|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
6
   |
Posted - 2014.05.06 19:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:UK government guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008, section 7.3 wrote:A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision. So if a company provided misleading information, or presented information in a misleading way, regarding their product, with the result that consumers made purchases they otherwise would not, they are in breach of consumer protection regulations. Legal remedies include civil and criminal enforcement, which aim to: UK government guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008, section 11.3 wrote:GÇó change the behaviour of the offender
GÇó eliminate any financial gain or benefit from noncompliance
GÇó be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the
particular offender and regulatory issue
GÇó be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm
caused
GÇó restore the harm caused by the regulatory noncompliance,
where appropriate, and
GÇó deter further non-compliance. The full UK government guidance is available here. Details on making a complaint are available here. Please note that there are similar regulations elsewhere in Europe as the UK simply follows EU consumer protection regulations.
How did they mislead you? How was the information provided misleading? And you do know that they said devlopment of dust will keep going, so that pretty much nullifies any law suite you have. You do remember that just because you found a random law, that you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were mislead. From what i know, however, you were not. Spending money, and assuming its going to devlope and add new things to dust, was on you. Unless ccp told you, spacificly, that if you but this stuff it will bring you XXX then you were not misled. Case dismissed you lose. |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 19:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
NomaDz 2K wrote:DaReaperPW wrote:
How did they mislead you? How was the information provided misleading? And you do know that they said devlopment of dust will keep going, so that pretty much nullifies any law suite you have. You do remember that just because you found a random law, that you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were mislead. From what i know, however, you were not. Spending money, and assuming its going to devlope and add new things to dust, was on you. Unless ccp told you, spacificly, that if you but this stuff it will bring you XXX then you were not misled. Case dismissed you lose.
People have already been refunded based upon THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD - AMEN
no, you prolly got refunded due to sonys return policy. |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:DaReaperPW wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:UK government guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008, section 7.3 wrote:A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision. So if a company provided misleading information, or presented information in a misleading way, regarding their product, with the result that consumers made purchases they otherwise would not, they are in breach of consumer protection regulations. Legal remedies include civil and criminal enforcement, which aim to: UK government guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008, section 11.3 wrote:GÇó change the behaviour of the offender
GÇó eliminate any financial gain or benefit from noncompliance
GÇó be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the
particular offender and regulatory issue
GÇó be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm
caused
GÇó restore the harm caused by the regulatory noncompliance,
where appropriate, and
GÇó deter further non-compliance. The full UK government guidance is available here. Details on making a complaint are available here. Please note that there are similar regulations elsewhere in Europe as the UK simply follows EU consumer protection regulations. How did they mislead you? How was the information provided misleading? And you do know that they said devlopment of dust will keep going, so that pretty much nullifies any law suite you have. You do remember that just because you found a random law, that you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were mislead. From what i know, however, you were not. Spending money, and assuming its going to devlope and add new things to dust, was on you. Unless ccp told you, spacificly, that if you but this stuff it will bring you XXX then you were not misled. Case dismissed you lose. 'Laser-focused on PS3' - somewhat misleading, no? Regarding reasonable doubt, that standard is only required in criminal cases. The standard in civil cases is the balance of probabilities. I get the impression that I have a rather firmer grasp of UK law than you do.
No, thats called marketing jargon. And because they looked at what dust was and changed stratigies thats on them. This is like you buying a pinto and expecting ford to make a pinto mark two, so you bought the pinto thinking they will use the money to get you a pinto, if they can the pinto, well thats your problem.
You can play dust, even if they told you they were going to bring stuff soon(tm) and are lazor focused on ps3, at the time of said statement they prolly were lazor focused on ps3. Then they decided as a company to change gears. They do not need to tell you they are changing gears. As you are playing dust because its dust. If you are playing dust for the hope of what it might be, then thats on you. As you have to look at the product at face value. Unless they said "We are bringing you the player market on may 14th 2014, so but your gear now to prepair for that" That is a misleading statement. And a flat out lie. its also used as bait for you to spend your money. On the contrary, if you went to get into dust and one of the things on the offical website, by an offical member of ccp said "Dust has a fully functioning player market! come spend XXX to use it" and you bought dust and aurum for that reason, before you got into the game, then you have a case.
It doesn;t matter if they tell you that you will be gods soon(tm) and able to fire lazor beams out your butt. As long as they don;t give you an explicite date you still lose. A promise =! a guarentee. Thats the difference. And its a free game, you CHOSE to spend money. If you did not do your research into what CCP has stated for eve, and failed to deliver, thats on you. So again, none of this was misleading to anyone. For all they have to do, is show a memo saying in march they are focused on ps3, then another in april givin the reasons why they have to get off the ps3. And they are fine. as 'lazor focused' is just a marketing tool.
So can you show where they said "Hey guys, you are getting XXX on this exact date yyy" and because of this information, you went out and bought aurum?
One more point. If you coudl sue for marketing terms, there are a ton of game companies you can sue. You can;t however, as there was no spacifics. What does 'lazor focused on ps3' mean? And the fact is, if they keep making updates that they can for dust, then they are technically lazor focused. |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:R F Gyro wrote:I'd be reasonably confident that the law would be applied to each purchase, rather than to all your Dust purchases as a whole. So you paid for Aurum, and got Aurum, as described in the product literature. Or you paid for a booster, and got that.
What you probably haven't done, in the eyes of the law, is paid for Dust itself based on any kind of binding longevity promise.
"A misleading action occurs when a practice misleads through the information it contains, or its deceptive presentation, and causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision". So the outlines of a case would be: 1. Over the last several months CCP provided misleading information/deceptively presented information (e.g. 'laser-focused on PS3'). 2. This resulted in consumers making different decisions than they otherwise would (e.g. to buy AUR). 3. Therefore, a misleading action has occurred and consumer protection regulations have been breached. There is no need for any 'binding longevity promise' or anything of the sort. All that is required is that misleading/deceptively presented information was provided at some stage, which materially impacted on consumers' decisions.
Except again, the term lazor focused, means nothing. You have to show where they spacificly mislead you.
So if you went to buy a car, because the ad had a line from a car magizine that said 'Funest car i ever drove..." and you bought the car and drove it and it sucked, were you mislead? no.
You would however be mislead of said car was said to have a V8 and the sales people assured you that yes it had a v8, and the paperwork and documents all said it had a v8, but once you had the car and drove it off the lot you realized that no it has a v4. Then you have a case. |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Actually, they did give a explicit time.
10 Years.
no they didn't. That is again, marketing jargon. So can you sue Black Phrophacys devolper for killing an mmo that bombed becuase they said there will be updates for years to come? no.
Did you spcaificly buy aurum, becuase of the 'we will devlope for ps3 for 10 years' if you did then i think i have a bridge to show you. as anyone with since would of looked at that and gone 'wait the ps4 just came out... |
DaReaperPW
Net 7
The Last Brigade
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.06 20:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Atiim wrote:How did they mislead us? Just read this thread.
promises =! guarentee. |
|
|
| |
|