EA Bans Users for Asking for Refunds

[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!

 

[Rachmaninov]

I'm not sure if banning people for chargebacks is a bad return policy or not.

Well, the way I look at it is this:

If someone buys a game with an online component, say for example Diablo 3, and they (for whatever reason) use a chargeback to get a refund for the game, I think it would be fair for Blizzard to ban you from Diablo 3. After all, if you bought Diablo 3, and felt so appalled that you had to request a chargeback, you clearly didn't want the product after all. And I'd even agree on Blizzard refusing to sell anything else to this person.

If someone buys a game from a digital distribution platform, and feels (again, for whatever reason) the need to use a chargeback, it would not be fair to then deny them access to the rest of the games they've already paid for.

And it doesn't even make sense business-wise. If I used a chargeback for a refund of a Steam game, and permanently lost my access to my extensive Steam library, I'd be after Valve for compensation for all of those games, instead of just the one. At the very least, I'd be a bigger headache, and at most, they'd end up paying me for over a hundred games instead of one.

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.

Actually, Steam don't.

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

A "standard response" doesn't change the fact that it's true. Maybe that's why it's a standard response in the first place.

Steam is being nice, a lot nicer than they need to be.

Not really, since digital distribution is one massive grey area legally. Steam may be being nicer than the competition, but that could well be out of concern that - as the most successful DD service - that they'd be at risk of legal action, for banning people from using things they've already purchased.

Even if the TOS says certain behaviour will get you banned, no company TOS can ever override the law. The law generally says that when you purchase something, you own it. Digital distribution companies would have a hard time passing their service off as a rental service, in court, because they charge exactly the same price as retailers who actually sell you a physical copy.

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.

It's kinda sad that EA continues to rub so many people the wrong way that they feel that need in the first place.

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.

That's interesting. That does suggest that the original claim here is a fake. Although if it has pointed out a bad part of EA's returns policy, it still serves its intended purpose, I think.

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.

With this being a legal grey area, chargebacks do get used for something other than their intended purpose, but what other recourse does the user have?

They buy a product, and the product isn't usable. In the rest of the retail world, that would give you the right to a refund. But digital distribution services don't give refunds.

So are customers supposed to buy products, and when they don't work, just put up with it? What's stopping someone establishing a DD service, and selling deliberately faulty products, and then just keeping the money, then? Because the only difference between that example, and this example, is that we assume EA want to make the product work. And assumptions have no place in law.

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.

Severing business relationships are one thing.

Denying you access to all of the products you'd already bought from them is another.

 

[Baldr]

http://i.imgur.com/VEJIVmk.jpg

Ok apparently this guy got a refund with little to no fuss so...what the fuck is going on.

What do you think of Origin & EA?
Answer should be gooks.

Regardless of him being an asshole I still laughed. EA have been acting like assholes to their customers a lot lately. I don't see the issue people have with giving them a little back.

because the little guy you deal with doesn't make these policies, he's just a front of house work a day dude trying to pay his bills like the rest of us and the last thing he needs is a load of abuse from a self entitled customer when all it takes is simply and politely explaining the situation.
Ever wonder what causes bad customer service? It's dealing with people like that for five hours that makes you wanna dick over everyone. Anyone who's worked in customer service knows exactly that.

Bad Customer Service is caused by bad corporate policies and bad treatment of employees by management. My day job is customer service, I got a company that pays me well and makes sure I have the tools to deal with every problem without so much as a hiccup. In the entire 6 months I've worked here, there has only been one complaint against our division.

 

[Bostur]

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.

That's interesting. That does suggest that the original claim here is a fake. Although if it has pointed out a bad part of EA's returns policy, it still serves its intended purpose, I think.

I think it suggests that the OP's interpretation of the log is exaggerated, but that the log is genuine. So as you say it still serves it purpose.

EA actually confirms the events with their comment.

 

[Dendio]

EA released a statement that they are not banning for requesting a refund.

 

[Rachmaninov]

I think it suggests that the OP's interpretation of the log is exaggerated, but that the log is genuine. So as you say it still serves it purpose.

EA actually confirms the events with their comment.

Well that report doesn't mention that they don't ban people for chargebacks, it just mentions that they don't ban people for asking for refunds, and the original log doesn't contradict that.

Only the OP's interpretation does. So I think you might be right in fact.

And EA's responding to it does lend it some credibility, although it could be that it was causing enough damage that it had to be responded to even if it was a lie, and without them saying "Oh that's just a lie" which would actually magnify the damage to their PR, instead of controlling it.

 

[Sansha]

I don't understand why people are still surprised at EA's business practices, and why they get fucked over whenever they buy their products.

