Yeah, if the OP was refunded I see no problem. If not, it's a completely different story.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Retailer revoking keys due to price mistake; is this allowed?
- Thread starter TheVoidDragon
- Start date
Yeah, if the OP was refunded I see no problem. If not, it's a completely different story.
Trust me, no business wants you as a customer, if your sympathy towards them requires the entitlement to abuse every single pricing mistake they make.
refunded, and given a free (albeit different) game, and given a 20%-off coupon for their next purchase
BronsonLee
Member
lol of course it is, my god
Black Friday is weird but this deal in particular made everyone salty as hell, even more than the 3DS thing
Black Friday is weird but this deal in particular made everyone salty as hell, even more than the 3DS thing
It is not that simple, this practice is illegal to prevent shops advertising false prices to draw people attention, at least here in Spain, the Law of Electronic Commerce forces you to sell an item for the price you advertise it.
ViolentP
Member
I think a lot of people here would be interested to see your source on this. It would put many concerns to bed.
Wowfunhappy
Member
This analogy is getting reeeeally stretched.
But whatever, we've come this far...Again, programmers are responsible for the programs they create. If I write a program to automatically buy stocks—this happens in the real world all the time, see high frequency trading—and a bug in the program causes it to screw up and buy a bunch of penny stocks instead of legitimate ones, I am on the hook for what my computer bought. The fact that the actual buyer was neither sentient nor human is irrelevant, because I authorized that program to make purchases on my behalf.
Well, I disagree on what the "equivalent" of an illegal move would be. The price may have been stupid from the retailer's point of view, but it was a valid price. If the price was listed as "NaN" or "-1207", then I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
BronsonLee
Member
Hey if you want to jump guard em for it, go ahead, but I'm not really down with dropkicking a retailer for a legitimate pricing mistake, especially considering they tried to do as much of a make good as they could
ViolentP
Member
I'm not disagreeing with you. But if you provide that source, you could single-handedly shed some much needed insight into why this sort of action is legal.
BronsonLee
Member
No clue why you're asking for a source, OP said allowed
Again, wanna throw hands at them legally, you probably can, but it almost assuredly will be a waste of time
In the moment you click the "pay" button, a formal contract is signed between you and the shop, they are agreeing to sell you an item for a particular price.
They can't just revoke that contract uniterally, it makes not sense and it is just ilegal.
This analogy is getting reeeeally stretched.
This goes back to my original point: programmers are responsible for the programs they create. If I write a program to automatically buy stocks—this happens in the real world all the time, see high frequency trading—and a bug in the program causes it to screw up and buy a bunch of penny stocks instead of legitimate ones, I am on the hook for what my computer bought. The fact that the actual buyer was neither sentient nor human is irrelevant, because I authorized that program to make purchases on my behalf.
Well, I disagree on what the "equivalent" of an illegal move would be. The price may have been stupid from the retailer's point of view, but it was a valid price. If the price was listed as "NaN" or "-1207", then I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Sure, alright. But if the program causes errors / bugs, isn't it also up to the programmer to fix them? Like if the program does something to the database and corrupts data, don't the programmer also have to go fix the bug that caused the data corruption AND restore the corrupted data as well as restoring any errors caused by corrupted data that propogated?
I understand that it might not be the equivalent since technically it was a legitmate price. At the same time, the legitimate price was made at a bad timing (near the game's release)
Yeah, but I don't think they were trying to draw people's attention. The only thing that got to this to be huge was the exposure it got after the fact.
ViolentP
Member
Because this discussion has a lot of conflicting ideas as to whether or not this sort of action is legal. You say with some confidence that it is legal so I presume you have read the fine print that could put a lot of these arguments to rest. I'm not questioning you, but many here, myself included would like to understand if this really is legal or not. That is why I'm asking for your source on the matter.
I would have no interest in throwing hands. Not worth the effort. I'm here solely to better understand these so-called agreements.
BronsonLee
Member
Sure they can, price mistakes don't always get honored, it depends how the company feels. Like I remember getting a copy of SFA3 Max from Gamefly for 1 buck a few years ago.
Legality is one thing, but they're banking on people getting salty about it for a bit and then moving on, which will be what happens here
You could've just said 'cause I want an argument' you know
ViolentP
Member
You could have just said I have no source and I am making this up as I go along. I wouldn't have wasted my time actually trying to have a conversation with you.
