Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Taking legal action against The Secret World

145791016

Comments

  • korvasskorvass den haagPosts: 623Member

    So, Banzai, you're just going to start a lengthy and costly legal battle, tie up some useful court time, and for what? Some perceived mistreatment?

    Wow.. first world problems, man...

    This is what you got for the Grand Master package:

    1 Additional Character Slot
    **1 Additional Name Reservation (not even needed anymore)
    Set of XP Potions
    Set of Talismans
    Lifetime 10% discount (for the in-game item store)
    Life-time Subscription
    Snakeskin Jacket

    Did you not get any of those items?

    Now they are changing the business model. Nothing you have received thus far is invalidated. PLUS, they are looking after their lifetimers by giving you Funcom points, exclusive monthly items, and a whole bunch more. I think that makes up the missing 5 bucks your whole point seems to be based around.

    Subs, life-time or otherwise, gave you access to content. Now, the sub is no longer required, so they give you other stuff instead.

    You haven't been ripped off. Things change. So you're getting other stuff to equal (and beyond) value of the sub price.

    Is it really, honestly worth quibbling and throwing law suite crap around for some perceived loss of a couple bucks a month?

    Really?

  • Kingmob23Kingmob23 LondonPosts: 77Member

    When the game came out, I considered the lifetime subscription but then I thought it would probably go ftp in six months so I held off. With them going b2p, I got to say I am thrilled to have already purchased this game and am looking forward to start playing it again.

    I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

  • CaldicotCaldicot StockholmPosts: 432Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kingmob23

    When the game came out, I considered the lifetime subscription but then I thought it would probably go ftp in six months so I held off. With them going b2p, I got to say I am thrilled to have already purchased this game and am looking forward to start playing it again.

    I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

    Hindsight is pretty awesome stuff.

    If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

  • hehenephehenep Charlottesville, VAPosts: 221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kingmob23

    I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

    Personally I figured it'd go F2P at some point and then I'd get points to spend in the store for the rest of the games existance.  This happened sooner than I thought it would, but I still don't have any real complaints.  Most of my lifetime subscription choise was based on my really liking the product and a desire to support the company that made something I quite like.  Well that and the expectation that I'd be playing it for months and months to come..

  • KothosesKothoses GalwayPosts: 760Member Uncommon

    Armchair lawyers assemble!

     

    IF what everyone is saying about EULA and TOS being worthless in europe do you REALLY think these games would keep coming....

     

    Still please do go ahead and tell us your professional opinions on this.  Fact is, if you enjoy the game you are getting a good deal.  The alternative to this move was quite simply your lifetime sub "expiring" very quickly if you get my drift.

    Promoting thought a new Gaming video blog http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnthalas discussing games, gamers and the internet with gameplay footage as background.

  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz LeidenPosts: 287Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by muffins89

    Originally posted by ChromeBallz  

    Originally posted by Roxtarr

    Originally posted by banzai014

    Originally posted by Roxtarr

    Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.


    The EULA means nothing in Europe


    So there are no Terms and Conditions for players in Europe?  How can you plan an MMO without agreeing to terms and conditions?


     

    Clickwrap agreements (such as EULAS) are not binding in Europe. This is because such things have to be signed and agreed upon before the payment is made (ie, the sales contract is signed).

    Since these 'terms and conditions' cannot be viewed or agreed upon before buying the game (boxed in any case), it is deemed pretty much useless, pointless and illegal in Europe.

    Companies can put in all the clickwrap agreements they want but unless they are made available before you pay for the product they are simply not legally binding or valid. Furthermore, changing the terms of the agreement is completely illegal without consulting all parties involved, companies do not get a free pass to change it one-sided as much as they like. This applies to 'normal' contracts aswell, let alone clickwrap agreements which aren't even legal in the first place


    you're assuming funcom's eula/tos is considered a clickwrap agreement.  i can read wikopedia too.  it comes down to how the judge see's it.  it's pretty much case by case and testimony would play a major part in the decision.  not all eula's are null and void in europe.  otherwise they wouldnt exsist in europe.


    By your logic, murder wouldn't exist unless it was allowed by law. Please think about what you're saying here.