I really want to play some of EA's products - BF3, SimCity etc, but I simply won't. I refuse to associate with the company, and I don't know why others still do, given their appalling practices.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Think of it this way, to be pro EA in this argument is to erode your own consumer rights.

If it does not work then the consumer has the right to receive a refund. Simple.

Yeah consumer rights, yada yada yada...

Consumer rights mean nothing if people aren't using consumer smarts, really, consumer common sense at this point.

Consumer rights doesn't give a person the ability to be oblivious when purchasing things. It is being downright stupid to just take everything on faith because, "stuff shouldn't/can't be released if it isn't perfect".

A good consumer does research on the product. If they have past experience, they use that experience to tell them what to expect from such a product, normal or expected cons.

Example this is how I viewed the game and situation for possible future purchase [which I will once I get the right PC. My internet is perfect so I don't have to worry about always online] :

EA said outright that the game would be an always online product, that single player is there, but the game has been shifted to a multiplayer for proper experience.

With the game economy and how many people can share parts of the game, it is basically a SimCity MMO.

From my past experience, MMO and other online games, never have perfect launches, and I don't expect them ever to[it comes with the territory].

So in that scenario, as a customer, I did my research and I know what is par for the course with such a product. So, if something bad or a bit worse happens, I know not to worry, that I will get to play the game soon.

Consumer rights aren't the be all and end all. The customer is always right, isn't a real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, oblivious customers lose the vast majority of their rights if they aren't paying attention to the info right in front of them that has been given to tell them what they are buying and what to expect.

It is why smokers can't sue tobacco companies anymore if they get cancer, companies no have label, and the research is available.

(Edit: finger slipped and accidentally hit post.)

It is common knowledge these days that online games are never perfect on launch. EA explained what they were making and what people were buying.

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

 

[Rachmaninov]

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

I actually agree with you on most of your points. People should research these things, and it's not really EA's fault they didn't.

But the fact is, at least in the UK, companies are legally obliged to give a refund on software if it is faulty. There's no two ways about that, there's no "but it's in our TOS!" or similar statement which will ever change the law. And the law is that faulty software has to be met with a refund.

I'd say that if you buy a game, and you can't play it, it's faulty.

 

[Aeonknight]

At this point, I think EA needs to just put up a sign on their sites and in front of their offices, "No refunds, no exceptions".

I actually agree with you on most of your points. People should research these things, and it's not really EA's fault they didn't.

But the fact is, at least in the UK, companies are legally obliged to give a refund on software if it is faulty. There's no two ways about that, there's no "but it's in our TOS!" or similar statement which will ever change the law. And the law is that faulty software has to be met with a refund.

I'd say that if you buy a game, and you can't play it, it's faulty.

Depends where the fault is. Is it the companies' fault your graphics card isn't compatible with the game? Not really. System requirements come with every PC game I've ever seen/bought. Says it right on the box.

Now if it was an instance where let's say it's like Skyrim was at launch, that's a different story. That is fundamentally broken.

 

[Sargonas42]

Consumer rights mean nothing if people aren't using consumer smarts, really, consumer common sense at this point.

Consumer rights doesn't give a person the ability to be oblivious when purchasing things. It is being downright stupid to just take everything on faith because, "stuff shouldn't/can't be released if it isn't perfect".

A good consumer does research on the product. If they have past experience, they use that experience to tell them what to expect from such a product, normal or expected cons.

Example this is how I viewed the game and situation for possible future purchase [which I will once I get the right PC. My internet is perfect so I don't have to worry about always online] :

EA said outright that the game would be an always online product, that single player is there, but the game has been shifted to a multiplayer for proper experience.

With the game economy and how many people can share parts of the game, it is basically a SimCity MMO.

From my past experience, MMO and other online games, never have perfect launches, and I don't expect them ever to[it comes with the territory].

So in that scenario, as a customer, I did my research and I know what is par for the course with such a product. So, if something bad or a bit worse happens, I know not to worry, that I will get to play the game soon.

Consumer rights aren't the be all and end all. The customer is always right, isn't a real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, oblivious customers lose the vast majority of their rights if they aren't paying attention to the info right in front of them that has been given to tell them what they are buying and what to expect.

It is why smokers can't sue tobacco companies anymore if they get cancer, companies no have label, and the research is available.

It is common knowledge these days that online games are never perfect on launch. EA explained what they were making and what people were buying.

With all the information available, if people then ended up still purchasing the game with expectations of perfection, I say to them, "To bad, you don't deserve a refund".

This is probably the best worded and most clearly explained position on this topic I have ever seen. If I could give you karma for this I would. I'll probably be often citing this post in the future.