But another shop doing it deliberately could say the same, and it would be impossible to prove they are lying. That is why law protects the consumer, because he is in a disadvantage situation.
autoduelist
Member
If a company is going to have a huge loss over a silly price mistake, let them fix it. You're out some savings, but they'd potentially be out a lot of real money depending on what they have to pay per key.
And it doesn't really matter what their terms and conditions say, it's not like it's a law.
They obviously looked at the situation, and knew they couldn't take that loss, even though customers might get angry. If it was serious enough for them to revoke keys, accept they couldn't take the loss and move on. It was a price mistake. A honest mistake. Let them fix it and imo don't be angry over 'lost' savings due to a mistake.
It's not like they are a massive company like Walmart that can take the loss like it was nothing or something.
And it doesn't really matter what their terms and conditions say, it's not like it's a law.
They obviously looked at the situation, and knew they couldn't take that loss, even though customers might get angry. If it was serious enough for them to revoke keys, accept they couldn't take the loss and move on. It was a price mistake. A honest mistake. Let them fix it and imo don't be angry over 'lost' savings due to a mistake.
It's not like they are a massive company like Walmart that can take the loss like it was nothing or something.
TheVoidDragon
Member
So what UK/EU (not sure which applies) law or part of their ToS allows them to go back on a contract/purchase after it has already been fulfilled by both parties?
There's another question this raises though...does this actually count as cancelling an order? Payment was taken, the item was provided, the transaction complete and even used by some customers. It was entirely done. At that point, isn't it legally the customers and no longer has anything to do with the retailer?
GitarooMan
Member
The problem is that the damage to you is minimal. You get a refund and dealt with an minor inconvenience. It's hard to make much of a case due to that.
BronsonLee
Member
The answer to both of your queries is this:
Steam says fuck you since you don't actually own the game, you own the license to use it
It's illegal as shit and has been for a while but nobody's done diddly
2K wanted their goddamn money and wasn't having it
You can get Civ VI for 20 bucks when Civ VII is out
Price mistakes are a bit of a grey area, since some will honor them and some won't. Nobody really goes after retailers for it because it's a losing battle. It being digital goods makes it even murkier.
During BF week many, MANY retailers are offering deals, sometimes insane deals. Some people, believe it or not, don't live and breath on GAF and know every detail about games. Many games sell for that price and less. Civ VI at some point will probably drop down to that price on sale, maybe even next BF. It's not the consumers responsibility to worry about a retailers profit margin, or wonder if every purchase is a price mistake. A consumers responsibility is to see an advertised price and if its acceptable to them purchase said item. Thats it. If I bought a physical version and brought it home do i have to worry about workers from gamestop busting down my door and demanding a game back because there computers glitched?
Legally a company can do this i'm sure. Its a little scary that a retailer can do this anytime they want and even work through a 3rd party to do it but sure they can. I as a consumer also have the full right to be wary of a retailer that would do this to me. It's not called entitlement, its called not wanting to worry about my game purchases being revoked. There are many other retailers to choose from.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Yes, which is why the game is no longer listed at that price. Restoring corrupted data is irrelevant, because that's not what happened here: a transaction has been made, and transactions are generally considered final. After all, if I as a consumer misread the price, and don't notice my mistake until after the key has been redeemed, I'm generally SOL. Retailers should be held to the same standard.
That's true. However, they at least have not done a bait and switch and make up for it a bit with the free anomaly 2 as well as a 20% discount code. I won't say that they didn't do it deliberately, I just don't know. Considering how their site wasn't able to handle the influx of traffic though, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt....if it's just this once.
It's not wrong though, what they did is okay and completely justified.
There was always a chance of this and other posters did say it. It's not like this is a new or unusal thing. The only ones in the wrong are the ones bitching that it got revoked like it's a crime.
It would have been nice to keep the game but no big deal because people were refunded.
You do have full rights to be wary of the retailer but they are completely in the rights for doing this.
Imagine you enter a videogames shop, buy a videogame for a suspiciously low price, the employee doesn't notice until you leave the shop.
¿Can he reclaim the item back because he fucked up with the price? Of course not.
This is the same case.
Even if it said so there, that wouldn't mean anything. In most countries the Terms and Conditions are subordinate to consumer laws.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Non-performance of a contract is not illegal and happens all the time.
BronsonLee
Member
It being digital changes this whole thing.
I've run into this with things I've ordered from Amazon (gotten a few duplicates). If you contact them, worst case scenario, you send the item back, but 90% of the time, it's not worth the hassle to them, so they tell you to keep it.
Revoking codes is the nuclear option but it's been used before.
