Slashdot Mirror


Steam Fined $3 Million For Refusing Refunds (smh.com.au)

Gaming company Valve Corporation has been hit with a $3 million fine after the Federal Court found its online games site Steam breached Australian Consumer Laws. From a report: The court imposed the maximum fine requested by Australia's competition regulator because of Valve's disregard for Australian law and lack of contrition. Valve's general counsel, Karl Quackenbush, told the court the company did not obtain legal advice when it set up in Australia, and did not check its obligations until the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission got involved in April 2014. It only provided staff verbal instructions. This lack of interest in Australian laws and lack of cooperation encouraged Justice James Edelman to impose a pentaly 12 times more than Valve Corporation suggested it pay.

160 comments

  1. Pentaly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pentaly.

  2. "did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Nutria · · Score: 4, Funny

    What kind of idiots are the people running this company? Do they actually think they're running a Mom and Pop store?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps you believe that governments have the power to fine you large amounts of money.

    2. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has what the law said ever been about what is sensible?

    3. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, but they have a bright future ahead of them at Uber!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by realxmp · · Score: 2

      If you believe it's sensible to have to obtain legal counsel to set up voluntary trade of digital goods—where nobody is forced to participate.

      The thing is if you were trading in them like ordinary physical goods then that would be fine, but if you're selling out "licenses" which is essentially a rather complex contract, then yes getting a lawyer for different jurisdictions might be advisable. Dealing in international IP law is always going to be a mess because you're not selling something tangible and different countries have different rules and accepted customs. There have been attempts to harmonise law on this in the shape of TPP, Berne, etc but you're always going to anger someone because someone's law has to change.

    5. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure many others here will attest to the fact that Steam does some stuff really really well while other things they do are like a diuretic cow pie. There's very little middle ground. While I still maintain and use my Steam account I buy very little new stuff from them at this point between support issues and a waning interest in gaming as a whole. I think I've put as much gaming time in on Minecraft in the past couple of years as I have my entire game catalog from Steam.

    6. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "law" should simply be the contracts voluntarily entered by individuals.

    7. Re: "did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This! I sent a bilateral contact to mark zuckerberg laying out the terms on which i'd be happy to license my personal data, and he laughed at me till I showed him your post. That convinced him!

    8. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Pull your head out of your Libertarian ass and start living in the real world.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by sabri · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The "law" should simply be the contracts voluntarily entered by individuals.

      Exactly. If I were Gabe Newell, I'd pull the company out of Australia. No more Aussie sales, no more Aussie bullshit. Let them play Kangaroo Simulator 1.0.

      This shows that they're all descendants of criminals.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    10. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      ...I still maintain and use my Steam account I buy very little new stuff from them at this point ...

      Me too. In my case, though, it's because it's nearly impossible to find anything in the store without being bogged down in F2P crap and indie games using 8-bit nostalgia as a crutch for lazy graphics work. There really is no way to filter out indie games.

      The last thing I bought from Steam was Doom, and that's only because I could search for it by name.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    11. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The "law" should simply be the contracts voluntarily entered by individuals.

      Any contract is only valid as long as all parties agree to abide by it, or as long as at least one of the parties has the ability to enforce it.
      The "law" is indeed a type of contract, enforced by a 3rd party entity we commonly refer to as a "government".

      If you don't understand why it's necessary for civilized societies to have involuntary contracts (Laws), then you need to go do some serious reading and study of the entire history of Humanity, the origin of Law, and Civilization in general. I'm not going to bother attempting to explain it to you here.

    12. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I think Gabe Newell prefers money to stunts. Steam is still profiting in Australia.

      To my understanding, Steam was simply breaking a clear and not at all obscure law, due to a failure of due diligence.

    13. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Steam is not an individual...

    14. Re: "did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is.

    15. Re:"did not obtain legal advice when it set up" by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Valve Software is not an individual. It is a legal fiction created by law.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  3. Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is just more government meddling in the affairs of a business. For a country lead by supposed conservatives I'm surprised they would take such an anti-free market stance here. It should be Valve's choice on how it deals with refunds, and consumers are free to decide whether or not they can live with it. Gaming is not a necessity nor a right.

    1. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 2

      This is just more government meddling in the affairs of a business.

      Nope. This is just more No Man's Sky backlash.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    2. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Found the American. It's the only place on Earth where anything short of a straight up Nazi is considered a leftist.

    3. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better is that for some reason my fellow Americans think our Republicans don't support heavy government regulation.

    4. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is just more government meddling in the affairs of a business.

      Damn straight. Let's get the government out of the affairs of business entirely. No more consumer protection and no more business protection. Including no more court-enforced debt collection, garnishment, or intellectual property rights. If a business can't pry the money out of my hands, market itself out of "consumer confusion" by counterfeit products, and make their product uncopyable, them screw 'em. It should be the consumer's choice on how they deal with business, and businesses are free to decide whether they wante to enter the market or not.

      Legal protections are part of a compact between businesses and their customers. They must protect both sides. Otherwise, there's nothing to convince the unprotected side to respect the protected side except raw force.

    5. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.

    6. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nazis are leftist.

      Really? Do tell!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Excelcia · · Score: 2

      I support strong consumer protection laws. These are simply a group of people getting together and saying, collectively, if you want to do business with us, then these are the overall guiding terms by which you need to do that business. This is, essentially, just an umbrella contract. Steam didn't look at the umbrella contract for the group of customers it was dealing with, and now has to pay the penalty specified in that contract. How is this anti free market? Every market has rules. Look at the insider trading laws, or anti competition laws in your own country - they are almost incomprehensibly complex. They exist because left to itself, business (which exists solely to line the pockets of its shareholders) left to its own devices is an amoral entity that will literally do anything to make money.

      The fact is, it was Valve's choice to do business with Australian customers. They could have chosen not to. Doing business in Australia is not Valve's right.

    8. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Nazis are leftist.

      Really? Do tell!

      I believe he's reading into the fact that "socialist" is part of the term, "national socialist," which is the formal term for "nazi." Of course, national socialism is not at all socialist in that way...

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far left, they got rid of the unions and communists before they started gassing the jews.

