wich was done with a plushy... by a 6 year old...
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
RaikuFA said:
MatthewTheDark said:
I feel shit like this is really going to put to the test of how much money Steam makes for Valve. Because if it isn't enough, I feel simply being slow to the trigger is going to be the death of Valve and Steam with all the lawsuits.
All they need to do is make Half Life 3 and they'll recoup.
The ROI on making games is too small for Valve's current business model. Creating new economies, now that is what gets Valve's attention.
 

distortedreality

New member
May 2, 2011
1,132
0
0
008Zulu said:
distortedreality said:
Given that they now have a refund policy in place, I think it would be a little dickish for the ACCC to go after Valve too hard.

Having said that, as others have pointed out, Valve can afford whatever punishment is meted out, so from a PR perspective, they probably shouldn't fight it too ferociously.
2 hours and/or 2 weeks might seem fair, but we Australians have actual consumer rights. And their current refund system is an insult.
I don't know dude, I don't have a problem with it personally, but then again I've never had to refund a game, so....

I will say though that I think entertainment media should have a vastly different set of rules and standards regarding refunds.
 

Infernal Lawyer

New member
Jan 28, 2013
611
0
0
Good. Valve only got into this situation because they wanted to peddle endless amounts of shovelware and broken trash without any sort of oversight or recompense for customers buying games that flat-out don't work or lie in the store page.

And, as Fix-The-Spade put it:
fix-the-spade said:
They literally based their defense on the idea that the law shouldn't apply to them in countries they do business in, even Activision isn't that brazenly dickish these days.
Seriously, who does that? Who literally gets a lawyer to say "we're not obligated to care about your bare minimum consumer rights laws"?
MonsterCrit said:
Incorrect. Valve actually had a refund policy. The only change in 2015 was that is be came a mostly automated policy. Secondly the case is less about refunds and more that valve misrepresented the issue of refunds to Aussies. Essentially Valve lead some customers to believe they had no right to a refund and no ability to refund when they actually did.
Pretty sure I remember reading an ACCC article about customers actively being snubbed by Support enough though the games they were trying to return were flat-out broken. The issue is more serious than a misleading FAQ on the Support page.

And even then, it's still considered a serious offense to actively lie about a consumer's rights, whether it's to their face or in a general FAQ.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,045
1,007
118
distortedreality said:
Given that they now have a refund policy in place, I think it would be a little dickish for the ACCC to go after Valve too hard.

Having said that, as others have pointed out, Valve can afford whatever punishment is meted out, so from a PR perspective, they probably shouldn't fight it too ferociously.
Their refund policy still violates Australian ACCC laws. You can personally feel it does the job to your hearts content. It still does not meet the standards set by our laws.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
so far i have been given refund to 2 games this year so far without any hassle but i certainly agree that this should change and valve hopefully sees that they cant get away with what ever they want. or any company.