Consumer Protection - Ontario, Canada

[Khryn]

This thread is solid gold. It will be referenced and laughed about for YEARS.

 

People should be downright ashamed and embarrassed to even have thought about

suing Bioware over the Cartel Slot Machine. To admit you blew your paycheck trying

to get in on the gold rush is bad enough, but then to admit you are mad enough to waste time

trying to get this to a court that will even listen to you? Downright hysterical.

 

The amount of money you are going to put out just filling the paperwork to get this into a hearing

would be much more than you'd ever see from a settlement.

 

And what do you expect would happen if you did go to court? Do you expect them to restore the

slot machine to it's former credit printing press status? Or do you want a refund for the money spent

trying to get a digital item (that was not guaranteed to drop anyhow, and you were not misled to believe that.)

 

I wonder if they would refund you the amount for the slot machine, since you did receive other items as well? It'd

amount to cents if they did.

 

Hilarious thread. I'm sad that I have to get some work done, hopefully this thread isn't nuked when I get back. I needed the laughs today.

[FantaBuoy]

Suuuure he has. Let me get my "copying stuff from the internet" law degree aswell.

[Ruskaeth]

Happy outcome:

I get the 2,500 CC that I spent trying to get my 2 slot machines that were misrepresented.

You can even take all of the crap that it came stuffed with, thereby freeing up more of my inventory slots.

 

You gambled. You bought a pack that might or might not have thing-X inside.

You could have gotten the machine with 250 cartel coins or 1361361326.

How many coins you gambled to get it is irrelevant. Completely besides the point.

You gambled hoping you would win Thing-X from lottery. There is nothing else to it.

 

Thing-X was by nature a gambling machine also. You may only use gaming currency to play the machine. You gambled it with gaming currency not cartel coins. Returns of said machine were changed. You can still choose to use gaming currency to play it or not. You still have the X-thing you won from lottery and it's a decoration. You still have exactly what you gambled for. You did not buy the slot machine. BW did not promise x-returns. They only said they are changing those to x-values after inspecting effects of said thing-X.

 

It would have been different had BW sold the machine for cartel coins as an item with announced returns. Your "legal" stuff is pretty great.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Ruskaeth

[Pagy]

You are welcome to let your rights be trampled on. I choose not to.

what exactly are you looking for here?

 

a refund on your video game currency?

a refund on cartel coins spent by you, by choice, on packs that may or may not randomly give you an in-game video game toy that was clearly identified as something that could be changed?

 

yikes dude, you need to concentrate on things that actually matter in this world.

[Khryn]

what exactly are you looking for here?

 

a refund on your video game currency?

a refund on cartel coins spent by you, by choice, on packs that may or may not randomly give you an in-game video game toy that was clearly identified as something that could be changed?

 

yikes dude, you need to concentrate on things that actually matter in this world.

 

 

I wondered the same thing. In these packs people got other valuable items.. It's not like it was a ticket to win just the slot machine.

[Mariojediwookie]

Going this crazy over a slot machine.......a decoration. You had your week of mourning, I believe it's time to move on.

[Quraswren]

You realise Diablo 3 was actually unplayable right?

 

They didnt get their money back because blizzard nerfed the drop rate on the epic sword of killyness, they got it back because they could not access any aspect of the game.

 

That is not entirely true as it was playable in some areas but it was off and on in all areas. Just because a ToS is involved and agreed to, specific countries laws take a precedent. blizzard did not want to give refunds and their TOS said such. Korean laws state otherwise and refunds were forced on blizzard or they would no longer be doing business there (or at least that product.)

 

Like I said, consumer laws are much better in other countries VS the US. I get what the OP is saying. When you spend real money on something and part of that decision is based on what you are told, then after purchase the company changes it. It's got a bit of merit to be heard in some countries.

 

Cartel packs are what? 5400 coins, roughly $54 at $1.00 per 100 coins. I can see some being pissed at spending $54 and then seeing what they bought changed later and changed in a manner that was not mentioned.

 

It makes little difference to me but I get where some might dislike losing that cash and no longer having the product work for the same reasons they bought it for.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Quraswren

[Khryn]

Cartel packs are what? 5400 coins, roughly $54 at $1.00 per 100 coins. I can see some being pissed at spending $54 and then seeing what they bought changed later and changed in a manner that was not mentioned.

 

It makes little difference to me but I get where some might dislike losing that cash and no longer having the product work for the same reasons they bought it for.

 

 

Well that's the catch. It wasn't a guaranteed item. You don't see people suing the lotto companies because they didn't hit millions every week.