    10. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative

      It stands to reason since the countries that put words like "democratic" or "people's republic" in the names of their countries tend to be authoritarian dictatorships that we shouldn't simply trust that a country with the word "socialist" in it is some kind of utopia for workers. However, the authoritarian aspect of a country should be removed from their economic policies. The Nazis were far from socialist and their economic policy something that changed though out their reign. Early on their 25-point plan contained a lot of points that have more in common with communist or socialist positions such as nationalizing industries, more equitable sharing of profits for workers, and the like. It also contained a lot of aspects of nationalism (e.g. a German people, limiting immigration, etc.) which is why it had the name National Socialism in the first place.

      However, once they were in power there wasn't a clear push in either direction. The Nazis privatized some parts of the existing government while at the same time nationalizing companies, particularly those that would be used to fuel their war machine. They also outright took over the labor unions to the extent that they were controlled by the party and essentially made them functionally useless. There wasn't a clear cut push for outright government (or worker) control of industry nor was there a hand's off free market approach.

      Trying to lump Nazi Germany into one basket (left) or the other (right) ignores a lot of the fine detail. In some regards they leaned left, and in others right. On the whole they probably came closer to the center than most people would care or like to admit and I think it had less to do with any sense of economic ideology and more with doing whatever was most effective in terms of building their army or supporting the war effort.

    11. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by SumDog · · Score: 1

      New Zealand had a very similar law. I had a company refuse to warranty a Nexus 4. First I could get only text/voice and no data and then the Wi-Fi went out. Then it stopped booting. It was a clear hardware failure. I put the stock rom on but forgot to relock the bootloader. They refused saying I damaged the phone by unlocking it.

      I had to go to court and argue with the incompetent, non-technical idiot they company sent. The arbitrator awarded me the $450. I'm not even sure of the three hours in court were wroth it. But I'm very glad the NZ consumer guarantee act exists. The US needs similar laws.

    12. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The US has similar laws. You could always take a company to court for not honoring their warranty.

    13. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I could give you meaningless up vote points but spot on.

    14. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hahaha... Actually, you leftist progressive nutjobs skewed the political spectrum a while back because it was really hard to sound reasonable when you were arguing against conservative centrists as a left wing socialist progressive. The correct and original political spectrum looks like this:

      - Left wing: totalitarian government involved in all aspects of daily life
              Examples: Nazi (new socialists), socialists, fascists, progressive left, etc
      - Centrists: limited government to do what is needed for the common good (military, legal system, roads, etc.)
              Example: conservatives (those advocating for minimal change from status quo)
      - Right wing: minimal or no government (Libertarians)
              Extreme examples: anarchists

      Nazi/fascist/socialists are all cut from the same cloth. They all want totalitarian governments that have massive power and control over your daily life. How someone marked the AC post above informative just shows how effective the propaganda and brainwashing of the main stream media and higher education together are.

      The sad truth is that the Aussies and UK for example are both less free than they were 40 years ago, with a bigger nanny state. They both gave up their guns as one example, but violent crime increased dramatically, doubling in the UK from pre ban years. (The gun grabbing facists try to conflate and confuse by citing "gun crime" as down, which is true when all guns are confiscated, but as a citizen, do you care if you are robbed or murdered with a machete or a gun? no you care that you were assaulted, which is twice as likely after gun bans).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    15. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, these are simply people getting together and imposing their ideas on a bunch of other individuals; there residents of Australia who do not agree with the government's position—quit pretending that you speak for people who disagree with you.

    16. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry and just because it is games, laws don't apply?

      Fucktard

    17. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      On the whole they probably came closer to the center than most people would care or like to admit

      The NAZIs were authoritarian centrist. As a libertarian centrist I'm perfectly happy to use the word "centrist" to describe NAZIs as long as people understand that their ideology and mine are opposites along the other (i.e., up/down) axis.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.

      Right, but there's a huge amount of room to debate what counts as a "reasonable expectation." Especially when the product being sold by Valve is technically a license to access a game. I'm not an expert in Aussie law, but I suspect that Valve's position is along the lines that as long as the license allowed them to access the material as advertised, then what they sold is 100% within expectations and the actual content itself isn't relevant under the CPG laws.

      But I do agree that they were dumb to not get some Legal people to look into Aussie law ahead of time... if you're going to play in International business it's an absolute necessity.

    19. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'm very glad the NZ consumer guarantee act exists. The US needs similar laws.

      We have one. And like in NZ, you voided your warranty by unlocking the bootloader and loading your own ROM. If there was a decent protection law you would not have had to go in front of Arbitration, you'd have been able to simply get your money back.

    20. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you compare puny individuals and businesses? Businesses create jobs and generate GDP. What do people do? Just eat and consume.

    21. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have chosen not to. Doing business in Australia is not Valve's right.

      Well that's true, but there are situations where refusing to sell a product to a country means that the country in return does not have to honor any copyright, trademarks, etc. which cover your product.
      The most common example is with prescription Drugs... if a US company refuses to sell a patented drug to countries in the European Union, then those countries are free to make their own version of the drug. This is why US-owned drugs sold in the EU are so cheap- the EU sets a mandatory maximum price and the US company has to either sell it to them at a loss (and make up the difference by jacking up the price for US citizens) or risk having someone in the EU start making their own version and then exporting it all over the World. Then the EU gets to brag about how cheap their drug costs are, and talk shit about how the US health system is broken, even though a large part of the health care in Europe is effectively subsidized by US taxpayers and consumers.

    22. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by bernywork · · Score: 1

      *citation please

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    23. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      Bullshit.

      The correct and original political spectrum looks like this:

      Leftist politics supports the populous, Centrists politics is self involved and Right wing politics supports the establishment. It is that simple.

      Nazi/fascist/socialists are all cut from the same cloth. They all want totalitarian governments that have massive power and control over your daily life. How someone marked the AC post above informative just shows how effective the propaganda and brainwashing of the main stream media and higher education together are.

      The main stream media is *owned* and consolidated by right wing entities in control of the capital that pays for them. The neutering of the education system (starting with ignorance of the constitution) is to make populations more compliant to mainstream media messages of control from the establishment. Your protestations and willful ignorance are illustrations of how successful the brainwashing is. Ever read your own constitution?

      The sad truth is that the Aussies and UK for example are both less free than they were 40 years ago, with a bigger nanny state...

      dominated by right wing politics over it's implementation. All of the laws in Australia that punctuated decreased civil liberties and increased spying were *all* proposed under conservative right wing governments. The reason I know is because I wrote to those governments protesting the implementation of those laws. I have watched as those same laws have been rolled out in other western countries.

