{"id":194412,"date":"2016-12-30T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-12-30T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jbsgame.com\/so-what-are-the-main-takeaways-from-the-legal-battle-between-australia-and-valve\/"},"modified":"2016-12-30T16:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T21:00:00","slug":"so-what-are-the-main-takeaways-from-the-legal-battle-between-australia-and-valve","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jbsgame.com\/so-what-are-the-main-takeaways-from-the-legal-battle-between-australia-and-valve\/","title":{"rendered":"So, what are the main takeaways from the legal battle between Australia and Valve?"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s another excuse to reference ‘Bart vs. Australia,’ for starters<\/h2>

Two years ago, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) launched a legal challenge against Valve over its treatment of Australian users of its Steam service between the dates of January 1, 2011 and August 28, 2014 (when the case first went to court). The rationale was that due to the company’s explicit policy of refusing to give refunds to buyers of goods that may be defective, Valve was in violation of Australia’s consumer laws.<\/p>

Back in March, the Australian Federal Court agreed with the ACCC. Valve had explicitly breached the country’s laws. Then, just before Christmas<\/a>, a final ruling was handed down. The Seattle-based business must pay the Commonwealth of Australia a sum of $3 million AUD (or approximately $2.2 million USD). Not only is this figure significantly higher than Valve’s proposed fine of $250,000 AUD<\/a>, but the online retailer will also have to inform Australian Steam users of their consumer rights and guarantees.<\/p>

So, what, exactly, does this mean for Australian consumers, or potentially even buyers of digital games as a whole? What are the ramifications of this legal battle, and what sort of a precedent has been established?<\/p>

Before I dive into this article, I will admit that — as the only Australian contributor on a website that primarily targets a U.S. audience — the idea of providing a more detailed write-up of a legal battle that’s centred on the laws of this nation may come across as a little unorthodox. While this type of content might not seem to be in the interests of much of Destructoid’s readership — as it’s not about a subject that’s as close to home as some may like — I believe there are intriguing potential ramifications from this court case. It can also serve as a decent stepping stone to a much broader discussion about consumer affairs and the digital distribution of video games.<\/p>

In Australia, there are consumer laws that dictate<\/a> that a product sold to consumers must be of acceptable quality, must not be misleadingly advertised or sold under false pretences, and must be fit for purpose. If the product does not match these criteria, then it’s up to either the manufacturer or supplier to remedy the situation. This can be done by either refunding, repairing, or replacing the product, depending on the situation.<\/p>

While I won’t be explaining the Australian Consumer Law to its fullest — this is a video games blog, after all — before I go any further, I feel like I should dispel the notion that the term “acceptable quality” is referring to the subjective quality of the product. This is not the case. When the Australian Consumer Law declares that a product must be of “acceptable quality,” this just means that it needs to function as one would expect it to. For instance, a game that’s subjectively fun to play, but has a multitude of technical issues such as Fallout: New Vegas<\/a><\/i> could arguably be seen to be of unacceptable quality. In contrast, games such as Ride to Hell: Retribution<\/a><\/i> or Dead or Alive Xtreme 3: Fortune<\/a><\/i> may be subjectively terrible, but they would arguably be of “acceptable quality” simply because they function as intended.<\/p>

<\/p>

Even when accounting for this broad definition of “acceptable quality,” goods are rarely removed from store shelves unless they pose a significant risk to a person or their property due to a major failure in the product. As it were, some people are more capable of tolerating faults that could be perceived to be minor than others are. Even if a product isn’t inherently flawless, it may still be of “acceptable quality” to such individuals.<\/p>

At this point, it should become understandable where the limitations in Australia’s consumer laws lie. They’re simply in place to protect buyers from predatory companies that misleadingly advertise products or release something that simply does not work as intended. These laws are not intended to protect users who have made a financial decision that they’ve come to regret for personal reasons. If someone buys a game that’s technically solid, but is not at all fun to play, that’s entirely on them.<\/p>

As the ACCC explains<\/a>, the term “acceptable quality” simply means that “…the goods must be safe, lasting, have no faults, look acceptable and do all the things someone would normally expect them to do…” In the case of video games, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the title must be fun to play. It just has to work.<\/p>

The cost of a product is also considered when determining what is and isn’t of acceptable quality, as well as the type of the goods in question. Computer programs (such as video games) are almost always never bug-free, so minor glitches or hiccups in a game would more than likely not be enough to constitute a major failure of the product in question. That just comes with the territory, so to speak. However, it could be argued that notoriously terrible PC ports such as that of Batman: Arkham Knight<\/i><\/a> and games that are similarly broken are most definitely not of acceptable quality for many individuals. Although at least Warner Bros. did offer refunds to buyers of that port<\/a>.<\/p>

To Valve’s credit, this does mean it could be argued that — as of June 2015<\/a> — the company has gone above and beyond its consumer obligations in one respect. If a Steam user has played less than two hours of a game, they can receive a refund for it completely unconditionally, provided that they’ve purchased it within fourteen days. This means that a user could get their money back for a game they simply found boring, whereas Australia’s consumer laws aren’t intended to protect people from such a situation.<\/p>

Of course, it could be argued that two hours isn’t a fair amount of time to assess a title for its technical mishaps, as there is always the potential for game-breaking bugs to occur much later.<\/p>

As of November, Valve has even started to weed out some forms of misleading marketing on its Steam service. A notice has gone out to developers who use the platform saying that Valve will no longer allow for ‘bullshots’ on Steam store pages<\/a>. While this is more than likely in response to the backlash over the marketing for No Man’s Sky<\/i>, this is still a commendable effort.<\/p>

<\/p>

With that out of the way, here’s where Valve screwed up; it’s entirely unlawful to mislead consumers about their rights in Australia. You cannot tell people they have no rights whatsoever to a refund for a product that could be deemed unfit for purpose. In fact, it could even be argued that the simple act of displaying a “no refund” sign is against the law<\/a>.<\/p>

While you can inform people that there are no refunds for a simple change of mind, a flat-out policy of refusal is completely unlawful. These laws cannot be overridden by any private enterprise, or with a license agreement or contract. Any business that operates within Australia, or that explicitly delivers a product or service to citizens in this nation, is subject to the country’s consumer laws.<\/p>

In a statement made by the ACCC back in March<\/a>, the consumer watchdog went on to explain that:<\/p>

The Court found that Valve made the following false or misleading representations to consumers, in the terms and conditions contained in three versions of its Steam Subscriber Agreement and two versions of its Steam Refund Policy:<\/p>