[Bojaboo]

Have you read the ToS?

 

I think it funny that you believe ToS can over rule the laws of the States Local and Federal Jurisdictions. If the ToS said when you left the game Bio-ware could remove money from your bank, I guess by your logic that is fair too. There are many many cases where Unfair practices have proven that Any agreement you make with some company that countermands your rights is considered Null and Void. Just ask Verizon about this they have paid out millions in class action over implied contract of serviceability in the state of California alone. Cheating your customers is still cheating your customers even if they signed a pack with the devil. Bio-ware is most likely taking the gamble that people will not choose to go through the rigors of taking them to court over this, I feel they are mistaken.

[DOHboy]

That is not entirely true as it was playable in some areas but it was off and on in all areas. Just because a ToS is involved and agreed to country laws take a precedent. blizzard did not want to give refunds and their TOs said such. Korean laws state otherwise and refunds were forced on blizzard or they would no longer be doing business their (or at least that product.)

 

Like I said, consumer laws are much better in other countries VS the US. I get what the OP is saying. When you spend real money on something and part of that decision is based on what you are told, then after purchase the company changes it. It's got a bit of merit to be heard in some countries.

 

Cartel packs are what? 5400 coins, roughly $54 at $1.00 per 100 coins. I can see some being pissed at spending $54 and then seeing what they bought changed later and changed in a manner that was not mentioned.

 

It makes little difference to me but I get where some might dislike losing that cash and no longer having the product work for the same reasons they bought it for.

 

they spent money on coins. They got exactly what was offered, xxx coins for $yyy. how you choose to spend those coins is up to you. OP choose to spend coins on a chance to win a machine and eventually got that machine.

 

the operation of any in game content is and will be subject to change. Othewise ever time someone doesn't like their char nerf or non-buff can complain and sue. Don't like disciplines, sue. Don't like pvp changes, sue. Given this every time I pull a Black dye from my armor i can sue for its destruction right?

 

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this stuff works.

Edited January 26, 2015 by DOHboy

[MadDutchman]

Dam easterners, gotta be Toronto, only they can be this arrogant.

 

Still, I doubt this kind of crap is tolerated in Ontario any more than it is in Alberta, which is to say you'll be lucky if you don't get physically thrown out of the court.

 

That being said, please stop tarnishing the reputation of this country on the internet with this silliness. If you want to waste your own time and money pursuing this, go ahead, just please keep it to yourself.

[DOHboy]

Dam easterners, gotta be Toronto, only they can be this arrogant.

 

Still, I doubt this kind of crap is tolerated in Ontario any more than it is in Alberta, which is to say you'll be lucky if you don't get physically thrown out of the court.

 

That being said, please stop tarnishing the reputation of this country on the internet with this silliness. If you want to waste your own time and money pursuing this, go ahead, just please keep it to yourself.

 

as long as they aim for Europe when they toss him out, and he doesn't land south of the boarder we'll be fine. We won't hold it against you...Justin Bieber and Celine Dion on the other hand.

 

but you did give us Shania Twain so half is forgiven...Bieber is unforgivable!!!

[Icestar]

A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.

 

They have not done this

 

that a statement of opinion is misleading and the consumer is likely to rely on it to his or her detriment

 

They have not done this either

 

That is my point of view, I can not see that they have claimed anything else then that they would look into it and they did.

 

Good luck whatever you decide to do, but remember it is a virtual slot machine and it is not worth the headache some seems to get by thinking of it

Edited January 26, 2015 by Icestar

[Quraswren]

Well that's the catch. It wasn't a guaranteed item. You don't see people suing the lotto companies because they didn't hit millions every week.

 

If I won the prize of the lottery and they came back later and took it, I'd be pissed.

 

Similar case here. You won the lottery. The randomness was over. You had the machine. Bw made changes and what they changed didn't happen how they stated changes would happen or how they led gamers to believe.

 

I get the problem gamers are having.

[branmakmuffin]

apparently you too missed the "we are going to take a look at it and make changes accordingly" part.

Whether the OP has any merit aside, apparently you, too, missed the part about making changes to just the Jawa junk drop rate.

Edited January 26, 2015 by branmakmuffin

[MadDutchman]

as long as they aim for Europe when they toss him out, and he doesn't land south of the boarder we'll be fine. We won't hold it against you...Justin Bieber and Celine Dion on the other hand.

 

but you did give us Shania Twain so half is forgiven...Bieber is unforgivable!!!