      What we have today is what the fascist right wing control of the population looks like, increasing daily. The people who protest it as left wing politics are a manifestation of the same brainwashed cowards that existed in Nazi times manipulated by their fear into not protesting anything the state did to decay the populations freedom.

      Money and security is their dogma, selfish apathy their credo. They have never written to a politician about anything that wasn't in their self interest, I doubt you have.

      The 'right-washing' of the political landscape you are engaging in paints the progressive slide of western politics to right wing fascism as the intent, rather than the failure of, left wing politics to protect the populous from the conversion of their rights to capital in the overt surveillance state we find ourselves in now.

      I may have to put up with all that, however with the last breath of my freedom of speech that even now is probably being gisted by some intelligence service somewhere I will point out that the oxy-moronic alt-white bullshit that you have spouted here is *exactly* what a right wing fascist would say.

      Only the name has changed.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    24. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me the only thing not agreed upon is the "enemy". The problems are obvious, but we should be less concerned with pointing fingers. "You guys are the evil ones!" "No you are!" Solve the issues and stop pointing fingers.

    25. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main stream media might as well be called the main stream advertising. It has been shaping society and life for decades. E.g. in recent or not-so recent years there has been advertising for baby ass wipes you throw down the toilet, which cause massive congestion in sewage. That's considerable political and cultural power, even though common sense (and even the law depending on your country or jurisdiction) should tell you to not clog the sewer pipes with random figurative crap.

      Sorry, that's the example I came up with. Convenience and ignorance are the two breasts of the media-industrial complex.
      Of course, I'm expecting that if clogged sewage becomes a problem, they'll come up with "smart sewage" patrolled by robots that collect data and sell it to about anyone.

    26. Re:Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Brulath · · Score: 1

      The US seems to follow "buyer beware", whereas Australia (and NZ) follow "buyer be protected". If you buy a device with a 12 month warranty and a reasonable consumer would expect it to last in excess of five years flawlessly, you can likely get it repaired/replaced for free if it dies within that time period (though it'll probably take some arguing). Likewise if the device doesn't do what it purported to do, or what the sales person said it could do, you can have it refunded. Reduces risk on the buyer's behalf and encourages better quality goods. In theory.

    27. Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHUT UP WESLEY!

  4. Hillary's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hillary told Steam that when she was elected, they didn't have to refund any money, ever. She also said they could replace all their staff with H1B's.

    Steam forgot to adjust their refund policy when Trump won. Hopefully they haven't started replacing their staff yet.

  5. Tegel is a fucking bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tegel is a bastard working for Wikimedia tell him how much of a bastard he is.

  6. 3 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they are devastated. Steam makes that in 29 minutes on average this weekend.

    1. Re:3 million by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Not quite... closer to about 2 days, actually, so still making it back over a weekend, but not in just half an hour.

    2. Re:3 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This weekend != A weekend

    3. Re:3 million by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but you are still talking about a difference that is over an order of magnitude in size. Half an hour fits into two days 48 times.... I would be skeptical that their profit margins this weekend are *that* much higher than they are typically over an average 2-day period.

    4. Re:3 million by mark-t · · Score: 1

      D'oh! math fail. 96 times.

      Realized it just as I was clicking "submit".

  7. Re:Proof read by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 0

    It's a perfectly cromulent word.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  8. Seriously? by mhkohne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How could ANYONE be stupid enough to not check local laws when opening in a new COUNTRY? I see that Valve is privately held, and apparently the owners aren't really very good at the detail work on things like this.

    I've said before that you can't run a company only by listening to lawyers (and quite frequently you need to ignore them when they get too protective), but that doesn't mean you don't need them at all!

    I applaud Australia for levying a fine high enough that someone will perhaps notice and wish to avoid a repeat.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:Seriously? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are no borders on the Internet. As best as I can tell, Steam (Valve) doesn't have any presence in Australia. They set up a payment-based website which distributes games over the Internet, and people in Australia happened to use it.

      You probably have a website or a Facebook page or a Twitter feed. Since it's online, it's accessible from nearly every country in the world. Did you check to make sure everything you post complies with every law in every country on the planet?

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand just how profitable Steam is for Valve - 3 million is absolutely nothing for Valve, it would have cost them a lot more to delay expansion into Australia while it double checked laws and implemented a refund system! They are already violating so many laws around the world (EU market rules, underage gambling, illegal data collection etc.) , it's much cheaper for them to wait until governments actually decide which ones to enforce and then accept fines and work around the laws.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      How could ANYONE be stupid enough to not check local laws when opening in a new COUNTRY?

      It's a very common thing small and medium sized businesses do.

      I see that Valve is privately held, and apparently the owners aren't really very good at the detail work on things like this.

      They're also a medium sized company, not even 300 staff (they did peak at 360 at one point I think?) currently to my knowledge, so on the lower end of medium sized companies too.

      I've said before that you can't run a company only by listening to lawyers (and quite frequently you need to ignore them when they get too protective), but that doesn't mean you don't need them at all!

      You've conviniently forgotten that they had to actually go to court because the situation of Steam sales was not clear and VALVe could have been potentially found to be correct in their interpretation of where sales were taking place.

      I applaud Australia for levying a fine high enough that someone will perhaps notice and wish to avoid a repeat.

      I will be interested to see how VALVe will increase Australian prices further to make up for the cost of doing business when prices for Australians are already generally high. Do you think Australian gamers will be pleased to recieve even higher prices (compared to the high prices before) to be compliant with Australian refund law?

      I personally imagine it's a win-win-win, more money for VALVe in the long term through mitigating their risk through charging higher service charges and the Australian gamers recieve their consumer protection on refunds but can't complain about even higher prices on Steam because it's the law.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because selling things to people is the exact same as posting on twitter that you took a dump. I see you got at least one +1 like, maybe they like to follow you and read all your idiocy. Of course steam has a presence in Australia. Many of their games are restricted there and they accept payments and transactions in Australian dollars. How in your tiny mind is that not a presence?

    5. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve's claim the whole time was that they don't do business in Australia and therefore are not subject to Australian consumer laws. The courts laughed at them and told them to fuck right off. Steam may not accept Australian dollars (but for some weird reason it does New Zealand dollars) but they sure as hell charge us more for just for being Australians (aka The Australia Tax). So a game that's USD$60 in the US will be USD$80 when buying from AU.

      Even then, this was probably a factor but afaik was not the main consideration for the case. More that Valve has our billing addresses and bank details that are most definitely in Australia. Once you do custom with people you know are in a certain country then yes, you have to follow that country's consumer laws.

