SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the big-brother-is-morally-judging-you dept.
On December 7, a Magic: The Gathering player with a YouTube channel called "UnSleevedMedia" ( https://www.youtube.com/user/mtgheadquarters ) was banned for life from the game by the Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast for allegedly harassing others in the MtG community on social media. As a consequence, he immediately lost access to all the virtual items he's previously purchased while receiving no refund, and he may no longer play online, partake in tournaments, or cover events on his YouTube channel (details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIh3ykLBzOM ).
The ban was issued after articles appeared on gaming news sites Polygon ( https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube ) and Kotaku ( https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/magic-subreddit-on-lockdown-after-cosplayer-quit-due-to-alleged-harassment/ ), where a cosplayer accused UnsleevedMedia operator Jeremy Hambly of persistent harassment. (Note: While the articles report on the controversy, neither present any actual evidence for either side.)
While Mr Hambly claims that the allegations of threats and harassment are demonstrably false, and that the evidence against him is based on excerpts from Twitter/Facebook posts taken out of context, he now says he's uncovered something quite chilling while investigating the case: evidence that employees at Wizards of the Coast are trawling the Internet looking for social media activities going back years in search of conduct they might find "objectionable".
In at least one instance they've allegedly requested and gained access to a closed Facebook group only tangentially related to the MtG community, and then issued bans and warnings based on the contents of conversations therein. This includes a one-year ban against professional player Travis Woo, who has now effectively lost his job. Mr Hambly presented the evidence for these claims in a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGFcLvDRJNQ ) on his other channel, "The Quartering" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwE_ODI1YTbdjkzuSi1Nag ).
In response to this, he has started a change.org petition ( https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-wizards-of-the-coast-must-reinstate-travis-woo-jeremy-hambly ) asking people to boycott all Hasbro products until such time as the bans are reversed. His main argument is that corporations should not be allowed enforce End User License Agreements that dictate what a person may or may not say or do in their spare time on social media.
(Disclaimer: I've signed the petition, as I wouldn't like to see a future where a Twitter spat could cost someone their Steam games.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @06:45PM (37 children)
He agreed to the Terms of Service [wizards.com] (last updated in 2014).
Those terms include:
This guy agreed to abide by these terms. Wizards of the Coast exercised their rights under the contract agreed upon by both parties.
If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't accept the contract. It took me less than two minutes to find the above clause and I don't even play that stupid game, nor had I ever visited that page or read those TOS before.
Are these folks being heavy-handed? I don't know. However, if I received complaints from multiple users about a single user being a dickhead, I'd be inclined to boot the user complained about to protect my income stream.
For those who bring in the whole "but, but muh free speech!" should remember that this isn't a public (government run/funded) forum.
Think "No shirt. No shoes. No service." Private entities may (generally) refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Full stop.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday December 11 2017, @06:51PM (20 children)
He has every right to raise a stink about it and start a petition. Whether that will gain enough traction to cause Wizards/Hasbro to change course is another story. 10,000 signatures is not a million.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @06:58PM (19 children)
As usual, you're quite correct, Takyon.
But that doesn't invalidate the *contract* whose terms to which he *explicitly* agreed. And Wizards of the Coast exercised their rights under that contract. Whether that's right or wrong isn't really relevant, IMHO.
I'd be very surprised if this guy was reinstated, no matter how many petitions or signatures there are in his favor.
These guys are in it to make money. If banning one user who is pissing off multiple users (who, if they get sufficiently annoyed, will stop giving them money) will have a positive (or at least non-negative) impact on their revenue stream, that's just what they'll do.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @08:03PM (11 children)
While the contract had a *cover all foreseeable problems* clause, that doesn't make it right. What he was doing was possibly not right either, but we can't know without some amount of proof. Assuming, he was persistently harassing the individual(s). There are legal means to correct said behavior. Otherwise, it seems to be quite some overreach for a company to disassociate a customer based purely on accusations. This is definitely a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:11PM
"Assuming, he was persistently harassing the individual(s)"
He made some pointed criticisms, not so much of her really as of her business model and 'customers' (people who send her money.) It wasn't diplomatically phrased and I wouldn't blame her for taking offense really, but after all the talk of this long pattern of harassment that's the only thing there seems to be any evidence of - harsh public criticism on one occasion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:49PM (6 children)
Actually, it was a "We can kick your ass out when we feel like it, for whatever (or no) reason." clause. Whether that's right or not, it was part of the contract.