 

Ya, the 2 greatest national shames, trumps even the heavily armed police force we call a military

 

And we got plenty of frozen wasteland to toss people without annoying other countries We got to find some use for it.

[Mariojediwookie]

I think it funny that you believe ToS can over rule the laws of the States Local and Federal Jurisdictions. If the ToS said when you left the game Bio-ware could remove money from your bank, I guess by your logic that is fair too. There are many many cases where Unfair practices have proven that Any agreement you make with some company that countermands your rights is considered Null and Void. Just ask Verizon about this they have paid out millions in class action over implied contract of serviceability in the state of California alone. Cheating your customers is still cheating your customers even if they signed a pack with the devil. Bio-ware is most likely taking the gamble that people will not choose to go through the rigors of taking them to court over this, I feel they are mistaken.

 

It's the HumanCentipad argument

[Quraswren]

SNIP....

 

the operation of any in game content is and will be subject to change.

 

and in many countries, if said change or sell of a product is done differently than what was stated, you could have legal precedents to do something.

 

BW stated they are nerfing jawa junk but nerfed the entire machine and it went from a worthwhile , money well spent item to damn near worthless.

 

Like I said, I get the problem, it's not something I would jump on but I get it. BW turned the reason someone spent $54 dollar into a piece of crap and did it differently then was stated.

[branmakmuffin]

and in many countries, if said change or sell of a product is done differently than what was stated, you could have legal precedents to do something.

 

BW stated they are nerfing jawa junk but nerfed the entire machine and it went from a worthwhile , money well spent item to damn near worthless.

 

Like I said, I get the problem, it's not something I would jump on but I get it. BW turned the reason someone spent $54 dollar into a piece of crap and did it differently then was stated.

If they had simply nerfed the junk drop rate to the astronomically low level it is now. but left everything else as is. I think most of the complainers would be fine with that. I certainly would be.

[Thoronmir]

I'm not going to attach any statutes and case citations. I'm going to rely on 20+ years as a civil litigator, including many cases brought under my home state's Consumer Protection Law (FYI, most jurisdictions adopted the same Model Consumer Protection Act, so they generally all have the same terms ... even the Canadian version). Choice of law clauses are generally upheld unless the clause violates public policy of the court's state; i.e., the fact that California law governs our contract must--in itself--violate public policy. That's a high burden and a rare outcome. There are too many treaties and Constitutional issues at play to offer a succinct view of enforcing a foreign jurisdiction's laws against an American company doing business in that foreign location, but the super-shorthand version is that by advertising in the foreign country and selling its service to residents of that country, EA is subject to personal jurisdiction there. DISCLAIMER: I am not licensed in Canada.

 

To frame the claim: "I spent real-world money for the chance to acquire an in-game item with which to obtain in-game resources I can sell for in-game currency."

 

On the front side, we can cull the list of claimants to those who can truthfully say: "I only spent that real-world money after I learned the drop rates for the items that generate the most in-game currency and after EA announced that the item was 'working as intended'; i.e., EA represented that the drop rates were normal."

 

On the back side, we can eliminate claimants who cannot establish that: "I spent my real-world money before the announcement that EA would likely change the item, most probably including the drop rates for the resources."

 

So, potential plaintiffs in our hypothetical class-action against EA are limited to those who can prove (plaintiffs bear the burden of proof) that they relied upon EA's "representation" that the drop rates were as intended to spend their real-world money for that chance to acquire a slot machine, and that they spent that real-world money before EA announced potential changes.

 

Moving on ... we must next establish that EA's "representation" ("drop rates are as intended") was false. This gets tricky. Because the statement was likely true at the time made. A shift in EA policy in response to the additional data from mass use of the slot machines ... a reaction by EA to the situation ... does not render it's initial view "false." Businesses are entitled to adapt their policies to circumstances. It's the fundamental basis for changing prices. I can't sue Exxon because gas is more expensive than when they "represented" a lower price to me 35 years ago.

 

The proof we need to prevail in our claim against EA is that EA knew they intended to change the drop rates at the time they made the representation that the drop rates were "as intended". In legal parlance, this usually requires either a Whistleblower or a Smoking Gun. Without either, we are left relying on circumstantial evidence of EA's intent. Unfortunately, the very fact that these forums were inundated with complaints about the high drop rates--accompanied by pleas to nerf the slot machines--gives EA a pretty solid shield behind which to hide. It provides the "convenient explanation" for the policy shift that rendered "as intended" drop rates suddenly "unintended."