    6. Re:Seriously? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      My point is, just as different countries have different legal standards for returns of game sales, different countries have different legal standards for what you're allowed to say or post online.

      You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose that one is ok and the other isn't. If you abstract the argument here, you believe an entity operating in one country should be subject to the laws of another country because people in that country choose to interact with that entity. That's what makes the two situations I outlined equivalent, whether those laws are governing commerce or speech.

      My personal position on this issue is the same as what someone else has already posted. The Internet is a great big shared global bulletin board. By allowing access to it, your home country is implicitly giving you permission to interact with it. If your country doesn't like something someone else in another country is doing on the Internet, it is your country's responsibility to prevent its citizens from seeing or interacting with what other people are doing on the Internet. They can set up a firewall, or require their ISP to blacklist websites, or whatever. What your country should not be able to do is apply its laws to someone who is outside that country has nothing to do with it other than some of its citizens interacting with that someone on their own initiative.

      If Australia doesn't like its citizens buying stuff from foreign websites, then it needs to prohibit its citizens from buying stuff from foreign websites (and figure out a way to enforce it). It does not get to say "Every business on earth operating on the Internet must now comply with Australian law."

    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they started doing refunds almost a year ago now, so this has probably been in the courts for a while.

      and 3m is pocket change to steam.

    8. Re: Seriously? by corychristison · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I operate a digital service online. My business is established in Canada, marketed to Canadians.

      If someone from within the European Union decided to sign up and make a payment to my business in Canadian Dollars, I now legally have to register for a Tax ID within a European country and remit VAT.

      Do I like it? Not at all. Is it the law? Yes. Do trade agreements enforce this law? You betcha.

      I chose the alternative, and put a notice on my site that I can't do business with Europeans with an explaination and referenced the specific law.

      I'm a small business owner. I can't afford the headaches that would cause. Perhaps in the future, but not righy now.

    9. Re:Seriously? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What we have here is sort of an international prisoner's dilemma: from each country's perspective, it is against their interest to allow any other country to make their citizens subject to that country's laws... but it is in their interest to make every other country subject to their own laws. So, all things being equal you either end up in a situation where multinational corporations are subject to no laws, or one in which they are subject to the union [in the set theory sense] of every country's laws. Since some country is probably going to assert that position and the other countries will follow suit in retaliation, "union of every country's laws" is the dominant outcome.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They charge in Australian dollars, and some games have geo-restrictions.

    11. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I addition to that, they have also increased the prices of games specifically for Australia in the past. When Skyrim first came out, it was cheaper to go to the store and buy the boxed copy, rather than but it off Steam.

      They have also blocked the sale of banned games to Australians as well, so yes, they do have a presence here - it may not be physical, but they operate in and for the Australian market, so they have to follow Australian law while they're doing it.

    12. Re:Seriously? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      By what definition is 300 the lower end of medium?

      I've seen definitions where that's the middle of medium (and logarithmically, the upper end), and definitions where that's simply large.

      Not accusing, just honestly curious.

    13. Re:Seriously? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      By what definition is 300 the lower end of medium?

      Just quickly double checked my defintion of "medium sized" on Google and confirmed, a medium sized company is 100 to 999 according to Google, under 300 is certainly closer to 100 than 999, hence lower end.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re: Seriously? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If someone from within the European Union decided to sign up and make a payment to my business in Canadian Dollars, I now legally have to register for a Tax ID within a European country and remit VAT.

      Hopefully we get rid of this dumb crap when the UK leaves the EU. We really shouldn't be charging for import of online services. It really makes competing on the world market really difficult.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    15. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've read on the matter, it seems to be that they are deemed to be conducting business in Australia in part because they have business relationships within Australia. This is evidenced most obviously by the fact that they sell to Australians at a frequently substantially inflated price because of deals with publishers who operate Australian subsidiaries, based in Australia. They also "ship" Australian versions of games to Australian buyers, which meet Australian classification laws.

      Had they exclusively sold US versions at US prices, then I don't think the outcome would have been the same - they may not have been deemed to have business relationships within Australia. But as it stands, they clearly do conduct a separate business in Australia. Valve would probably prefer not to, but are likely forced to do so by the game publishers they deal with. Either way, Valve ultimately deals uniquely with Australians in a different way than they do their US customers.

    16. Re: Seriously? by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

    17. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steam detects a user as being an Australian and applies price discrimination for the region, typically charging $79USD to Australians. The amount is often the Australian retail price, billed in USD rather than AUD.
      Ar current exchange rates this is a 20% markup over the full Australian RRP, which some customers who aren't looking closely may not realise they have just paid.

      This price discrimination is clear proof that steam was operating with specific rules and policies for the Australian market.

  9. Australian dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Small fact check: this is $2.15million in USD.

    But yes, idiots.

  10. Re:Proof read by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is a penalty, which is divisible by five.

  11. Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "During the case the court heard Valve did in fact offer more than 15,000 refunds if a customer was unable to install a game, or unable to play it, or where a subscriber purchased the wrong version of a game by mistake."
    So WTF are Aussies fining Steam $3M? Because they can't beat Pac-Man?

    1. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so how can I get refund, according to you? or according valve? curious EU

    2. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe "they didn't like it"?

      That's the primary reason I don't buy games any more. I end up liking and playing about 1 game every 5 years. The rest are all just clones of previous games except with different graphics. Plus consoles have ruined gaming. Practically no games these days need actual skill. They're really just liner storybooks with the illusion that you are controlling anything at all. Boring!

    3. Re:Missing in summary... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      You could always try searching for "Steam refunds" and selecting the first result.

    4. Re:Missing in summary... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Unlike the US, a lot of countries have consumer protection laws. If you buy something that's substantially different than was advertised, or it's not fit for purpose, or doesn't do what a reasonable person would expect it to do, you can get your money back.

      For example, in Canada, what the US calls 'Kraft Mac and Cheese' is called 'Kraft Dinner.' It can't be advertised as 'cheese' because, well, it contains no cheese.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So WTF are Aussies fining Steam $3M? Because they can't beat Pac-Man?

      30 years behind the times buddy. Many games advertise one thing and then give customers another. This was accepted in the past because "of course they are lying to you". Today, consumers expect to get what they paid for and laws are being put in place to fight bait-and-switch fraud.

      Valve was in violation of a consumer protection law, they acted criminally, and now they have to pay the price.