The other way this goes - Target had Forza Horizon 3 for 20$ earlier this year on digital, and they honored all of those orders, IIRC. But they can take that hit.
True, if you tried to get a refund, you would be SOL unless they'd be willing to refund you by revoking your key. At the same time, they did give you a refund for the current mess so the transaction was reversed (which does happen with chargebacks and the like). At this point, they have chosen to fix the propogations by reversing them, is there something wrong with this? You also technically ended up with a free game( that no one wants ) and a discount code for the error. So in the end, you came out ahead of something that was expected to be reversed. If all transactions were truly final (they're not), digital stores like steam would never offer refunds. There's a reason for the refund policy.
CheDominik
Member
The company is based in Poland, as far as I know they pretty much copied the German civil law.
German BGB
Section 119
Voidability for mistake
(1) A person who, when making a declaration of intent, was mistaken about its contents or had no intention whatsoever of making a declaration with this content, may avoid the declaration if it is to be assumed that he would not have made the declaration with knowledge of the factual position and with a sensible understanding of the case.
(2) A mistake about such characteristics of a person or a thing as are customarily regarded as essential is also regarded as a mistake about the content of the declaration.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Consumer law means they cannot request the item returned or ask you to pay more, however cancelling a key is neither of these things. You do not need to return an item due to their error, or pay more. I would imagine this is why they can do it, EULA's outstanding. Steams terms for keys may also cover pricing errors.
I would kick off though, because it is shitty and borderline.
I would kick off though, because it is shitty and borderline.
Of course it is illegal if the contract is valid, and any judge would rule in favor of the consumer.
Being digital does not change anything, I don't know what makes you think otherwise.
If any, being an electronic purchase, it gives the consumer more rights.
Contract was fulfilled and nulled with things restored to the way they were. Nullification of contracts are a thing.
BronsonLee
Member
It gives them more rights, but more importantly, it gives the retailer the ability to go YOINK and revoke the license.
Like joezombie said, it's all about what they can get Steam to do for them.
A contract cannot be nulled unilaterally, that is why it is a contract. It has to be done by a judge or by mutual agreement.
They of course have the ability to do it, but not the right.
Fine, probably null is a bad term. Cancellation of a contract is generally allowed within a few business days.
It's a pricing error.
You are taking advantage of a mistake and whilst morally you might feel that it is not the same as stealing, it is certainly the same as ripping someone off.
I read about a tiny company that got put into 10's of thousands of £'s of debt because the pricing software they used for amazon went wrong, automatically discounted a load of iphones to pennies and then someone bought them all, and they were instantly fullfilled by amazon.
The owner pleaded to the guy who had bought 100's smartphones for £2's about basically told the guy to fuck off.
This is kind of the same and I don't think it's unfair that a company can do this if a mistake has been made. As a consumer you haven't lost anything having had a refund.
You are taking advantage of a mistake and whilst morally you might feel that it is not the same as stealing, it is certainly the same as ripping someone off.
I read about a tiny company that got put into 10's of thousands of £'s of debt because the pricing software they used for amazon went wrong, automatically discounted a load of iphones to pennies and then someone bought them all, and they were instantly fullfilled by amazon.
The owner pleaded to the guy who had bought 100's smartphones for £2's about basically told the guy to fuck off.
This is kind of the same and I don't think it's unfair that a company can do this if a mistake has been made. As a consumer you haven't lost anything having had a refund.
In electronic commerce, the only one in that position is the consumer. He has exactly 14 days by law, and it does not apply to all kind of items.
CheDominik
Member
Of coure it can, there are a ton of scenarios where a contrat is nulled unilaterally. Like my post above or when a minor is involved or the offer wasn't in good faith.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Of course it can, otherwise my phone company would not be able to cut me off for not paying the bill. A contract can be voided by a breach of its terms by either party.
It is not unilaterally, the only one who can nullify the contract is a judge.
That is part of the contract.
As with any of these sort of laws, is there a provision regarding intent? Because most of these laws do have these sort of provisions and if the company can prove that it was purely accidental then they are not forced to honor the prices.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
This really isn't an issue of what I want them to do, it's an issue of what they're potentially required to do. You have to work within the framework of consumer laws that apply to you.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Yes it is, and can be applied to any contract, for anything. That makes your statement incorrect.
A contract of sale is contingent on the buyer paying an agreed amount else it is void. A court of law does not need to rule that contract is void, because you didn't fulfill part of it.
CheDominik
Member
Where do you live? Are you a lawyer?
Similar threads
- Locked