    Clickwrap agreements were 'invented' in the 90's as a way for companies to force their policies on users and retain control of their programs. They have long been in a grey area untill a few cases in Europe where they have been shot down HARD. That doesn't prevent companies from including them anyway since they know that people like you will believe whatever they're told... I'm sorry to be so rude, but that's simply how it is. Most companies aren't ideological hippies, they're bastards who want your money and nothing else. Money is what this is about, not customers.

    Fact is, they are better that the potential gain by putting the clickwrap agreements on their stuff is higher than the potential loss of someone sueing them for their illegality. It's simple business, nothing else.

    There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal. This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.

    Playing: EVE, TERA, BDO
    Played (more than 1 month): WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL, GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH, STO, TSW
    Tried (trial, up to 1 month): EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,713Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by banzai014

    As some of you may be aware, Funcom's The Secret World today shifted from a subscription only model to B2P (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/12/the-secret-world-officially-abolishes-subscriptions/). This was a completely unannounced and sudden change: the only warning given was a "prank" youtube video (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/10/the-secret-worlds-dev-video-blog-begins-end-of-days-chronicle/).

    This leaves players with existing subscription time and lifetime subscribers in the lurch. In this new model, players that purchase the box price have full access to the game in its current state. Players can then subscribe for $15/month for 1200 Funcom points ($10 in real money) that expire after 6 months needed to buy future DLC (slated to be released in monthly installments costing $5-10),  a fluff vanity item of the month, an xp booster item and a 10% discount on the item shop. Existing subscribers are being switched to this plan for the remainder of their subscription time, without a refund option. Remember that these subscribers also had to buy the game box in the beginning.

    This is not what subscribers paid for.  The deal they signed up for has been changed without their consent or prior knowledge. The terms of agreement have been pulled out from under them. Subscribers paid for access to updates ("DLC") but also access to the game itself. In the P2P model you simply could not log in if you were'nt subscribed. Now that you can get full access for free, the value of the subscription has been cheapened.

    The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless. $15 per month for $10 worth in limited time points, whereas a B2P player can buy DLC each month for cheaper ($5) and have exactly the same access to the game. $15 (sub per month) > $10 (in virtual Funcom monies) > $5 per month for DLC you need to keep up with other players.

    I feel that the subscription option is only there so that they don't have to refund people with existing subs and of course lifetimers. The sub has no value and is a ripoff. A sub gave players both access to new content and to the game itself. Since everyone has access to the game now for the box price, the sub has lost part of its value and so people with existing sub time should demand a refund. I would really like to know what a lawyer's legal opinion of this change would be.

    I have contacted Massively and MMORPG.com suggesting they write an article investigating the legal implications of TSW's B2P change or otherwise recommend me a lawyer specializing in this area that I could talk to. I hope this way we can get something started moving forward and clarify exactly  what legal recourse existing subscribers have. My demands are fair: I only ask that players get the option of having their extant subscription time refunded, since the subscription service has so wholly changed from what they originally intended to pay for (i.e. which in large part was paying for access to the game itself).

     First off, the funcom points are for all games account wide. They FC doesn't dissapear cause that WOULD BE ILLEGAL. I can log in to AoC now and have the same amount of FC as last year.

    As for the subscriptions a life people, if you have been watching the mmorpg genre in the last 10 years, you will have known that Funcom has yet to make a successful game, even Anarchy Online is STILL bugged to this day, The fault lays on the consumer for not reading up on the products they buy. 

    People get mad, that is natural, LotrO did the same ebull shit to me, I own a lifetime sub, just got to suck it up and biycott Funcom products, like I chose to after AoC .

    reviews are !@#$ing stupid. Play what you love.

  • SiderasSideras HelsingborgPosts: 231Member

    "The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless."

    So don't subscribe?

    And if you buy a lifetime sub, well, blame your own stupidity. Do you want the developers to keep an aged payment model because you were dumb enough to pay a shitload for a lifetime subscription?

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    Does anyone else think this is stupid? Funcom hasn't taken anything away from lifetime subscribers. The experience of playing the game is unchanged from when they purchased the lifetime sub. They added additional benefits for lifetime subscribers above and beyond what their current benefits were.