    6. Re:Missing in summary... by aevan · · Score: 1

      Huh? It was original Kraft Dinner, they just renamed it for american audience. Cheese is on the ingredients.
      Spoiler: they have on the box advertising 'more cheese' 'extra cheese', and 'three cheeses'. Be a bit hard to have that if there weren't any cheese by some legal metric.

      Sauce: have a box beside me

    7. Re:Missing in summary... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Another fun bit from Canada. This one has to do with margarine. Those consumer protection laws are exceptionally useful, many of them up here also cover all contracts. And ensure that things like software aren't licenses, but considered an "owned product" much like a physical purchase. I know that many US states are finally catching up, but here in Canada they exist because many companies up here have in the past been far worse then American companies. An example back oh a decade or more ago Rogers(think Comcast for Americans), turned around and added new channels to customers without permission. The kicker? They also billed those customers for the channels without any notification. This led to consumer protection laws being further strengthened, and Rogers losing numerous court cases. Then being fined, and having to retroactively either pay that money back to people who cancelled or discount them directly the amount on their bills.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Missing in summary... by SumDog · · Score: 1

      There's a funny comic about Craft Singles:

      http://catandgirl.com/?p=2364

    9. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point. In America, you can say whatever you want on the box. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IDIOT !!

    10. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking daft?

      Steam now has a Broadcast feature that allows you to actually WATCH people play games in realtime. You can LITERALLY watch exactly what the game looks like and how it is played before purchasing. It's a lot fucking harder to claim you "didn't know what you were getting" when that's entirely because you didn't do research before shelling out your money. It wasn't as exciting as the title sounded? Do your fucking homework. The videos only showed cutscenes? Do some fucking research.

      Except in cases where the game fails to run or crashes often (in which cases they DID offer refunds - see TFS), the only feasible reason to be dissatisfied with a game would be that you didn't do your damn research.

      Why are people so stupid?

    11. Re:Missing in summary... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny you think consumer protection laws are raising the standards at all.

      Companies sell quality products because they want to make money.

      Reminds me of the DisneyLand rides in the People's Republic of California. They have these big signs at the beginning of the rides showing how this and that state organization confirmed the ride is safe. Imagine how that went before the State started inspecting the rides! Probably crashes and deaths all the time, right?

    12. Re:Missing in summary... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Let me give you a very relevant example of Valve being assholes. Do you recall a few years back when Valve decided to jump on the forced-arbitration-clause bandwagon let loose by the Supreme Court? When the "change in terms of service" arrived, I decided that I'd had enough and refused to agree to the new terms. Paypal had given me the right to opt out of the similar change to its agreement. Refusing with no opt-out of course meant that I would be barred from the Steam DRM system and thus unable to play the games I had purchased. I wrote to Valve, asking for refunds for the very few games I had, explaining that the refunds were indeed warranted if I would be banned from access to them over a legal technicality.

      Valve refused my request with prejudice. That is the real face of Valve, and the alleged "consumer protection" laws in the United States allow Valve to wear that face with scorn and impudence.

    13. Re:Missing in summary... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I may well stand corrected. I cannot, for the life of me, find the reference I'm fairly sure I'd found that explained all this.

      Everything I'm reading now talks more about branding and KD being some sort of Canadian cultural icon.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    14. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fraud and lies are still fraud and lies even if the victim has an opportunity to discover they are fraud and lies.

    15. Re:Missing in summary... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I did and you could have just clicked accept on the new terms. The fact that you already had purchased games under a previous agreement meant that if you did at some point need to take Valve to court, you could do so under the previous EULA. The reality, in the US at least, is that for consumer purchased software, the EULA is not worth the paper it is written on if you have a real, justified lawsuit. The fact that you must accept something after a non-refundable transaction has occurred means that it is un-enforceable and is primarily viewed by industry and legal scholars as a way to head off some percentage of lawsuits. YMMV and IANAL.

      Binding arbitration in and of it'self is not a bad thing, especially for lesser issues, it just needs to be reformed such that all companies that want to use it should pay into a blind pool that then pays randomly selected arbitrators from a professional organization. This would encourage true impartial arbitration. The current implementation skews influence in favor of the businesses.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    16. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Companies sell quality products because they want to make money.

      Explain counterfeits.

      Explain the garbage that comes from china.

      Explain Walmart.

      Explain Comcast.

      You aren't living in a libertarian utopia. Abusing your customers and paying off politicians is more profitable than producing quality.

      Imagine how that went before the State started inspecting the rides! Probably crashes and deaths all the time, right?

      Yes. If you need more, check out how many people die in areas that don't have stringent inspections.

    17. Re:Missing in summary... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Maybe "they didn't like it"?

      I've gotten a half-dozen refunds from Steam on the basis that "I didn't like it". All that Steam cares is less than two weeks, and less than two hours of game time. I think that's overly restrictive, personally, since I sometimes buy a set of games on sale, but it certainly enough to take a risk on a game.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "False advertising" and "Not fit for purpose" come to mind. Re: No Man's Sky.

    19. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do your fucking homework."
      "Do some fucking research."

      Stop making excuses for bait-and-switch advertising.

    20. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide an example of Valve engaging in bait and switch on Steam.

      Until you do, you're talking out of your ass.

    21. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General statement is general.

      When has Valve engaged in fraud and lies? Please provide an ACTUAL example.
      They make it as easy as fucking possible for people to get ALL the information they want about a game, including EXACTLY how it looks and plays, BEFORE buying it. They don't make this information obscure or difficult to find.

      If an individual publisher who uses Steam as their distribution platform engages in these activities in some manner, sue THEM. Steam is just the commerce and distribution platform, and a fucking good one at that. Do you sue EBAY when an individual seller engages in bait and switch?

      If ANYTHING, perhaps the argument could be made that Valve needs to provide better support for going after individual publishers guilty of bait and switch, but Valve isn't the one engaging in bait and switch; unless they somehow switched the download links for Portal to redirect to Blade Kitten.

    22. Re:Missing in summary... by bernywork · · Score: 1

      If a customer bought a pre-release game that can't be viewed beforehand, the consumer would be protected under the trade practices act, also, the manufacturer isn't the one who has the obligation here, it's the retailer, or seller to the end user.

      If a person has a faulty Sony Hi-Fi, they take it back to where they bought it, not back to Sony in Japan.

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    23. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably fell prey to one of those bullshit Facebook hoaxes. I see lots of things like that and with the world as it is today it's not hard to believe some of them if you're a bit tired or too busy to fact-check.

