[VIDEO] CIG wins small claims court case, no refund for you!
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Right on...always sad to hear that people develop medical problems...but that is somewhat independent of the issue that you made a crowd-funding pledge, CIG is (slowly) fulfilling the promise, delivering content, and needs to have funding locked down in order to develop and deliver further future content.
Nobody held a gun to this guy's head and made him spend the money on Star Citizen.
Legally, I guess it all depends on what is in the TOS and how it is all spelled out, what CIG said they promised, and what is considered "normal" or acceptable for a company in this industry.
BTW, our fave internet lawyer, Lior Leser did a video on this topic:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG83FB041is
Nobody held a gun to this guy's head and made him spend the money on Star Citizen.
Legally, I guess it all depends on what is in the TOS and how it is all spelled out, what CIG said they promised, and what is considered "normal" or acceptable for a company in this industry.
BTW, our fave internet lawyer, Lior Leser did a video on this topic:
While I think CIG having had given refunds for some cases is big of them, I do not believe it should be required of them. After all they are a company that needs funding to continue to develop on their initial promise.
Although I feel for the guy due to his illness, his argument is weak.
$4,000 in pledges for Squadron 42? I don't think so ...
This is "buyers remorse" plain and simple.
$4,000 in pledges for Squadron 42? I don't think so ...
This is "buyers remorse" plain and simple.
SoloFlyer
Grand Admiral
I also feel for the guy due to his illness, but I don't think you should get a refund for simply not liking an aspect of the game. For me, there have been a few changes that I haven't been thrilled about since I first invested money in the game. When I first got involved the talk was that there would be some sort of slider mechanic to limit the amount of pvp that you would be forced to do in space. I was ok with that, forced pvp has never really been my thing. Then I took a break from following SC and came back to find that it was completely open world pvp and there would be FPS aspects as well. While I do think this will seriously dampen my enjoyment factor of the finished product, I still hope there are enough non-pvp activities for me to feel that my initial investment wasn't wasted. There's going to be a lot to do in the game and as far as this one guy specifically, SQ42 isn't even mandatory to play from what I understand. I think he (like I was on the road to doing) invested more money in the game then was wise for him personally and now regrets it, but like most investments, you're taking a risk when you dive in.
YouTuberLaw is gonna respond / evaluate this!! :heart::heart::heart::heart:
P.S. I am a strong consumer protection advocate. Although I can see both sides, there needs to be balance. Blanket absolute arguments do not work in reality. Even concerningmurder killing someone (eg self defense).
P.S. I am a strong consumer protection advocate. Although I can see both sides, there needs to be balance. Blanket absolute arguments do not work in reality. Even concerning
Last edited:
DoctorProfessor
Space Marshal
And yet IIRC, Aussies - under consumer laws - can get refunds without too much hassle, though I don't know anyone that's done that personally. Under Aussie Consumer Law you cannot waive or sign away your statutory consumer rights, even if it's in a ToS. Maybe they've done something to change that recently, but they're certainly charging us more for our ships in accordance with laws..
Either way, in this case, thousands of dollars for a single player game that's what, $45? Seems unlikely. Though I don't think they'd mind refunding him the SQ42 package, leaving the rest for the MMO.
Either way, in this case, thousands of dollars for a single player game that's what, $45? Seems unlikely. Though I don't think they'd mind refunding him the SQ42 package, leaving the rest for the MMO.
Last edited:
He didn't really "lose" his case, the court told him he was perusing the wrong avenue to seek the refund and had to go through arbitration.
The case was also dismissed without prejudice, so it can be refiled. Mr. Lord would have to find a way to pierce the binding arbitration clause, not sure how you could accomplish that in small claims court though.
I do not think this is a case of a backer overextending themselves. The plaintiff has posted several times on reddit that it is not a case of money, but principal. He has also posted that he is an AI developer for the software vendor SAP, so he should have plenty of disposable income. The fact that he flew to LA just to appear in small claims court backs this up. He has also said, post this outcome, that he is going to look into consulting a lawyer and pursue the arbitration route.
What caused him to seek a refund in the first place was the controversy surrounding LTI and it being only for new money during the Hercules sale:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8irk21/so_i_guess_this_is_what_it_has_come_to/
The case was also dismissed without prejudice, so it can be refiled. Mr. Lord would have to find a way to pierce the binding arbitration clause, not sure how you could accomplish that in small claims court though.
I do not think this is a case of a backer overextending themselves. The plaintiff has posted several times on reddit that it is not a case of money, but principal. He has also posted that he is an AI developer for the software vendor SAP, so he should have plenty of disposable income. The fact that he flew to LA just to appear in small claims court backs this up. He has also said, post this outcome, that he is going to look into consulting a lawyer and pursue the arbitration route.
What caused him to seek a refund in the first place was the controversy surrounding LTI and it being only for new money during the Hercules sale:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8irk21/so_i_guess_this_is_what_it_has_come_to/
Frad in'Ryth
Vice Admiral
I can understand the shift in LTI being the last straw. It was for me too but I'm not looking for a refund, I've just closed my wallet until they give LTI to all transactions that take place before Beta. CIG has changed the facts one too many times with no notice until after the fact for me to ever give them another cent.
In case anyone is curious what my three strikes were
In case anyone is curious what my three strikes were
- Dividing the Vanguard into three ships instead of one ship so they could sell three ships none of which when compared to things like the Super Hornet or Sabre merit the 250+ price tag it originally came with.
- Selling the Khartu-al as a two seater literally days before it went flight ready and we all found out it was a single seater because making it a two seater was "too hard to model"
- Altering the LTI policy with no notification until after the fact where only new money merited that perk.