As for what he was doing (or not doing), that's irrelevant to the terms of the contract.
That's reasonable. However, we're not talking about reasonableness here. We're talking about contracts and impact on the financial bottom line.
I suppose that Wizards of the Coast could have engaged an arbitrator, or hired a private investigator, or even filed a lawsuit. However, all of those things negatively impact *profit*.
I agree with you that it's a crappy thing to do to someone. But that has nothing to do with the *business* decision these folks made -- ban someone who was annoying multiple other users (and lose the revenue from that one user), or potentially lose revenue from multiple users.
If the guy who got banned didn't want to have the risk that this would happen, he never should have entered into a contract that allowed this to happen.
It's not like this was a contract (like a lease or for a utility like electricity) that he was *required* to enter into. Caveat Emptor.
That said, if we (as a society) don't want abusive or really one-sided contracts to be the norm, we shouldn't sign such contracts -- businesses will respond (if they want to survive) with less abusive contracts.
If you see a flaw in my argument, please point it out. I'm not trying to be a dick or confrontational, I just don't see (even though your argument reflects fairness and is likely "the right thing to do.") what it has to do, from a practical standpoint, with the current situation.
I read contracts before I sign them. It's not so hard. If I saw a condition like "we can kick your sorry ass out whenever we feel like it and you have no recourse," I wouldn't sign the contract. Perhaps that's too much to ask of some (many? most?) people, but whose fault is that?
Corporations have no moral compass or motivation other than to maximize profit. When you recognize that, you take steps to protect your interests, because the corporation certainly won't do so for you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
Sometimes countries even make such contracts unenforceable to protect their people. Unthinkable.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:36PM
I'd love to see that in my country. I'm sure that's really high on L'Orange's list of things to get done. Not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday December 11 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
One of the things required to constitute a contract is consideration, or something of value that changes hands. Without that, the contract could be considered invalid. In this case, the guy apparently paid more than zero in order to use some virtual items in the online game. If Wizards decided that they wanted to terminate the contract, I think the subject of refunds would be up for discussion. If, on the other hand, they want to assert that there isn't a contract, per se, but rather a "terms of use," the justification for taking money gets muddled.
In the actual Terms of Use [wizards.com] on the Wizards website, they say that "When you directly purchase games or products from our Websites, you are not interacting with Wizards, but rather our third party partners." They cite the third party terms and conditions as applying. I don't know what PayPal (for example) has to say about it, but I imagine they can process a payment dispute for some period of time. Maybe that's where to go for a refund...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:16AM
IANAL, and I can tell you are not, either. What you say sounds very legalistic, but not actually true.
You are correct that all contracts require Consideration. What you missed, though, is that both sides had Consideration. The Hasboro/Wizards of the Coast lawyers would casually walk into court, and easily argue that, "the plantiff's consideration was the time he had fun playing online before he was kicked off." The courts would accept it, and dismiss the case with prejudice (assuming it even got there and wasn't dismissed way earlier in the process).
In comparison, consider that it's fairly usual to have the contract to buy or sell a house (yes, those things which cost $500,000 USD) have made explicit that the Consideration being given in return for the sale is $1 (yes, 1 USD).
The user could make an argument for a refund, but that would be something with the Better Business Bureau, or the stage of public opinion. A formal legal court would dismiss that lawsuit so fast, it would make your head spin.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
You are quite correct in your line of reasoning. The part about you not signing a contract like that would be that you never use Windows, or pretty much any for profit software. As nearly all of them have similar language to cover the software creator's / publisher's backside. Some of it is reasonable some of it isn't, but we've grown accustomed to just clicking ok on that huge box of legalize when asked. It all comes down to the fact that instead of "purchasing" the software you're licensing it from them. Though, most people off the street will tell you, they bought XYZ Software.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:18PM
Yep. Your points WRT COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf) software are well taken.
However, this is actually a different animal, given that (well, at least until Windows 10 and I haven't heard about Microsoft bricking someone's Windows 10 PC -- yet, which is yet another reason not to run it) if you license COTS software, the publishers *generally* can't remove their software from your computer, although they might attempt to disable it or refuse updates, if you *allow* them access to your computer.
In this case, (please correct me if I'm wrong), the agreement in question covers a *free-to-play* online game, where all the important bits are housed and stored on the publisher's systems. In my mind, that makes a difference, as there is consideration on both sides, but the end user doesn't fork over any cash to *play*. Which makes the joint termination clause almost reasonable.