    What, exactly, did lifetime subscribers lose in the transition from Subscription to B2P?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,713Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ChromeBallz

    There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal. This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.

    Prove it with cases and decisions please.

    reviews are !@#$ing stupid. Play what you love.

  • ZinzanZinzan NorthPosts: 1,351Member

    If TSW goes under/gets closed down because lifetime subbers sue the company what will their precious lifetime sub be worth then?

    You have to realise if FC want, they can shut down TSW at the end of the month and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

    If you have no faith in the publisher or the game, why purchase a lifetime sub in the first place?

    This happened to STO and most of the lifetime subbers are really happy now, they have a thriving game that was previously dying on it's arse and they get lots of bonus stuff each month as compensation.

    Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy :)

  • MardukkMardukk Posts: 1,557Member Uncommon
    The best part about this is the lifetime people are actually getting more than they did before.  This is classic.  I don't even know why people are even validating their crying by talking about the legal side of things.
  • TenkouseiTenkousei BrusselsPosts: 72Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slechtvalk
    Originally posted by Tenkousei

    As far as i know purchasing the game itself doesn't yield immediate acces to the game. One needs to set up a subscription.

     

    In that sence, TWO sales are being done:

    1) purchasing the software (a license to use the software)

    2) Purchasing the use of an online service.

    As far as i can remember, before setting up a sub, one needs to agree to the terms and conditions (see the judicial doctrine concerning standard contracts) so one could argue that despite everything, the EULA is being presented to you for reading BEFORE you purchase the service and is as such valid.

    Also: using wiki as a valid judicial source ... /facedesk.

    If you buy online maybe you are right, but not when buying a boxed version.

     

    this is some part of that:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d54ff9e6-c515-11e1-b6fd-00144feabdc0.html

    "The ECJ, however, said that resellers like UsedSoft were not bound by license agreements banning the resale of software licenses."

     

    so ask yourself why you are not bound to license agreements in europe ;) this is made for downloaded and boxed software, so it depends on when you have been shown the license.

     

    there hasnt been someone yet who claimed against eulas in europe, why should you until today, you are not bound on agreements wich come during installation. i ignore them.

     

    I am pretty sure that the arguement is valid for boxed versions as well. The first fifty odd euro you spend are for the box, disk and manual which provide you ownership of the raw amterials and a license for the software, the second step is to close a second contract for an online service.

    Fact is that it is still a very shady aspect of trade law. The doctrine i was able to find on the judicial databases i'm subscribed to is not very extensive (as little as five articles which touched the subject briefly)

    I urge you to actually read the oracle case as well: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&doclang=EN&mode=req

    It's not about the original purchase, but about reselling the license, which is a different thing.

  • Four0SixFour0Six Missoula, MTPosts: 1,181Member Uncommon

    So what was a lifetime sub $200, maybe more or less depending on your country?

    Most lawyers wont even listen to your claim for that.

    I guess you could go the class action route. But then you have to prove that there was a willfull attempt to defraud/hurt the group.

    Personally I come from a different time and thought process. One filled with paranoia and distrust. Keeps me and my tinfoil hats safe I tell you. But I don't buy "lifetime subs", pre-order, pay for beta, none of that junk. How does that saying go?..oh yeah.."If it sounds too good to be true, it is false."  

    I'm sorry for anyone who is truely hurt by teh loss of this $200, even if in reality you lost nothing, except your status as a "Lifer". Might I suggest bending over, reaching between your legs, grabbing your shoulders, pulling hard, and getting breath of fresh air.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by ChromeBallz

     


    Originally posted by Roxtarr

    Originally posted by banzai014

    Originally posted by Roxtarr Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.
    The EULA means nothing in Europe
    So there are no Terms and Conditions for players in Europe?  How can you plan an MMO without agreeing to terms and conditions?

     

    Clickwrap agreements (such as EULAS) are not binding in Europe. This is because such things have to be signed and agreed upon [i]before[/b] the payment is made (ie, the sales contract is signed).