Last edited:
Interesting, this is good info.
But the issue still stands, can you still demand a refund because you see something you do not like in the sausage factory?
Maybe...
If I buy bacon flavored Sausage..... and you change it to fish flavored?
Last edited:
IMO it's simple if you didn't bother read the new TOS when they updated it and just clicked okay.
At that point there was a window of opportunity to say no which in case you did say no you would have been refunded so if you didn't..
Well It's on your own head, you don't get refunded simple as that...
If this is not okay in your book well let it be lesson learned and start practicing read, research and think things through before acting.
This is IMO..
And I do think in case of well documented and prof of life catastrophe CIG should refund and I think they do in that case.
:beer::beer::beer::beers::beers::beer::beers::beers::beer::beers:
At that point there was a window of opportunity to say no which in case you did say no you would have been refunded so if you didn't..
Well It's on your own head, you don't get refunded simple as that...
If this is not okay in your book well let it be lesson learned and start practicing read, research and think things through before acting.
This is IMO..
And I do think in case of well documented and prof of life catastrophe CIG should refund and I think they do in that case.
:beer::beer::beer::beers::beers::beer::beers::beers::beer::beers:
The closer analogy according to the info above is that you have store credit at the sausage factory.
You used to buy sausages for $50, but now it will cost you $60 if you use credit. If you use cash, you can still buy sausages for $50.
Clearly this changes everything about your love for sausages. Where once you loved their rich smokey flavor, the fact that you would need to pay $60 makes you feel like vomiting.
I think the problem with doing it on a case-by-case basis is that people learn that all you have to do is say "it's for medical expenses!" and they expect to get a refund. Even if it actually has nothing at all to do with medical expenses.
I for one never imagined I would ever get money back out of this game. Anybody who did was foolish to do so.
That it turns out they can't in fact get money out should be a surprise to nobody.
My $0.02.
I for one never imagined I would ever get money back out of this game. Anybody who did was foolish to do so.
That it turns out they can't in fact get money out should be a surprise to nobody.
My $0.02.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
I agree 100% with your comment, but want to point out that, he still has other legal options left he can pursue. Since pretty much all of those involve hiring a lawyer and paying money (we are talking now about $5k - $10k minimum to go down this road), this isn't really an option.
Other people in other jurisdictions probably have other options, since consumer protection laws are different (some would say, "stronger") in different countries (such as the EU and Australia).
I'm reading the articles at other websites, like:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/court-denies-star-citizen-backers-4500-refund-lawsuit/
&
https://kotaku.com/star-citizen-backer-sues-to-get-4-500-back-loses-1827666550
My favorite comment so far: "Caveat Emptor, Motherfucker!"
The long evenings you and I spent talking about sausage.
Hey so Osh Ren on youtube in Montoya's video comments wasn't buying
my Pledge for Montoya Hugs analogy.....
and egged me to basically tear up / drop the mic for my argument
about how when you are given an offer (incentive) to pledge and you pay for it,
it is a transaction not a donation.
Here's what I had to say:
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (Minn. 1957)
Once a clear advertised offer is accepted, you can't simply change it.
The original offer, once accepted, is enforce-able. This might apply.
and
State of Washington V. Altius Management LLC & EDWARD J POLCHELOPEKK III
Where a a kickstarter organizer/owner was held liable for a delayed project that did not deliver after an extended period of time. This might apply.
and
Uniform Commercial Code
Defining contract law (numerous sections that may apply here)
and
Consumer Protection Act
Laws protecting consumers (numerous sections that may apply here)
and
Promissory Estoppel
a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law even if made without formal consideration. When we "pledge" for an incentive, for example exchange money for a future promise of an incentive being given to us, that is the "kickstater" receiving consideration for the promise or agreement they are making. This might apply.
and many numerous other court cases that might apply like
Hamer v. Sidway (NY 1891)
Establishing enforce-ability of agreements/promises
and
Webb v. McGowin (Ala. 1936)
Establishing enforce-ability of agreements/promises
P.S. I'm not an attorney and not giving legal advice, just a personal opinion which may have some considerable merit. Someone who's an attorney should weigh in.
my Pledge for Montoya Hugs analogy.....
and egged me to basically tear up / drop the mic for my argument
about how when you are given an offer (incentive) to pledge and you pay for it,
it is a transaction not a donation.
Here's what I had to say:
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (Minn. 1957)
Once a clear advertised offer is accepted, you can't simply change it.
The original offer, once accepted, is enforce-able. This might apply.
and
State of Washington V. Altius Management LLC & EDWARD J POLCHELOPEKK III
Where a a kickstarter organizer/owner was held liable for a delayed project that did not deliver after an extended period of time. This might apply.
and
Uniform Commercial Code
Defining contract law (numerous sections that may apply here)
and
Consumer Protection Act
Laws protecting consumers (numerous sections that may apply here)
and
Promissory Estoppel
a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law even if made without formal consideration. When we "pledge" for an incentive, for example exchange money for a future promise of an incentive being given to us, that is the "kickstater" receiving consideration for the promise or agreement they are making. This might apply.
and many numerous other court cases that might apply like
Hamer v. Sidway (NY 1891)
Establishing enforce-ability of agreements/promises
and
Webb v. McGowin (Ala. 1936)
Establishing enforce-ability of agreements/promises
P.S. I'm not an attorney and not giving legal advice, just a personal opinion which may have some considerable merit. Someone who's an attorney should weigh in.
Last edited:
I hope I'm not the only one to take screen shots of this for future meme/blackmail