Charge Back and Refunds

Erillion

mr1602 said:

'they are on their right.' Is this where you tell me that you know law and rights more than the California Attorney General?

Nope. That is the part where he tells you that you put words into his mouth that he never said.


Have fun

MaxBacon

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

So, CIG wasn't forced to do anything.
That's why they said 'No' to the $3000 backer, twice.
And when the backer got the FTC/DCBA/AG asking questions to CIG, only then did CIG grant the refund.
Surely you can see that CIG wasn't forced to do anything here.
/Sarcasm

'they are on their right.' Is this where you tell me that you know law and rights more than the California Attorney General?

They weren't obligated to proceed with the refund to the backer by any authority.

That's the fact here, no matter how much you scream the contrary. CIG decided to refund the backer by themselves not because someone obligated them to it. It's the classic game of not being worth the trouble, that is why companies from EA to Valve will not contest your charge-backs, even if THEY have the reason and you have no right for getting your money back: Because it is not worth the trouble.


As for your last sentence, i'm sorry i do not take more troll-baiting. Go have fun do that towards others. 

PottedPlant22

If I was Roberts I would make sure my wife and I got my salary for the year, then I would declare bankruptcy with the company.  No longer need to worry about paying people back and you got your money from your salary on personal side.  Win/Win.

psiic

SpottyGekko said:

mr1602 said:

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Not sure what lawsuit you are talking about. Is this paid PR trying to change the subject?
Is it that hard to see that people who want refunds, have a path now? A path that is being shown brightly by so many gaming media site out there?

And oh, have fun saying you know more about legal / consumer rights than the California Attorney General.


'Have Fun'

As you keep saying, the "authorities are taking an interest". 

People are filing complaints over refund disputes and apparently the Cali AG is "building a case". Nothing surprising there. Once the AG has carefully considered the facts before them, they'll decide if it's worth pursuing.

That is the "lawsuit" I'm talking about. What else could it be ?

I didn't claim to "know more about law" than anyone, lol, all I'm saying is that legal penalties are always "proportionate and fair". I think that's even enshrined in the US Constitution.

Well it could be what I am considering if they do not honor their agreement with the BBB to refund my account I will be going down to the clerk of courts office paying my $83 and filing a small claims suit. Honestly for me the money is not the issue the deceptive practices and outright lies are the issue. Not to mention the courts really need to take a good hard look at crowd funding and put forward some regulations. Way too many con artists and thieves stealing a lot of money using crowd funding and the law needs to play catch up.  

mr1602

SpottyGekko said:

As you keep saying, the "authorities are taking an interest". 

People are filing complaints over refund disputes and apparently the Cali AG is "building a case". Nothing surprising there. Once the AG has carefully considered the facts before them, they'll decide if it's worth pursuing.

That is the "lawsuit" I'm talking about. What else could it be ?

I didn't claim to "know more about law" than anyone, lol, all I'm saying is that legal penalties are always "proportionate and fair". I think that's even enshrined in the US Constitution.

'Nothing surprising there'? 
Not sure where you are from (non-US?) but attorney generals don't usually 'build a case' against companies.
And AG's usually don't lose either. There is a reason why 'Don't go against the Feds' is a phrase every lawyer knows.

I keep on having to repeat that I am not interested in any legal fall out from this. All I want is to make sure the path for backers who are looking to get out, is open and easy to get access to.

mr1602

psiic said:

Well it could be what I am considering if they do not honor their agreement with the BBB to refund my account I will be going down to the clerk of courts office paying my $83 and filing a small claims suit. Honestly for me the money is not the issue the deceptive practices and outright lies are the issue. Not to mention the courts really need to take a good hard look at crowd funding and put forward some regulations. Way too many con artists and thieves stealing a lot of money using crowd funding and the law needs to play catch up.  

Lodge a claim with the DCBA. http://dcba.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dca
Then the FTC.
Provide CIG with the 2 case numbers.

I know another backer who got his money back from CIG by doing this.

PottedPlant22

mr1602 said:

SpottyGekko said:

As you keep saying, the "authorities are taking an interest". 

People are filing complaints over refund disputes and apparently the Cali AG is "building a case". Nothing surprising there. Once the AG has carefully considered the facts before them, they'll decide if it's worth pursuing.