    24. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite that, don't you think it's a little bit stupid that a person can be denied access to use the things they had previously purchased because they refuse to accept a new EULA that's presented after the purchases? I get what you're saying, but still, if this bloke doesn't want to click Accept and potentially expose himself to legal consequences he doesn't understand or agree to, his failure to accept shouldn't prevent access to the games he's already purchased. If, for some reason he is denied access, then he should be entitled to either a refund or Valve should implement a change to allow him access to them without agreeing to the new EULA. Perhaps, if Valve want to be so pedantic about it, they should send someone around to his house to click Accept so that he doesn't feel bound to the EULA he disagrees with if they are unwilling to otherwise change their system.

    25. Re:Missing in summary... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Companies sell quality products because they want to make money.

      And how many people did GM kill with faulty ignitions, just to save a dollar on parts per vehicle?

    26. Re:Missing in summary... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      When has Valve engaged in fraud and lies? Please provide an ACTUAL example.

      ACTUALLY that's just moving the goalposts. Your point was that bait & switch isn't really bait & switch if the consumer spends a moderate to an extreme amount of research in advance to make sure the company isn't lying them, remember? But keep fucking that chicken.

    27. Re:Missing in summary... by macraig · · Score: 1

      The current implementation skews influence in favor of the businesses.

      That was the entire reason for my objection. It's being abused - as the Supreme Court knew it would be when they rendered that decision - to avoid legitimate responsibility that only class action lawsuits can reasonably address and pad corporate profit margins in the process. We all hate lawyers who abuse the class action system, and there are many, but the class action system exists because it serves a purpose that only lawsuits brought by, say, state attorneys general could otherwise serve. There are only so many state attorneys general, only so many cases they can manage, and not all of them share the same motives and values.

    28. Re:Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point does a provider provide value to you for which they should be paid? Is it after you've been receiving their services for a sum of three years, or you're dead and buried, or what?

      If you purchase a game and play it for a considerable amount of time, the provider of said game deserves some compensation. Have some fucking integrity.

    29. Re: Missing in summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be made in china garbage now, not Japanese quality.

    30. Re: Missing in summary... by bernywork · · Score: 1

      It might be made in the USA, it's irrelevant, Sony is a Japanese company, but the person selling the good is the one with the responsibility.

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    31. Re:Missing in summary... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Who saves the money?

      The consumer.

      I seriously doubt they went into "saving the customer" mode knowing a lot of people were going to die from faulty ignitions.

    32. Re:Missing in summary... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Who saves the money? The consumer.

      Delusional corporatist is delusional.

      I seriously doubt they went into "saving the customer" mode knowing a lot of people were going to die from faulty ignitions.

      They kept putting the same parts in vehicles over ten years after knowing it was a problem. You see this DGAF attitude over and over and again, just to save a few bucks per widget for the sake of profits.

    33. Re:Missing in summary... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      If this is the worst case of company abuse you can think of, think of the 6 million people the USSR intentionally starved to death in Afghanistan over 2 years because of political crimes (i.e. the poor fools just couldn't grasp how wonderful the cradle to grave welfare state is).

    34. Re:Missing in summary... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If this is the worst case of company abuse you can think of, think of the 6 million people the USSR intentionally starved to death in Afghanistan over 2 years because of political crimes (i.e. the poor fools just couldn't grasp how wonderful the cradle to grave welfare state is).

      I see the shell finally fell off the delusional corporatist nut.

  12. Re:Proof read by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously editors, what's a "pentaly"?

    It's when you get screwed over five different ways.

  13. Re:Proof read by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    Also, let's be fair, the typo is a direct quote from the article.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  14. Re:Proof read by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Also, let's be fair, the typo is a direct quote from the article.

    Yeah well, Sydneysiders. 'nough said.

    There is no class north of the border. (and go one notch further north and there is even less class. Unless you count pumpkin scones)

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  15. How to collect? by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    Unless Valve has branches in Austrailia, I wonder how they intend to collect the fine if Steam decides not to pay up?

    1. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could block Valve receiving any earnings from Australia.

    2. Re:How to collect? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Unless Valve has branches in Austrailia, I wonder how they intend to collect the fine if Steam decides not to pay up?

      Actually, due to agreements between the US and Australia they can now be pursued in US courts. Its similar to if an Australian company violated US laws whilst selling digital product to Americans would be able to be sued in Australia for violating those laws. Ignorance of those laws is not a defence.

      Its actually quite an open and shut thing. Pulling out of a country after the fact is not a defence either. Also even if they had branches in Australia, the legal path via another country is the preferred method. Seizing property is the absolute last resort.

      It's similar to if you committed a crime in Germany, you cant run back to the US and say "ner, ner, you cant catch me". You can bet your arse the American courts will enforce their judgement, Its just that it's not worth the German courts time and money chasing you over a 30 Euro speeding fine.

      Besides, Australia is worth more than $3,000,000 to valve which is actually quoted in Australian dollars so it's closer to US$2,150,000.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you propose they do that?

    4. Re:How to collect? by foxalopex · · Score: 1

      I admit chances are it's probably easier for Steam to just pay the fine unless the Auz market is worth less than I thought too but it would be interesting to see what would happen if Steam decided to fight. I suspect gamers would be the ones hit in the crosshairs. Auz could effectively block Steam but that would result in their games becoming unplayable and a whole lot of gamers getting angry.

      The US has a very pro-US president now (Trump) for better or worse who's plan is to be super pro-US when he comes into power in a few months. I think we'd see International agreements scrapped pretty quickly.

      So it'll be interesting to see what Steam decides to do.

    5. Re:How to collect? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      essentially this, most fines i think are like that, "if you want to continue doing business with us, you'll pay us"

    6. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block their IP addresses?

    7. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when Valve just decides to drop service to all of Australia, how long do you suppose it will be before the Steam customers decide it wasn't worth losing their entire accounts to try and gouge Valve on the basis of the fucking moron customers not doing some research before they buy a game?

      I suspect the voices to drop the claim will be a hell of a lot louder than the voices trying to gouge Valve over their own god damned stupidity.

      We're talking about the purchase of creative works here. What's next? I buy a painting from an artist for 5 grand and later decide it "isn't really what i wanted" so I get to force them to refund my money? Fuck that noise.

    8. Re:How to collect? by hodet · · Score: 1

      If that goes over well with the populace, then they deserve that solution.

    9. Re:How to collect? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      They could block Valve receiving any earnings from Australia.

