Slashdot Mirror
EU's Online Shoppers Get an Extended "Cooling Off Period"
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes with word of a new extension to European consumer protection laws: Previously, anyone who bought a product online was allowed seven business days during which they were able to change their mind and return the product for a full refund. This 'cooling-off period,' during which a refund can be requested without being required to give a reason for the cancellation, has now been extended to fourteen calendar days from the date on which the goods are received. Online retailers and providers are now also banned from 'pre-ticking' optional extras on order forms, such as those adding insurance to the cost of a purchase. For the first time, laws have also been introduced to offer a cooling-off period for digital content, including music, films and books, as BBC News reports. Consumers may now cancel an order for digital content within fourteen days, but only if they have not downloaded it.
Consumers may now cancel an order for digital content within fourteen days, but only if they have not downloaded it.
RTFS
While I welcome these protections I wonder how music, movie and eBook charts will come. You could buy thousands of copies, never download them and then get a refund after that week's charts are in. Could be useful for protest songs like the recent celebration of Thatcher's death.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Based on my personal experience, this is not new.
The "desist" period has been two weeks for quite a while in many online retailers.
(Very convenient when discussing over an RMA.)
anyone who bought a product online
So this clearly refers to ONLINE PURCHASES. Ones where you are depended on the seller's description and require that to be accurate: neither over-selling the product nor lying about its state, condition or fitness for purpose. In these cases the seller clearly has an advantage and this extension tot he law is meant to rebalance the trading positions.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
In many cases, you don't know what you're buying on the internet until you receive it. For example, the product looks/works good on the website, but not in real life. It's hard to determine from the website info and pic that the product is good. The size could be wrong (shoes for eg).
I think this is great for online shopping, but also likely to be abused in some cases.
But, but, but... I thought copying wasn't stealing!!!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The ones you mention are American companies and thus does not have to follow European law...
...unless they trade in Europe.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
And here's the point where I dare say that it will work out. People in Europe tend to be different than people in the US. We don't look for loopholes and try to rip off anyone just for the sake of ripping them off. To give you an example.
Just around the corner from here, there's an "open bookcase". One of many in this town, I may add. It's basically a box full of books. You take books you no longer want there and put them in and take books you'd like to read out. As far as I know, there is no way to track these books. You could take them and go and sell them in a yard sale. You could actually make a few bucks that way. Still, people not only just take the books they want to read, they also bring books to stock the bookcase.
While people around here go through the roof if they think you try to slight them or even go to insane lengths to make sure you pay if you try to rip them off, they usually play by the prisoner's dilemma winning strategy: Cooperate and copy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The change to digital data is welcome.
At least in the UK's interpretation of this EC directive (the Distance Selling Regulations), digital downloads were NOT excluded. The purchase could cancel the purchase at any time up to 7 days after purchase and receive a full refund. Technically, you could download a software package or a movie, and then change your mind and claim a full refund.
While the Distance Selling Regulations specifically excluded copyright material such as computer software, movies, music, etc. - they do so only in physical form i.e. CDs, DVDs, etc. Downloads are treated as a "contract for a service" which do not fall in the scope of this very limited exclusion.
The ambiguity over digital downloads has caused a lot of heartache for a couple of small software developers that I know - albeit not enough to try to take it to court. I'm not sure that there is any caselaw actually addressing this loophole in the current system.
A few years ago, UK-based SportsDirect.com got into trouble with the consumer-rights TV show Watchdog, because it was secretly adding a coffee mug and sports magazine to everyone's shopping cart. When I saw the old reruns of the show last week I decided to check out the site and they were still doing this crap even as recent as last week.
I checked the site just now, and they have finally stopped.
It just proves that no amount of public outcry will ever be as effective as simply using the law to regulate business. If you don't like the way a company does things, the only way to make them change is to FORCE them to change.
If it was legal to pay whatever the employer wanted to pay, the average McDonalds worker would be making 45 cents an hour. It doesn't matter how little the amount is, you will always find someone desperate enough to work for literal peanuts, therefore market pressure alone can't raise wages. If market pressure can't do it, the law has to (or it will never get done).
There are things that MUST be done (like making sure everyone is housed, fed, and healthy) that market pressures have no incentive to do. You employer doesn't care if you you are starving or sick, because when you become too ill to work, he can just replace you. It's the government's job to FORCE the employer to provide proper wages for his employees, because he has no other incentives to do so beyond legal repercussions
You have 3 options:
A) Provide a minimum wage so that everyone can afford food and rent. (current US method)
B) Drastically raise taxes to provide food and housing directly to the people who need it. (socialist method)
C) Just let the starving and homeless people die (Tea Party/Libertarian method)
It happens a lot here in Germany, people ordering e.g. clothing (several trousers, shirt, etc.) and only keeping the ones they like, sending the rest back again. It really is pretty common, people use the right to return merchandise bought online as a replacement for trying out various items at a shop.
That's not an example of abuse of the system, it's an example of the system working in just about the only way it can work.
People wouldn't be willing to buy clothes online if they couldn't send back what didn't fit or look good on them.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
gifts