That is the "lawsuit" I'm talking about. What else could it be ?

I didn't claim to "know more about law" than anyone, lol, all I'm saying is that legal penalties are always "proportionate and fair". I think that's even enshrined in the US Constitution.

'Nothing surprising there'? 
Not sure where you are from (non-US?) but attorney generals don't usually 'build a case' against companies.
And AG's usually don't lose either. There is a reason why 'Don't go against the Feds' is a phrase every lawyer knows.

This is correct.  It depends on what process they are at with the 'build the case.'  If they are actively investigating potential, you usually don't use that term.  Only once you see credible evidence to proceed do you usually look to go forward and 'build a case.'  Perhaps it was misspoke or reading too much into it.  AGs generally don't like to waste money, nor do they like to lose.  It looks really bad for them.

mr1602

Erillion said:

mr1602 said:

'they are on their right.' Is this where you tell me that you know law and rights more than the California Attorney General?

Nope. That is the part where he tells you that you put words into his mouth that he never said.


Have fun

Can you not read? This is from his post. 
"If they refuse a refund the next times this happens they are on their right."

How did I put words in anyone's mouth?

CrazKanuk

PottedPlant22 said:

CrazKanuk said:

dsmart said:

<snip>

Youre playing a dangerous game...

I would think a dangerous game would be taking over a hundred million in funding, deciding to 'create' multiple separate games, spending money on things other than what could arguably used for developing said game, being investigated by state and federal law enforcement, openly being challenged by media for unethical and racist practices.  I would say the above sounds like playing a dangerous game.  But no, maybe you're right.  Making a random opinion post on a game forum is where the real danger zone lies.

First, now I have Kenny Loggins - Danger Zone in my head, thanks. Have an urge to watch Top Gun.

Secondly, there is no proof of unethical or racist practices. If there were, there would already be some sort of investigation ongoing through the labor department (or the US equivalent). I suspect that media outlets reporting on a clickbait story isn't surprising. Everyone and their grandmother will be blogging about it. For that matter, why are you empowering media outlets? It's only been proven time and time again in the past that people are more informed than media, in general, these days. Media just read Twitter and print stories (mass generalization, I know). 

As far as the game that CIG is playing.... yup! On my list of bad ideas, developing multiple games/software at once, under a single budget is definitely up there. Quite simply, this will never be trivial, I don't care how much work you've already done. However, I think they've realized that, haven't they? They've stated where their focus is and what their plans are. They've put a pin in things that aren't realistic at this time and are pushing forward. I guess Gamescom will tell a lot, hopefully, and that's a month away and Citizencon is October 9th. I think that both of these will be integral dates, since there has, apparently, been lots promised. Guess we'll see.  

SpottyGekko

psiic said:

MaxBacon said:

SpottyGekko said:

I look forward to the conclusion of this supposed lawsuit, lol

Unlike the lynch mob, the "authorities" only determine guilt at the END of the court case, not before it even starts. And if they do determine wrongdoing, it is punished in a fair and proportionate manner, not with a rope across a tree branch...

The scope of court cases are usually narrowly defined, so this case will produce a ruling vis-a-vis refund policy, which will probably apply to crowdfunded projects generally. It may even set some interesting precedents.

IF CIG are found guilty of malpractice in regards to refunds, they may be fined. I'm sure someone can dig-up previous examples in this regard, there must be hundreds of refund disputes in legal history.

In the case of a fine, the court will not set the fine at an amount that will kill the business, that will just result in an appeal and another 5 years worth of litigation.

Oh finally someone wake up and post something based on the real world.

The law is not part of the hate campaigns that are ran against this game/company. And if anything is detected the company as we see so often is going to on this specific case that is where the controversy lies, give refunds or not. And pretty much the company here does provide the refunds when it sees it's not worth the trouble, making disputes about refunds dealt with before they reach any legal action.

And you're right, things like this ending up on courts, contested on both sides, will push the cases through years, the day one decision actually comes out Star Citizen likely released!

Anything else, the stories and specially the "armchair lawyers/judges/executioners" are nothing but noise.

Actually businesses are very often "seized by the courts" assets sold off when in breech of contract. Technically that is the legal argument I would put forth does taking money for ( product A ) with established timeline, then using those funds for ( product B ) and removing timeline, constitute breech of contract. In my experience it is a very clear breech but I am not an expert of California law that may be skewed to protect the business not the consumer.