      Valve could just as easily disable the game in their customer's end, since all games start by starting up steam.

    10. Re: How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol the Australian market is worth a small fortune to Valve and they aren't going anywhere. Quit being so melodramatic.

    11. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's next? I buy a painting from an artist for 5 grand..."

      If you commission a 5 grand painting of your cat, and the artist give you a painting of a dog, then under the Australian Consumer Law, yes, you are entitled to a refund.

      Is it really that had for your tiny brain to grasp that you're supposed to get what you pay for?

    12. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a straw man argument.

      When a person purchases a game on steam, they're buying the game that appears in the pictures and videos. They have a clear description of the system requirements, any 3rd party DRM attached, and the game in question.

      They're not getting an entirely different game. They're getting the title they paid for. Your argument is invalid.

    13. Re:How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isn't really what I wanted" is not one of the accepted reasons for receiving a refund under Australian consumer law. It applies to goods that don't work, aren't as advertised, aren't fit for purpose. Presumably Valve refused a refund for a game that wouldn't run due to a bug or something like that.

      If you buy a piece of artwork for 5 grand that looks like it's made with chalk, but which the artist insists is acrylic and you get it home to find that it was in-fact made with chalk on fabric canvas and that the ride home essentially destroyed it (not through mishandling), then don't you think you should be entitled to a 5 grand refund?

    14. Re: How to collect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't need to be entirely different; under Australian law it can be valid to require a refund if the content substantively differs from said advertising, video, descriptions and the like.

  16. Re:Proof read by sinij · · Score: 1

    What do you call a penalty which is a prime number?

  17. Re:Proof read by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    FATALITY

  18. We are the US of A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any country with laws not inline with ours are just backwater dictatorships.

    Who do our companies need to freaking read up about their stuff. That's like asking us to read a few hundred country's laws and these shitty dictatorships would probably have consumer protection laws in their traffic laws just to make us pay.

    If they play punch with us we should just stop trading with them and see what happens to their economy.

    These assholes are biting the hand who feeds them.

    1. Re:We are the US of A by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Any country with laws not inline with ours are just backwater dictatorships.

      Who do our companies need to freaking read up about their stuff. That's like asking us to read a few hundred country's laws and these shitty dictatorships would probably have consumer protection laws in their traffic laws just to make us pay.

      If they play punch with us we should just stop trading with them and see what happens to their economy.

      These assholes are biting the hand who feeds them.

      While the AC is obviously a troll, there are some aspects of this ruling which seem a bit odd. For one, Steam was called out for not having "minimum quality guarantees." How exactly do you DEFINE "quality" for a video game? Do Australian laws really require this of all vendors...so that if you buy a book from a bookstore, and don't like it, you can say it had "poor quality," and get your money back? (Or, more to the point, you can claim that it had "poor quality" and get your money back even though you liked it?) Why is Steam the one that would have to be accountable for enforcement? Steam is a distributor.

      The way business operates these days, it's unrealistic for a distributor to be held directly and solely accountable for maintaining quality standards on all products. Imagine Amazon having to test everything for quality...and keep testing, lest that quality change over time? Just setting standards for "quality" across things like books, movies, games, TV shows, sex toys, crafting supplies, etc....an impossible challenge. Testing against those standards? Incredibly difficult. And for what, an economy of 23 million people?

      Add to that the fact that while a bit more than 21,000 tickets were opened that contained the word "refund" (not the best standard for determining how many refunds were warranted, mind you), Steam offered over 15,000 refunds. To me, this is a company that IS giving out refunds. And going further...how many of those tickets had a phrase like "if you can't fix this, I want a refund," only to have the problem fixed? How many of those were duplicates? How many of them didn't take the next step provided to start the refund process? How many of them were situations where a refund simply wasn't even warranted?

      General Counsel for Steam was stupid not to get legal help when doing business there. He was even dumber to act like that was no big deal. But yeah...this ruling seems a bit excessive, if only because the laws there are nuts.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    2. Re:We are the US of A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steam was called out for not having "minimum quality guarantees." How exactly do you DEFINE "quality" for a video game? Do Australian laws really require this of all vendors...so that if you buy a book from a bookstore, and don't like it, you can say it had "poor quality," and get your money back?

      Given how Steam has embraced any and all "indie" games, they are in no way going to be able to guarantee a minimum of quality. Begin the countdown for Steam refusing further business in Australia.

  19. Careful Australia by DeathLoveCrymo · · Score: 0

    If the fine is too high, Valve will just pull out of your country to avoid paying it, and you'll be stuck with Origin. Their customer support is run by EA - and that's about 2000x worse.

    1. Re:Careful Australia by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Actually EA's support is way better than Valve's. You actually can immediately reach a person rather than open a ticket and wait weeks for it to be responded to.

    2. Re:Careful Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually EA's support is way better than Valve's. You actually can immediately reach a person rather than open a ticket and wait weeks for it to be responded to.

      If only EA's software was so reliable... or they bothered to support more platforms. You talk about Origin as if it's actually a viable alternative.

      Besides, you're exaggerating how slow Steam's support is anyway. I've actually received refunds (past the normal 48-hour mark even) on Steam within 36 hours of requesting them. I've never needed technical support for a first-party Valve game, but admittedly I have not recieved stellar support from third-party developers. As for games that actually work, I can play most of them on Windows and Linux, and I don't have to have Internet Explorer to even open a Valve launcher; Compare this experience to Origin, which isn't supported on anything but Windows, and often zombifies until you kill its process even on Windows... or to EA games like Battlefield 4 that I can't even open the launcher for unless I install the bIggEst trojan horse in human history.

      Of course, there is no commercial store that can offer the level of support I've received for my Linux distro; I can't hop on IRC and expect Gabe Newell to send me a patch to fix the problem in 10 minutes. I guess I've been spoiled. Lol

    3. Re: Careful Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no us poor Australians won't be able to access the shitware that infests Steam these days oh the horror :( :(

  20. Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did people finally get their refunds? And what exactly constitutes a valid reason for a refund? Broken? Feels broken? Incomplete? Feels incomplete? Got swept up in a sale and over spent? Games aren't consumables, they don't wear out. So why isn't there a 2 or 4 week buyers remorse period? If a game is good it has enough replay value or enough content to last more than a month.

  21. not fair by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The fine goes to the government, right?

    So when businesses do something bad to me the government gets the money?

    In other words, government is more important than people.