IIUC, the game *play* agreement is separate from agreement(s) related to in-game purchases, which is where (again, IIUC) the issues really lie.
The broader issue is why do individuals (as long, complicated and detailed contracts are the norm in B2B contracts) enter into agreements that they don't, possibly can't, or won't take the time to understand.
That "we" have become accustomed to doing something that disadvantages us doesn't make it a smart or reasonable thing to do.
In the ancient world, women used cosmetics made from lead in many cultures. It was, in fact, customary to do so. Why don't we do that any more?
It was less than 100 years ago that women were denied the political franchise. That had been customary (with minor exceptions) for as long as the US existed. As such, why would we do such a thing?
I could go on and on with examples of things that were "customary" but disadvantaged those who participated. Things only change as we recognize the harms (as in lead cosmetics) and/or push to right a societal wrong (as with women's suffrage).
In this case, it's the complexity/length/abusiveness/etc. of online and offline contracts/agreements that are "customary," even though they disadvantage the individual.
I'm not sure what mechanisms would be effective in countering this trend, but educating oneself, supporting relevant laws/regulations, refusing to do business with companies that attempt to shove this sort of stuff down our throats, and speaking out/agitating against these practices would be a start.
But back to the guy who got banned by Hasbro. To be honest, I (but perhaps I'm an outlier) didn't find the TOS/T&Cs to be particularly complex or onerous. Given that this covered a *free-to-play* game rather than a mortgage or an expensive piece of equipment or software. That's a subjective assessment and certainly open for debate, but I don't think the termination clause in question rises to the level of an abusive contract term.
The issues surrounding in-game purchases in this case bear additional scrutiny, IMHO. However, those appear to be separate from the issues surrounding the termination clause and loss of access to the game.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 11 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)
""I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11"
Was he lying when he said this? (Not religious,,,don't know the context)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:19PM
It was probably King David, but it's not specifically attributed to someone. Though, it's very likely whomever wrote it had at one time said "all men are liars" or at least felt that. The sentiment I get from it is that he spoke "hastily" which means "Done or made without due consideration or attention; precipitate or cursory". While it's true that people lie, there is no sense in being so cynical that you assume everyone is lying.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday December 11 2017, @10:48PM
It doesn't matter if it's "right" or not, it's their legal right to be wrong if they want, and even to treat customers poorly as long as it's legal and not in violation of the contract.
Yeah, it sucks, but the lesson here really needs to be that these online services are bullshit, and you're just setting yourself up for this stuff if you become a customer. I don't think petitions are helpful here personally, as the company has its reasons for doing this stuff; instead, the answer is publicity, so that people know what they're getting into before they join one of these online services, and hopefully decide against it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
Google the word "unconscionable". While a megacorp can write anything and call it "a contract", sometimes the courts would disagree.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:55PM
I don't need to look up the definition, as I'm quite familiar with that word and its meaning.
You're absolutely correct. And if this guy wants to fight this out in court, I wish him all the luck in the world.
I'd love to see a world where contracts were fair. But as I pointed out in a previous post [soylentnews.org], if we (as a society) don't want abusive or really one-sided contracts to be the norm, we shouldn't sign such contracts -- businesses will respond (if they want to survive) with less abusive contracts.
Until that happens (and good luck to us all with that!), each of us needs to protect our own interests.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:25PM (2 children)
This is one of those weird situations where everybody is correct. It just matters how you look at it, and what people decide is more important.
1) User has a right to be a jerk.
2) Hasboro has a right to kick the jerk off the network.
3) User has a right to complain about it and publicize being kicked off, and to try to raise a stink.
Now it is up to "the market" and "the public" to decide which side is more sympathetic: "I should be able to play my game without being harassed by jerks" vs "I'm not spending any money on a platform where I may lose it without recourse."
I suspect that the public will be more sympathetic to Hasboro because everybody has dealt with jerks before and if they only went after the most drastic jerk then it's "fair." However, we'll see what the court of public opinion says in time.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM
I won't speculate on potential outcomes, but I imagine it will come down to a calculation by Hasbro as to what course of action will maximize (or at least mitigate the loss of) profit for them. Alternatively, a judge/jury may decide.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 11 2017, @10:53PM
Unfortunately, the public isn't usually very good at making the correct decisions. But sometimes they do--one example that just popped into my head is the old "DIVX" rental-movie business, which totally flopped after Circuit Shitty spent billions on it. But two counter-examples are Twitter and Facebook.
