Regarding Heroine Bundle Purchases

"Aether;15321" wrote:

"Pokebreaker;15296" wrote:

"Aether;15266" wrote:
Yeah, a better analogy would be leasing a car and a month later the dealership came to your house in the middle of the night and replaced the car you leased with a cheaper car model. No Lease Agreement would save the car dealership from the lessee.

Would it not? Has this been testing, or are we assuming. Is there any precedence? I know there have been laws instituted over the years to force businesses to provide ample notification to consumers. Most of which write the notification period into the contract/agreement. However if folks don't read it, they just assume it happened out of the blue and that they were wronged. Also, seeing how you are not the owner of EAs digital products (you're more renting), your paying for temporary use of an item that could cease to exist in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the grievance from a consumer perspective. However, I like to play devil's advocate when it's applicable. Sometimes we feel we are entitled to way more than we actually are.

So I did say "leasing" which for all intents and purposes here is akin to renting.

That minor point aside, there is a lack of trial law precedent and statutory regulations governing digital goods in general. One of the ways they also keep that down is by requiring binding arbitration which this TOS does as well.

So the answer to whether or not this would be ruled in favor of Bariss purchasers or not is a firm "maybe" in my humble opinion. I do not have access to the case law required to find any similar cases against other companies though and am not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. Guess you'd just have to go to arbitration and find out. :smile: