Tomb of Sargeras Progression Thread

[Aggrophobic]

ToS / EULA is not legally binding in EU.

No, but they still have the right to not let you use their product.
At the very best you could get a refund for the account payment if you got banned in the middle of your payment period or the like.

They do not need a reason to toss you out. It's as simple as that.

So yeah, pay a few k for a lawyer to get 6 euros back, sounds like a smart idea.

[SoLoR1]

Surely they no longer do perma ban because of legal reasons :^)

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/...6375?page=2#24

Yeh who believes in that PR crap? Because that exactly what it is. Obviously they will not put out statement that lawyers told them its not advised OR they are counting on revenues after 6 months suspensions... I suspect is combination of both, but certainly don't buy that "study - sociological hocus pocus behind it" that they want us to sell. But that's just my opinion, feel free to disagree, but I learned to read all this PR statements with a grain of salt. Remember they are for profit company, they will do whatever can get away with and generates them most revenues. They don't do something because "its fair", specially not on a large scale.

[Deleted]

and you are lawyer right dealing with customer protection?

Just saying what I was told by 2 people that got perma bans and decided to waste couple of 100e on lawyer (since it was their main 10+ years account). As far as I know it has something to do with being subscribed to a service and with this you have certain rights and company have certain obligations to you and yeh EULA is not legally binding in EU. I also heared this is the reason blizzard is no longer doing permanent bans, but rather suspensions, because it gives them more legal cover.

There are indeed cases at which you could complain (german perspective, don't know if this is also EU law).

Blizzard has exclusive power to their games. If they decide to exclude you from the game (there isn't even a reason necessary), they need to give you your (de facto) overpayment back (the days you are not allowed to play). So if you have payed for 180 days and got perma banned on day 45, you would have the right to get the money for the missing 135 days back.

The only problem could be the value of the claim. Courts could refuse the whole story instantly because of triviality.

[Deleted]

EULA / TOS actually are not legally binding, especially when they are not signed. Pushing the "I agree" button does not count as a legally binding signature.

They did a study recently of EULAs and there are a couple companies out there that put some funny stuff in there on purpose to show that noone actually reads them. Funniest one as some Internet Provider that put in their EULA that by agreeing to the EULA, you sign over your first borne child to the company for their use as they find appropriate. Actually in their EULAs. Everyone clicked "I agree" anyways.

However, legally, you don't buy their game, but just the right to play on their platform. That means that they could legally without reason cancel this right unilaterally. Yes, they will have to refund you the couple of EUR/USD that you "Overpaid" but they could do it. Marketing-wise, it would be a nightmare, though, so that's why they tend not to do it overly.

[Morgaith]

People are indeed correct when they state that ToS/Eula is not legally binding in the EU but if this works or not for a game made by a company based in the US or not is another matter. It'd be funny to see what'd happen if someone tried to fight it.

[Tech614]

People are indeed correct when they state that ToS/Eula is not legally binding in the EU but if this works or not for a game made by a company based in the US or not is another matter. It'd be funny to see what'd happen if someone tried to fight it.

There is nothing to fight. There is no "right" to play WoW, just like a bar owner can kick you out at any time Blizzard can kick you out at any time. The ToS are really just there as a courtesy to the player because blizzard can cancel your access to the game at any time they want and the most you would ever be able to "fight for" is the remaining balance on your sub that you didn't get to play for.

[Supakitch]

maybe you Americans dont like Customer Rights but in the EU they cannot Ban you without a valid Reason, If they do and you would sue them 100% you Win the case

No.....you won't. It's hilarious that you actually believe you can sue Blizzard for being banned in a video game and without a doubt "win 100%." Blizzard can do whatever they want. You pay for the ability to play their game. You don't even technically own your characters.

On the other hand, you may be a genius. Banned player tries to sue, gets laughed out of the courtroom. Some internet media outlets may pick it up, go viral for a bit. Launch content based on your stupidity. Ride that train til no one cares anymore. Then profit?

[Hellshout]

Nothing on your account is yours.
Your chars and your games are NOT yours.
You pay 13 euro/dollars/pounds/rocks whatever a month to play on their servers.

You have the right to play and be informed, that's it and nothing else. WoW is like a house rent, you pay only to live there. Except the contract with Blizzard says they can just take your toys away for any reasons whatsoever. By clicking agree you acknowledge those are the rules.
Try to press "do not accept/agree/approve" when a program asks to be accessed in Windows and see if that program runs. If you accept then you support the consequences if it's a virus or whatever.

edit: to think of it, Method is not WF. Blizzard is the only group that got every WF since WoW started )
Ow and they are doing that account sharing with the folks that pay for it. Hmm kinda fishy. Blizz should ban Blizz.

[BiggestNoob]

Except the contract with Blizzard says they can just take your toys away for any reasons whatsoever. By clicking agree you acknowledge those are the rules.

That's not how contract law works. Even in the US there is precedent for unconscionable clauses like that one being voided in contracts because they're so unfair to one party, and there are arguments of bad faith to be made if Blizzard abuses that capability without a good reason. Just because you sign a contract with someone doesn't mean it's valid or legal.

[Hellshout]

Just because you sign a contract with someone doesn't mean it's valid or legal.

I am not a man of law, but that sounds ridiculous. What's the point of a contract if it's not valid?
What makes a signed contract valid?
Of course, I'm not talking about fake contracts or those that are signed under a bridge with a shady seller. I'm talking a signed contract with a business.

[Deleted]

That's not how contract law works. Even in the US there is precedent for unconscionable clauses like that one being voided in contracts because they're so unfair to one party, and there are arguments of bad faith to be made if Blizzard abuses that capability without a good reason. Just because you sign a contract with someone doesn't mean it's valid or legal.

Contract? It's more like an formless agreement: access for money.

[harruin]

I am not a man of law, but that sounds ridiculous. What's the point of a contract if it's not valid?
What makes a signed contract valid?
Of course, I'm not talking about fake contracts or those that are signed under a bridge with a shady seller. I'm talking a signed contract with a business.

If a contract goes again a law that part is invalidated since the law trumps the agreement. For example, in Texas you have until the 3rd to pay your rent without accruing late fees. A lease can state the money is due on the 1st and accrues late fees on the 2nd, but that wouldn't mean the lease would stand up in court.

Now why would the landlord have a lease with this invalid clause? Either he didn't know it's illegal, thought he could could squeeze an ignorant tenant for some extra money, or he copy and pasted it from the internet and never bothered reading it.

[BiggestNoob]

I am not a man of law, but that sounds ridiculous. What's the point of a contract if it's not valid?
What makes a signed contract valid?
Of course, I'm not talking about fake contracts or those that are signed under a bridge with a shady seller. I'm talking a signed contract with a business.

The goal is of course to make contracts legally valid and binding, but there are a lot of complexities in the law that are mostly only visible if you study the case law. The ultimate test of a contract is a lawsuit, until then you get what you pay for in terms of a contract lawyer writing it up for you.

I'm mostly concerned with people making the claim that Blizzard's contract with you when you pay for service gives them total capability to do whatever they want, which isn't legally sound. If they ban you especially without justification and specifically don't refund future service you've paid for under that contract (or perhaps allowing you to continue using their service on a new license using that same game time you've paid for), you could argue that they're operating in bad faith regarding that specific term. In the case of "can you sue to appeal a ban" probably not, having the ability to refuse someone service is common and generally legally binding, but coupled with an intent to gain money from that behavior could be grounds for a lawsuit, but that's a specific edge case and I don't think Blizzard is guilty of it. It's just a technicality.

Contract? It's more like an formless agreement: access for money.

I would agree, but realistically in the US and in many other countries this is not the case. I'm not a fan of this kind of automatic contract, just like I'm not a fan of the idea of "licensure" or software or music/movies.

I think it would be simpler interpreted this way, product/service for money, a simple exchange, though there are also downsides to that. Depending on where you are, right to resale is a common consumer right, one that is often and legally removed via contract. If it was treated like a common product, theoretically someone could just resell service to the game, so someone could make an account, pay for the service, play it, gear up a character, then legally sell access to that account to someone else. Blizzard definitely doesn't want that to happen, so they're going to insist you agree to a contract to play the game.

[Jastall]

So much armchair lawyering in this thread. You don't pay for the game, nothing in the game in yours. You pay for access. .

Yes, EULAs are unenforceable tissue papers not worth the bandwidth they take up and not legally binding to anyone with sense, but that doesn't mean a private company cannot deny a customer access to the premises if they disapprove of their behavior. At worst they might have to refund you the overtime sub money, and even that's not assured.

And nobody's going to go to court over 15$ of WoW sub time.

[BiggestNoob]

So much armchair lawyering in this thread. You don't pay for the game, nothing in the game in yours. You pay for access.

The full licensure model that Blizzard has been using is subject to change based on fairly recent legal decisions and lawsuits. The law actually doesn't deal with this because it didn't exist as a common thing when much of it was written, it's mostly just been businesses arguing that they can just sell access or licenses to things and work around consumer rights laws because there's no technical "ownership" or sale. For instance, consider the fact that you buy a mount in WoW using real money, shouldn't you retain access to that thing you've purchased? It's something that's not currently clear, are digital sales covered under consumer protection laws (ie, entitlement to access, refund, right of resale, etc).

Yes, EULAs are unenforceable tissue papers not worth the bandwidth they take up and not legally binding to anyone with sense, but that doesn't mean a private company cannot deny a customer access to the premises if they disapprove of their behavior. At worst they might have to refund you the overtime sub money, and even that's not assured.

And nobody's going to go to court over 15$ of WoW sub time.

Obviously you'd just ask for a refund and that generally works. That's like step 1 out of many before you take something to court.

And if you do file a lawsuit, it's not about $15 or however many months, you'd be aiming for punitive damages. It's meant to be a punishment for the business in addition to righting a wrong, not just a way to twist their arm for $15. If you won a case for > $50,000 Blizzard would think twice before doing it again.

[Deleted]

And if you do file a lawsuit, it's not about $15 or however many months, you'd be aiming for punitive damages. It's meant to be a punishment for the business in addition to righting a wrong, not just a way to twist their arm for $15. If you won a case for > $50,000 Blizzard would think twice before doing it again.

This is the american way of life . In europe you would only get your overtime sub money + court costs. But the problem in europe is, that the value of the claim needs to be in proportion to the court costs, otherwise the courts just refuse the action. In this case a class action is required.

[Kuruption]

This thread just got so fucking boring.

[Emancptr]

No idea why this thread is even open still. US 1st is done, World top 10 is done. At some point you just need to lay the beaten horse to rest.

[Hellshout]

Yeah because discussing what some youtubers do and how they are virgins is very productive.
At least this way you learn some things.

[Dossou]

No idea why this thread is even open still. US 1st is done, World top 10 is done. At some point you just need to lay the beaten horse to rest.

stop posting till you kill Avatar