Honestly, I don't have too much sympathy for people who get too invested in these online games like this, which have in-game currency and possessions. The game company has all the power, both legally and technically. If you want to play games, just play a non-online game where *you* own the game (or a copy at least), and no company can just shut you out of it on a whim. Or join one of the FOSS online games, where there's no big corporation behind it, just a community, and no money is changing hands, just people having fun together. At least there, if you get kicked out, you won't have lost anything monetary, and you can even set up your own alternate server if you want.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Just because it's written into a contract doesn't make it legally binding. There are plenty of contracts that try to enforce illegal terms which are later found invalid. Also, if there wasn't quid pro quo, "consideration" in contract law, the specific term of the contract they invoked may be unenforceable (if he sues). You have to get something in exchange for something. In this case, I think it's clear he did not receive consideration for that particular contractual restriction. If a bought and paid for corprate-tit-sucking judge will rule correctly is another matter.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:20AM
This guy [soylentnews.org] already said it pretty well.
And, as I pointed out in another post [soylentnews.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday December 11 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)
But that term doesn't state he's not entitled to part of the money he paid, as he didn't get what he paid for. Note that it also says that he is entitled to terminate his account at any time; I strongly doubt that if he did so at a time when he still owed them money, this would invalidate their money claim.
Also note that this being written in the condition is not proof that this is in effect. Rather, to determine that, you'd also have to check applicable law whether such a clause is actually valid.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:01PM
All of those are reasonable and valid points. And this guy can take these guys to court to recover that money.
IIRC, the issue is the claim of *stored value* in virtual objects purchased "in game." IANAL, so I don't know how that translates into the real world. If this guy sues Hasbro, perhaps we'll find out.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 11 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
Fair enough, but let's say we bury all such information in the middle of a pile of Perl regex's. You're certain to sift through all that to get to and understand the terms of the thing you are agreeing to, right?
That's effectively what all this legalese is for nearly all regular humans, a pile of indecipherable gibberish that you vaguely feel must be important and that you would really like to be able to understand, but that fat book on studying for the LSATs that you peeked at a couple years ago when you were toying with the idea of going to law school has an inch of dust on it, and you just haven't found the time to grok it amid endless emergency meetings and overtime at work...
Contract language and legalese have been the source code of civilization for a thousand years, but saying that all of us must first be quasi-professional lawyers to understand it before we want to play a video game to unwind is a little bit unreasonable, do you not think?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:10PM
Yes. You are correct, sir.
What ever shall we do about it?
I suggest not signing contracts that aren't clear, concise and in plain language.
Perhaps there's a business opportunity for someone to create a filter to parse contracts and translate them into language *anyone* can understand?
I'd bet that such a business would have TOS that were at least as dense as the contracts they're translating.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday December 11 2017, @09:49PM (2 children)
Yea, there's a bit more to creating a valid, legally enforceable contract than just writing down a bunch of stuff you say you will be allowed to do, and getting somebody to click "Agree."
Generally, any contract requires a "meeting of the minds" to actually exist, and there must be some "consideration." A contract that says "you will give me X dollars" and offering nothing in exchange is not valid or enforceable, as it lacks consideration. In this case, he paid money for access to their services, and they cut him off. If there was some time period involved, then they absolutely owe him some money back if the cut off his account prematurely.
This is why a lot of gym memberships are not legally enforceable. They want you to commit to a year or two. But then you stop going and stop paying the monthly fee. They then try to come after you because you didn't cancel properly in writing 60 days in advance or whatever it is. Courts don't enforce that. The member paid while he was accessing the services, when he stopped paying they cut off his access. Consideration is done at that point. You can't force someone to pay for something they're not using through that kind of contract.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)
Yep. Everything you said is reasonable and, in general, true.
I've personally had the experience of a gym coming after me in exactly those circumstances. And when the collection agency called me (this is before VOIP robocalling) to *demand* that I pay up or they'd sue me, I informed him (per my state's laws) not to contact me by phone and wished him luck with a lawsuit and with collecting even a nickel. Unsurprisingly, that was the end of it.
But this guy *did* agree to the contract, and (at least AFAICT) received value and consideration -- for a time. As to whether or not the terms to which he *explicitly* agreed are enforceable, that's up to the courts.