    Since these 'terms and conditions' cannot be viewed or agreed upon before buying the game (boxed in any case), it is deemed pretty much useless, pointless and illegal in Europe.

    Companies can put in all the clickwrap agreements they want but unless they are made available before you pay for the product they are simply not legally binding or valid. Furthermore, changing the terms of the agreement is completely illegal without consulting all parties involved, companies do not get a free pass to change it one-sided as much as they like. This applies to 'normal' contracts aswell, let alone clickwrap agreements which aren't even legal in the first place.

     If they are non binding, then what grounds would their be to sue the company?  They are getting the same thing they got before the change (access to the game and future updates through the coin stipend).  What the OP seems mad about is that other people who previously didn't have access to the game because they didn't pay a sub, now have access to the game without paying a sub.  If you had a sub before, either monthly or lifetime, nothing changes except there is a new step to access issues.  I guess adding an extra hoop to jump through is annoying, but I can't imagine it is law breaking.

  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz LeidenPosts: 287Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by I_Return

    Originally posted by ChromeBallz
    There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal.

    This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.


    Prove it with cases and decisions please.



    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1250343
    The European Union provision is less permis-sive and provides for striking down terms that are merely unfair. Article 3 provides that a contract terms shall be regarded as unfair “if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.”

    EU law, a German law is even more specific about this.

    Do mind that the UK s much more relaxed about this, though this is also still an issue concerning EU jurisdiction in these cases where the parties involvled in the cases rarely, if ever, took the step to EU courts to verify their steps and procedures.

    Also check this document:

    http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/ERPL_2011_6.pdf

    At best, the entire thing is still under debate in Europe. It has never definitively been validated as legal.

    Playing: EVE, TERA, BDO
    Played (more than 1 month): WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL, GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH, STO, TSW
    Tried (trial, up to 1 month): EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • karmathkarmath Posts: 829Member Uncommon
    Only people you have to blame are yourselves.
  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz LeidenPosts: 287Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by niceguy3978

    Originally posted by ChromeBallz

    Originally posted by Roxtarr

    Originally posted by banzai014

    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.

    The EULA means nothing in Europe


    So there are no Terms and Conditions for players in Europe?  How can you plan an MMO without agreeing to terms and conditions


    Clickwrap agreements (such as EULAS) are not binding in Europe. This is because such things have to be signed and agreed upon before the payment is made (ie, the sales contract is signed).

    Since these 'terms and conditions' cannot be viewed or agreed upon before buying the game (boxed in any case), it is deemed pretty much useless, pointless and illegal in Europe.

    Companies can put in all the clickwrap agreements they want but unless they are made available before you pay for the product they are simply not legally binding or valid. Furthermore, changing the terms of the agreement is completely illegal without consulting all parties involved, companies do not get a free pass to change it one-sided as much as they like. This applies to 'normal' contracts aswell, let alone clickwrap agreements which aren't even legal in the first place.


     If they are non binding, then what grounds would their be to sue the company?  They are getting the same thing they got before the change (access to the game and future updates through the coin stipend).  What the OP seems mad about is that other people who previously didn't have access to the game because they didn't pay a sub, now have access to the game without paying a sub.  If you had a sub before, either monthly or lifetime, nothing changes except there is a new step to access issues.  I guess adding an extra hoop to jump through is annoying, but I can't imagine it is law breaking.


    This is exactly why EULA's are pointless. There's no grounds to countersue either. However, please do mind that the lifetime purchasers still got exactly what was advertised: Perpetual access to all the game's features. The way Funcom offers it doesn't matter, the end result does in this case. While the morality is arguable, from a legal standpoint there's nothing to complain about.

    Playing: EVE, TERA, BDO
    Played (more than 1 month): WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL, GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH, STO, TSW
    Tried (trial, up to 1 month): EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,713Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ChromeBallz

    [quote]Originally posted by I_Return
    [quote]Originally posted by ChromeBallz
    There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. [b]Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal.

    This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.
    [/quote]

    Prove it with cases and decisions please.
    [/quote]

     


    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1250343
    The European Union provision is less permis-sive and provides for striking down terms that are merely unfair. Article 3 provides that a contract terms shall be regarded as unfair “if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.”