If it's true that "businesses are very often "seized by the courts"", then I understand why the US is in the mess that it's in, lol

I think you may be using examples of situations that are far more serious than trying to diddle somebody out of a $3000 refund. But correct me if I'm wrong.

But then again, if the IRS is involved, absolutely anything is possible...

PottedPlant22

CrazKanuk said:

PottedPlant22 said:

CrazKanuk said:

dsmart said:

<snip>

Youre playing a dangerous game...

I would think a dangerous game would be taking over a hundred million in funding, deciding to 'create' multiple separate games, spending money on things other than what could arguably used for developing said game, being investigated by state and federal law enforcement, openly being challenged by media for unethical and racist practices.  I would say the above sounds like playing a dangerous game.  But no, maybe you're right.  Making a random opinion post on a game forum is where the real danger zone lies.

Guess we'll see.  

On this point we agree.

mr1602

MaxBacon said:

They weren't obligated to proceed with the refund to the backer by any authority.

That's the fact here, no matter how much you scream the contrary. CIG decided to refund the backer by themselves not because someone obligated them to it. It's the classic game of not being worth the trouble, that is why companies from EA to Valve will not contest your charge-backs, even if THEY have the reason and you have no right for getting your money back: Because it is not worth the trouble.


As for your last sentence, i'm sorry i do not take more troll-baiting. Go have fun do that towards others. 

So if a backer just lodge a case with DCBA and FTC so they ask CIG, the backer will get his refund?
That is awesome!

MaxBacon

mr1602 said:

MaxBacon said:

They weren't obligated to proceed with the refund to the backer by any authority.

That's the fact here, no matter how much you scream the contrary. CIG decided to refund the backer by themselves not because someone obligated them to it. It's the classic game of not being worth the trouble, that is why companies from EA to Valve will not contest your charge-backs, even if THEY have the reason and you have no right for getting your money back: Because it is not worth the trouble.


As for your last sentence, i'm sorry i do not take more troll-baiting. Go have fun do that towards others. 

So if a backer just lodge a case with DCBA and FTC so they ask CIG, the backer will get his refund?
That is awesome!

That's called attempt to pressure a company, no legal action was taken to obligate any company.

The same way i got out of a 2 year contract that auto-renewed with my ISP by threatening them with a formal complaint that i had requested to opt out the contract days after the auto-renewal. Soon enough i got what i wanted.


But you can bet i wouldn't have gotten it if i haven't "blackmailed" the company to get rid of the contract. It seems you're kinda unaware of the real world on this kind of stuff.


This even happens with EA i remember a friend that played games under different accounts, finished them, then charge-backed EA, and they just sent the guy a rather angry email but had to accept the refund. Now obviously the guy did not had the right to charge-back a game after 1 month of playing yet, but it works as "blackmail" to get his money back, EA on this case doesn't contest and accepts it.

dsmart

I wrote a blog outlining the facts surrounding this issue because a LOT of people were just making stuff up.

http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-the-refund-debacle/

rpmcmurphy

Was surprised to see a write up regarding refunds at cinemablend http://www.cinemablend.com/games/1534899/one-player-took-issue-with-star-citizen-developer-all-the-way-to-the-california-attorney-general-get-the-details

Oriphus

dsmart said:

I wrote a blog outlining the facts surrounding this issue because a LOT of people were just making stuff up.

http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-the-refund-debacle/

Is it OK to not care about a single refund of 0.002% written about from a guy who has obvious hate issues and leading a hate campaign against Star Citizen?

None of this matters, at all, game is being made and you can't stop it! Go outside to the park and go on the swings or something else xD 

SpottyGekko

dsmart said:

I wrote a blog outlining the facts surrounding this issue because a LOT of people were just making stuff up.

http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/07/star-citizen-the-refund-debacle/

So you decided you didn't want to be left out, so you also "made some stuff up" and put it in a blog ?

mr1602

Think IGN is the only gaming site that didn't report the '$3000 refund' story.

Erillion

mr1602 said:

Think IGN is the only gaming site that didn't report the '$3000 refund' story.

You do not know many gaming sites, obviously.


Have fun

Herase

The cycle continues,

A story pops up,

Everyone goes crazy,

Few weeks later no cares (expected those committed to the "cause")/nothing happens

??????