    1. Re:not fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is for the people.
      The money goes to the budget, and gets spent on whatever the taxes are already being spent on.

  22. Re:Proof read by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Which border are we discussing here?

  23. Re: Proof read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill yourself melbourne scum, even better let a muslim do it for you.

  24. Follow the laws to avoid fines by melting_clock · · Score: 2

    Companies often try to use licenses and agreements to get around laws. It can be amusing when they find out that this doesn't actually work. The laws specifying the circumstance where a refund is required are very simple and not unreasonable. A customer that just changes their mind has no legal right to a refund. A product that does not live up to the claims there were made by the seller, is defective or not fit for purpose must be refunded. A truthful seller has nothing to fear.

    The ACCC regularly goes after companies for breaches of Australian corporate law and $3M is not a big fine when you consider Steam refused a lot of refunds where it was legally required to give a refund. Only weeks ago a drug company was fined $6M over misleading claims. Individual offences can be up to $10M per breach.

    In Australia it is actually an offence for seller to put up sign stating that no refunds are give under any circumstances.

    When it comes to software being fit for purpose and living up to the original claims there are extra complications compared to a physical product. An update that changes functionality so that the original claims are not met or that makes the software no long fit for purpose could leave the buyer with a right for a refund. It might not be a complete refund, depending on the time it was in use and actual changes but it give sellers something to consider. Again, an honest and truthful seller that does not screw their customers has nothing to fear.

    1. Re:Follow the laws to avoid fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies often try to use licenses and agreements to get around laws. It can be amusing when they find out that this doesn't actually work. The laws specifying the circumstance where a refund is required are very simple and not unreasonable. A customer that just changes their mind has no legal right to a refund.

      You're kinda wrong somewhere. IANAL, but AFAIK here you have up to 3 business days to change your mind and get a refund, for absolutely no reason other than you realized you didn't want the product.

    2. Re: Follow the laws to avoid fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are thinking of the cooling off period that only applies to goods and services bought door to door or through telemarketing. What a ridiculous notion, that anything can be returned just because.

  25. Dear Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks for this, now can you maybe do something about the companies breaking games permanently by shutting down DRM servers? The US certainly doesn't seem to care.

    No one's saying an MMO company has to keep the game running till the end of time. But for games with single player mode there's no excuse.

  26. Re:Nazism: left wing or right wing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Socialism is very much a part of what Nazism was.

    No, they were Fascists. And in fact, the primary opposing Party to the Nazis were the Socialists.
    Go study History.

    Difference b/w the Third Reich and the Soviet Union is that while the latter believed in 'Internationalism' and world communism

    People may have called them Communists, but they were Socialists. Which is why USSR contained the word Socialist, not Communist. From a very general viewpoint, the difference is that Socialism is when the Government tells you what you own, and Communism is when you just flat out don't own anything.

    A big problem with trying to discuss this kind of thing is that there also differences between the Political, Economic, and Social versions of various -isms. For example, some of them have identical Social policies but different Economic models, while other are very close Politically but very different Economically. And those three categories can end up being blurred together quite a bit as well.

  27. Re:Nazism: left wing or right wing? by unixisc · · Score: 0

    The Soviets were very much Communists, but they interchangeably described themselves as either socialist or communist. Yeah, that country's name was USSR, but the ruling party was called the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The international association that they headed was called Comintern, their equivalent of the EU was the Comecom, and so on.

    The last paragraph of what you described perfectly reinforces my point. Both Nazism and Socialism are Leftist ideas economically, and they are both about central control politically, but socially is where they diverge. Socially, where they diverged was on race: the Nazis being more centric around white Aryans, and Socialists around mainly Jews. The Communists, otoh, purged the Jews - particularly after Stalin managed to oust Trotsky. That may have been part of what enabled the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, although the Nazis loathed the Slavs as well, which is why they took out Yugoslavia and later the Soviet Union

  28. Re:Proof read by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Seriously editors, what's a "pentaly"?

    It's when you count up all the pens you have.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  29. Re:Nazism: left wing or right wing? by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    To determine whether Nazism was a Leftist or Rightist movement, just look at whether they believed in limiting the size and scope of government. Answer is a huge 'NO'. They were big believers in big government, but since Communists were one of the groups that they decided to persecute, nobody ever recognized them as being Left Wing

    Nazi's were Fascists, the epitome of right wing politics. Anyone who has studied any history would recognise that and the parallels in politics today.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  30. Re:Nazism: left wing or right wing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Socialism is when the Government tells you what you own, and Communism is when you just flat out don't own anything.

    Sounds like semantics. If the government tells you what you own, they can revoke it at any time, and it is not considered to be theft. I would argue that owning something means that if it is taken from you, it is theft.

  31. Re:Nazism: left wing or right wing? by unixisc · · Score: 0

    Again, Fascists were believers in a command economy. Like Mussolini's 'making the trains run on time' was not something that any capitalist government would do. A capitalist government would turn the rail system private, and that private company would ensure that the trains run on time.

  32. Re:Nazism is right wing by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    Irrelevant. The Nazi governments, repealed German Citizens rights, shutdown the constitution with the 'Reichstag Fire Decree' and threatened those who opposed the legislation with the SS and the SA. The Socialist democrats that you are demonizing are the only Germans who stood *against* Hitler. Case in point is that under these regimes left wing opponents like union and community leaders were rounded up and put in concentration camps by right wing fascists who bought us history like the mass murder of Jews.

    That you bring up Mussolini, the very template of right wing fascism that believes that any form of liberal democracy should be replaced with totalitarian one party martial government, shows the vapid little thought bubble you have had, has burst. Go and learn some history instead of trying to re-write it.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  33. A lot of love for Valve by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

    Amazing. People forget Steam is a defacto monopoly now. They have no real competition. The last disk I bought just had a steam code on the disk, and the steam installer. When they mislabeled the minimum requirements for a game and left out that it did not run on 64bit Win 7 it took three weeks for them to tell me to sit and spin. They are not consumer friendly. You click no to the newly updated subscriber agreement and your library is locked. They could put in their that they have the right to use rabid sheep to bite off your ear and you agree or lose $1000 worth of software. Enjoy:)

  34. steam ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia is a third world Internet, fuck them all to death the heathen plebs are unworthy of joining the PC master race.

  35. Why does software cost more in aus? by vektros · · Score: 1

    Oh! This is why.

  36. Re:Proof read by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Bass Strait, I'm guessing.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});