     

    EU law, a German law is even more specific about this.

    Do mind that the UK s much more relaxed about this, though this is also still an issue concerning EU jurisdiction in these cases where the parties involvled in the cases rarely, if ever, took the step to EU courts to verify their steps and procedures.

    Also check this document:

    http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/ERPL_2011_6.pdf

    At best, the entire thing is still under debate in Europe. It has never definitively been validated as legal.

    cool law, created for Microsoft, and MAJOR software providers. Being that I have taken ethics in web development, I have some knowledge on what you are trying to collide into a games revenue model change, which Funcom has EVERY right to change.

     

    Your law is to protect you from the monoloplising of manufactureres in hardware and software after AMD Sued Intel in EUROPE.

    Still waiting for the defined case number with a person who won or settled.

    reviews are !@#$ing stupid. Play what you love.

  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Originally posted by Teala
    See, it is for this very reason that lifetime subs are worthless.

    They MADE it worthless by giving away almost everything for free which I paid 200$ for.

     

    Today I´m fed up with MMOs, look around, all cash grabs, no exceptions.

    BUT in case of TSW they threw pearls in front of the swine by giving away everything with the B2P model.

    The last bastion beside EvE, TSW finally catered to the cheapskates. Thanks for nothing. Now the 30$ lolkids will try to do investigation quests and fill up the chat with ""lollzthisgamesucks""whatis goin on lolzzz"

     

    sad day for a great game and unique community

    Which begs the question why would you ever buy a lifetime sub for something you cant guarentee for the next month?  You cant blame someone for a RISK you openly took.

    Thats like investing money in a stock that tanks and then asking for your money back because you didnt know it was going to happen.

    Is it sad? yes.  Is it unfortunate? Perhaps.  Is it illegal?  No.

    Caveat Emptor.

    image
  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz LeidenPosts: 287Member Uncommon

    For the life of me i cannot find them. For some reason all my searches lead to US cases which are irrelevant here.

    I only know of 2 cases for certain: One in the UK which ended 'undecided' (iirc the company settled with the claimant) and one in Germany where the claimant (customer) won the case.

    That said - EU law and German law is there. Cases or not, judges can't exactly ignore it and make up their own laws.

    Playing: EVE, TERA, BDO
    Played (more than 1 month): WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL, GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH, STO, TSW
    Tried (trial, up to 1 month): EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • Aison2Aison2 MarburgPosts: 624Member
    p2p sub is paid for access to the game, in that context it doesn't matter if they switch to b2p, you retain access to the game and therefore get what you paid for. The deal is upheld from the companys side, it doesnt matter if others get it cheaper (free) and frankly it isn't much different to how inactive accounts always tend to get better deals at p2p games as the companys try to get the players back

    Pi*1337/100 = 42

  • ChromeBallzChromeBallz LeidenPosts: 287Member Uncommon

    Edit: found an interesting paper about the US cases though, i did not know the cases there were not as black-and-white as i thought:

    http://www.sutherland.com/files/Publication/104c7fcb-7342-4023-b4c2-5b0776303aa3/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/99a80cf1-3fd7-44a3-9506-1622c382abaf/CunninghamWitkowComputerInternetLawyerJournalJune06.pdf

    Even the ProCD case left some nasty wounds on the industry apparently.

    Playing: EVE, TERA, BDO
    Played (more than 1 month): WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL, GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH, STO, TSW
    Tried (trial, up to 1 month): EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus

  • JerYnkFanJerYnkFan Kenilworth, NJPosts: 339Member Uncommon
    All I have to say is good luck with that.
  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,713Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ChromeBallz

    For the life of me i cannot find them. For some reason all my searches lead to US cases which are irrelevant here.

    I only know of 2 cases for certain: One in the UK which ended 'undecided' (iirc the company settled with the claimant) and one in Germany where the claimant (customer) won the case.

    That said - EU law and German law is there. Cases or not, judges can't exactly ignore it and make up their own laws.

    Until a decisioned case or settledment is seen, you don't have much ice to stand on atm. :)

    reviews are !@#$ing stupid. Play what you love.

145791016
This discussion has been closed.