Honestly, I'm not really sure why this is news at all. It reads to me something like, "Online jerk gets booted from online game and whines about that unfairness of the contract to which he agreed to abide."
There may well be a claim WRT in-game objects he purchased, as he no longer has access to those. Whether he should be refunded his money for those or just sent a file with the results of a SQL query like 'SELECT * from [in-game-objects-purchased-table] where USER=[user]'.
Depending on your ideas about what was, in fact, purchased, either one (or perhaps something else) might be reasonable.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Monday December 11 2017, @10:32PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if he paid real money for the items the part of the contract that made them able to cancel his account at any time was illegal and therefore he is entitled to a refund.
But it depends on what state he's in, since contracts vary by state.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday December 11 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)
From the summary, with my emphasis:
From the terms:
How does that provision allow Wizards to ban him from "cover[ing] events on his YouTube channel"?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Monday December 11 2017, @10:40PM
Well I assume that they could stop him from attending them. But if he gets the footage from other people, there's nothing they can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM (1 child)
The concept of free speech is much broader than the legal implementation of it. You're thinking of the first amendment. Saying "but, but muh free speech!" may actually be appropriate here, in the sense that you have every right to want the company to become more respecting of free speech. I think it is preferable for a company or website to strongly favor freedom of speech, like SoylentNews does.
Just because you can do something (ban anyone who says something you don't like) doesn't mean it is ethical to do so, and certainly does not mean you're exempt from criticism.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:33PM
Absolutely. And while I generally don't buy stuff that Hasbro sells, if I did, I certainly wouldn't do so any more after this.
My point was that from a *legal* (not ethical) standpoint, free speech is irrelevant in this case.
From an ethical standpoint, it may well be (and it wouldn't surprise me in the least) that Hasbro is acting completely unethically. It's a corporation, what do you expect? An LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) isn't around to be ethical or "do the right thing," even though some small percentage may do so. They are around to make profit.
I'm not surprised that Hasbro took the action they did and I explained why. Is it ethical? Probably not. Was it the right thing for them to do? I don't know enough about it to say one way or another.
However, Hasbro was within their rights, based on the contract explicitly accepted by this guy, to do what they did.
That's not to say this guy (and others) shouldn't piss and moan about it. Even better, he should file a lawsuit and hold daily press conferences to shame Hasbro.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:42AM (3 children)
It is a contract of adhesion and it is possible that the section could be found unconscionable: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract [thefreedictionary.com]
It might be worth trying a lawsuit -- the terms are so broad that this provision can amount to pure theft.
Contract rights aren't absolute -- for example, if Hasbro had a term in their contract that at its discretion, it could pay you $50 in exchange for stabbing you in the kidney, that wouldn't be enforceable and you could certainly sue if they tried.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:16AM (2 children)
Perhaps. In fact, I suggested just that elsewhere [soylentnews.org].
What's more, that was implied in my initial post:
At the same time, termination clauses are pretty standard in these types of agreements and that one isn't very unusual IMHO.
How exactly could terminating someone's access to a *free-to-play* amount to theft? Or perhaps I'm missing something.
It's important to understand not only what you're getting (consideration), but also what rights both you and the other party(ies) have under such a contract. The contract clearly states that either party could terminate the agreement at any time for any reason.
While it's certainly possible that this guy could file suit over being terminated, it seems unlikely (at least to me) he'd get much traction with such a claim.
As I've learned a little more about this situation, it seems that the person terminated by Hasbro is mostly concerned about the stored value of in-game purchases made. He may well have a claim to recover either the in-game purchases (fat lot of good it will do him if it he can't play the game) or monetary recompense for loss of use of the in-game objects he purchased.
I suspect he would have a much better chance to recover at least some of the money spent on in-game purchases.
Was Hasbro heavy-handed here? Maybe. Should they have taken a different approach? Maybe. Maybe they did. For all we know, they contacted this guy to discuss the issue they perceived and didn't get the answers they wanted. Or maybe they just decided that having one user driving other users off their platform was bad for their rep and their bottom line.
From a contractual standpoint, who is the "wronged" party here? Hasbro? Not even close. Is the banned guy the wronged party? I say probably not, given that many (most?) agreements have termination clauses, and this one seems pretty straightforward. As such, getting kicked out of a *free-to-play* game was absolutely a foreseeable consequence, whether it be because Hasbro decided to shutter the game (would you make a different argument if that were the case?) or they decided they didn't want him around, as they did.