Another story pops up several months later.

I'm still waiting on the one that was meant to reveal everything in 4 weeks and bring CIG down, which was mentioned 2 -3 months ago.



Jokes aside.

In truth this just all needs to stop, people are just taking it too far just to prove a point or come out on top. Imho this story is stupid, the guy dropped $3000 on a crowdfunded game and expected to be able to refund up until launch day? There has to be a cut of point (they gave people 3 years), they can't just hand out refunds for no reason till the very end, as the money given is being spent on development, all this will do is hinder development. I feel a lot of you know this, but play ignorant for the sake of an argument or, I shudder to think, in the same boat a DS and want it to happen. I just think if a person drops $3000, you need understand fully what you are doing and if some offers a refund, bloody take it, don't wait 3 years then complain, you had the option, you had the information to decide, but you didn't take it. That's the persons problem imho.

rpmcmurphy

That's exactly what "hot topic" is. It's news, everyone is paying attention because it's the latest thing and then next week there will be something else to discuss.
It's hardly a rare phenomenon.

Talonsin

Herase said:

In truth this just all needs to stop, people are just taking it too far just to prove a point or come out on top. Imho this story is stupid, the guy dropped $3000 on a crowdfunded game and expected to be able to refund up until launch day?

This is what I dont understand.  Up until a few weeks ago when the ToS changed, backers had it in writing that they could be refunded.  Why are you people acting like they had no right to a refund or are stupid to even think they should be able to get one when the terms of service from the very beginning said they were entitled to one if the game didnt launch by a certain date?

CIG gave them the right to ask for refunds when they included it in their terms of service.  No one is stupid or silly or asking for something off the wall when they just want what the terms of the sale offered them.  Is this story silly, yes.  Why is it news for someone to get a refund?  Was the person entitled to a refund, according to the terms of service yes and the state of California agreed with him.

What you guys should be discussing is why 25% of the backers polled (over 1000 before the thread was closed) on the games official website wanted the option of a refund and why were the terms of service changed to remove that possibility? 

Arillix

@Talonsin,

RSI agrees to use its good faith business efforts to deliver to you the pledge items and the Game on or before the [[[{{estimated}} delivery date]]] communicated to you on the Website. [[[However, you acknowledge and agree that delivery as of such date is not a firm promise and may be extended by RSI since unforeseen events may extend the development and/or production time.]]] Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you within eighteen (18) months after the estimated delivery date.

The above is the first part of the old and new TOS.

So what part of "ESTIMATED DELIVERY DATE" and YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DELIVERY AS OF SUCH DATE IS [[{{NOT}}]] A FIRM PROMISE. Do you not understand?


When are consumers going to be held accountable for financial fuck ups, impulsive buying, and over spending? 

The housing crisis any one!
 

Talonsin

GrumpyHobbit said:

I hope people investigate HIS game for irregularities and try and get a refund from him and see what happens. 

That is the difference between Dereks game and Star Citizen, if you purchased Dereks game on steam and didnt like it, you could easily get a refund.  Dereks game was also not built using backer money so if he wanted to create a grand office with $21,000 space lobby doors using his own money, no one would have blinked an eye. 

That is why some of us use steam, because we get a bit of protection for bad products.  This is also what Chris gave us in the original terms of service that he has now taken away but you fans think that is ok.  If you are ok with Chris taking away your rights, great.  Some of us are not ok with that and discussing the removal of those rights doesnt make people stupid or in your words "f-ing Morons".

Distopia

Talonsin said:

GrumpyHobbit said:

I hope people investigate HIS game for irregularities and try and get a refund from him and see what happens. 

That is the difference between Dereks game and Star Citizen, if you purchased Dereks game on steam and didnt like it, you could easily get a refund.  Dereks game was also not built using backer money so if he wanted to create a grand office with $21,000 space lobby doors using his own money, no one would have blinked an eye. 

That is why some of us use steam, because we get a bit of protection for bad products.  This is also what Chris gave us in the original terms of service that he has now taken away but you fans think that is ok.  If you are ok with Chris taking away your rights, great.  Some of us are not ok with that and discussing the removal of those rights doesnt make people stupid or in your words "f-ing Morons".

Steam's refund policy isn't that great TBH.