 

So far, I've avoided the elephant in the room for the plaintiffs. The fact that they spent their real-world money for a chance to acquire a slot machine. I confess that I have very limited professional experience with raffles, lotteries, and games of chance. So perhaps a lawyer with greater expertise on this issue can chime in. But it seems to me that the law may acknowledge a distinction between representations made about and item sold versus an item that might be won based on the whims of the RNG. Because we need to realize that EA made no misrepresentation about the crate itself.

 

Assuming we get past the hurdles of "chance" and "intent", we might prevail and reach my favorite part of the lawsuit ... calculating damages. For a "knowing" violation of most Consumer Protection Acts, the plaintiff is entitled to more than just the amount lost (i.e., the $ equivalent of the CC spent on crates to get the slot machine). Courts award treble damages for such violations, and ... most importantly ... attorneys' fees. THAT is the reason most lawyers chase these types of cases ... mandatory attorneys' fees awards against the wrongdoer (usually a large company with deep pockets). If we can prove that EA's conduct was particularly egregious and harmful, we might recoup punitive damages (based not on the harm to the plaintiff, but on how much it takes to teach the company not to do this again ... could be millions).

 

Of course, this entire thread is for entertainment purposes only. I don't believe anyone has a chance in heck of winning a case against EA for something as benign as listening to player's complaints.

 

TL;DR: I'm a lawyer with 20+ years experience in civil litigation and I would throw this case out of my office.

[DOHboy]

and in many countries, if said change or sell of a product is done differently than what was stated, you could have legal precedents to do something.

 

BW stated they are nerfing jawa junk but nerfed the entire machine and it went from a worthwhile , money well spent item to damn near worthless.

 

Like I said, I get the problem, it's not something I would jump on but I get it. BW turned the reason someone spent $54 dollar into a piece of crap and did it differently then was stated.

 

they spent $54 on cartel coins, and got exactly what they paid for. Beyond that, consumer has zero say in how anything runs. Someone doesn't' like the color combination of Black Black after I put it in my armor and when i removed it, it disappeared. Can they sue, sure, doesn't mean they'll get anything but a swift kick in the backside on their way out.

[Quraswren]

If they had simply nerfed the junk drop rate to the astronomically low level it is now. but left everything else as is. I think most of the complainers would be fine with that. I certainly would be.

 

Agreed. What was changed is not what was expected or even mentioned. That has a tendency to cause more problems in an already problem area.

 

 

SNIP....

Othewise ever time someone doesn't like their char nerf or non-buff can complain and sue. Don't like disciplines, sue. Don't like pvp changes, sue. Given this every time I pull a Black dye from my armor i can sue for its destruction right?

 

The difference being in most of those changes you can make a well informed decision to buy or buy into those changes.

 

Most of the biggest changes comes from paid expansions. You don't like the change? Don't buy it. You don't like what a patch is doing to your toon? Don't pay your monthly. You don't like how dye modules are working? Don'y buy them. You don't like disiciplies? Don'y buy the expansion.

 

You don't like the change to slot machines? We'll Screw you, we have your money and their is nothing you can do even though we made changes and said things that would make you think differently VS what we actually did. See the difference?

 

After the fact changes can indeed cause a problem like here. BW stated what they were changes but did something entirely over the top. They turned the entire reason someone bought packs into worthless digital junk. IT's a little to much 180 degree for some.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Quraswren

[Bristol]

Additionally, if investigated:

 

If a business is found guilty under the Consumer Protection Act:

• a corporation can be fined up to $250,000
  
• a business owner can be sentenced to a term of imprisonment up to 2 years less a day or be fined up to $50,000, or both.

 

So, as a corporation, just a fine, no jail time for Musco...

[Transcendent]

Have you read the ToS?

 

It's interesting when players say this, ToS do not supersede any local laws that may be in force. This is why you'll find different countries tend to have different ToS, or exemptions in them stating that local law may take precedent in some cases.

 

I'm not going to be an armchair solicitor though, if players feel the need to drag something down this road. It's not something that if you chose to do, would be beneficial posting on the forums first. A lot of players here will have all seen threads like these in many games, that result in nothing.

 

There are plenty of examples on these forums of how to improve the situation that would appease a majority of players, that BioWare could choose to implement of their own accord. Let's wait and see if they decide to step up to the plate and be magnanimous about things.

[Heat-Wave]

Unconscionable?

seriously?

 

I suspect that you and a number of other posters here fail to understand just how wrong Bioware has done this time.

 

You keep thinking it is silly, maybe Bioware does as well. That thinking isn't going to make this all go away.