I don't know all the details surrounding the termination of his access to the game, but it was clearly within Hasbro's purview (as well as the guy who was terminated) to do so. Will a court decide otherwise? Possibly, but I doubt if a court would find the mutual termination provision to be invalid.
What I expect will happen (which is probably, given the situation the best-case scenario for this guy) is that he will eventually be paid however much money he spent on in-game purchases. This may happen as a result of the bad PR or as a result of an out-of-court settlement after a lawsuit is filed. I also expect that he will never be re-instated.
As I said a bunch of times in this thread, while there certainly is an issue with abusive or one-sided contracts, the guy had a responsibility to understand what his position was WRT the agreement *prior* to entering into it. What happened to him was a foreseeable consequence of the agreement he freely entered into with Hasbro.
IANAL, but this isn't really such a complicated issue and the "fine print" wasn't all that fine.
This is (or should be) a cautionary tale for all of us. What's more, it should motivate us all to refuse to sign contracts that are overly complex or give enormous leverage to one side over another. If enough people refuse to enter into such contracts, corporations will need to modify their contracts to be less complex/broad/abusive/etc. if they want to do business.
Alternatively, there could be legislation (there's a patchwork of laws across not just the several states, but around the world) which have varying requirements as to what contract terms are enforceable. Perhaps a simplicity requirement or even a relevant summary (as is done with credit card offers in the US) of terms and conditions in plain language would be useful.
AFAICT, Hasbro didn't defraud this guy or not provide the services agreed to in the contract. They merely exercised their rights under that contract. Caveat Emptor. It was incumbent on this guy to know what his agreement actually entailed before entering into it.
The in-game purchases are another issue, and (potentially) a more complex one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because I do think a refund (potentially a partial refund) would be the proper course of action...however, it's also a somewhat dangerous precedent. People might decide once they tire of the game that they need to get themselves banned so that they can get a full refund on their way out.
Part of this is the problem of digital items -- they don't wear out, they don't really depreciate. There's a couple solutions to that though. First, you can make the items actually "wear out" over time -- it's good for 1k uses, then you've gotta buy a new one. So if you've got 500 uses left, they'll give you a 50% refund. Or they could potentially base it on average usage -- if the longest active account is six years old, and you've played for three, then you get 50% back. Another option is a user marketplace, so you can come up with an actual fair market value for the item...although in that case you'd want a constant stream of new (and better) items to drive values down over time. Or you could link the item to some kind of physical good -- perhaps a special card with a redemption code which gets reactivated if the account is deleted. That way you can resell those cards to other players and WotC wouldn't have to get involved at all. But as long as the items are still just as valuable five years later as they were when you first purchased them, then it's reasonable to want a full refund for that purchase. Or I guess they could offer a warranty and give refunds within that warranty window.
If companies are going to sell digital goods, they really need to consider how to handle refunds. Especially if those digital goods can only be used on their servers with their permission. Any item that fails to be usable for the intended purpose is defective and should be refundable, regardless of whether that good is physical or virtual.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM
I think those are good ideas. However, it seems unlikely that (at least in the current environment) that sellers of such items will voluntarily liberalize their contract terms absent a legal requirement that they do so.
I imagine that much of this would hinge on legal precedent regarding digital items and the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org]. When we pay for such items, do we actually own them or are they licensed [wikipedia.org] to us? If the latter, what are the *terms* of such a license?
This is especially important in circumstances like this, as the in-game purchases are useless outside the context of the game, as I (snarkily) alluded to in another post [soylentnews.org]:
The "remedy" I suggest, while it quite literally provides the user with the "objects" purchased, is completely worthless in practical terms.
Should this guy choose to file suit over the in-game purchases, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If the agreement governing those sales do not meet the requirements as "licensed" goods, then he will likely have a good case for a refund. If, however, the objects are deemed "licensed" then the license agreement will likely cover whatever remedies are available to him.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:18PM
I hope he takes them to court to see how that actually plays out. This clause basically states that wotc is allowed to steal from you, as it costs money to access the service and to buy the specific cards, it may be successfully argued that is property theft. And when a contract doesn't respect the law, it usually is the contact or certain clauses of contracts that are declared null and void.
Alternatively, I definitely think the player has a good chance for a lawsuit of his own against wotc for harassing, stalking, privacy violations, ...
Also, if you have to read all TOS licenses, and only enter into contracts if you agree with them, I wouldn't be on the internet anymore and probably, neither would you.