Reply
First Son
Registered: 09/26/2013
Offline
6 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Sep 26, 2013
This is from the US... Your laws make false advertising cases much easier than in Canada actually... This one was because the label did not read "Contents may be hot" Maybe she should of done her research on the possibility that coffee may be hot?

<< Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck who had suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant >>
Message 11 of 18 (184 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 09/17/2009
Offline
28768 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

[ Edited ]
Sep 26, 2013

I think that you perhaps did not grasp the significance of the clause "flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform". In other words, the case was cited as an example of how the US legal system is broken and needs to be fixed.  It was not a precedent setting case, and no one has won a similar case since.  McDonalds reduced the temperature of its coffee about 30 degrees (F), but it is still pretty hot. Incidentally, the presiding judge in the case cut the award to $660,000; as he knew that the jury award would never survive appeal because it was plainly in excess of what was reasonable and legal.  The parties settled the case out of court before the appeals court could hear it, so it will never be known what Leibeck actually received, but we can assume that it was probably less than $660,000.    The case is irrelevant to the thread, as it was a product liability case, and not a false advertising case.  Sony is merely acting as a fulfillment agent in this case, as it does not even own the inventory that it is selling. Sony could not be sued for product liability in regards to a third party game, even if such a thing existed for software, as it would the the wrong party to sue.  Square Enix marketing probably wrote the copy to begin with.

GKP
Message 12 of 18 (179 Views)
First Son
Registered: 12/29/2011
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013

No it's not in there, but let's not be a goddamned fool here, nothing else in the entirety of the Full Games list requires a subscription fee.  When you buy something, with $40 of money, it is no longer free for any reason, so don't worry, I didn't asume it was F2P, I assumed it was a buy once type deal.  I don't care about the vast majority of MMOs, there are free ones out there, so to assume this one was a one-time fee thing was reasonable.  I read the entirety of the product description on the Playstation Network, as the dirtibutor it's their responsibility to make sure all relevant information is posted.  

I have never in my entire 20 years as a Sony customer bought a product with a subscription fee and not been made aware of it.  As the vendor it's compeltely Sony's responsibility.  Legally where I'm from the only "research" I need to do is to read the product description and the terms of conditions, which I did, and it was not mentioned. - Even by US law actually, this would be valid grounds for a refund.

how many people can access the internet via computer to do full on reasearch into a product?  Some of us... but look how long it took me to get back here on the forum, my only real network capable device is the ps3, and let's face it, the crap browser on it freezes and closes before I can ever even look anything up.  So even though those circumstances are rare, it does exist, and my sense of entitlement is just. 

Anyway I did end up contacting support and my request for refund is out there, and I was reasured the product description will be edited.

Message 13 of 18 (164 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 12/29/2011
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013

It only came out like 40 days ago man, not in 2012... the information was not readily available from the vendor.

Message 14 of 18 (160 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 12/29/2011
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013

No I would blame the dev in that case were not included in the product terms and conditions that it was subject to a subrciption fee.  I blame Sony in this case because they did know there was a subscription fee, and neglected to add it as part of the product description, this is dishonest and is a form of trickery.

Message 15 of 18 (160 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 09/29/2013
Offline
7 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013
Don't count on a refund. I had bought a DLC Bundle from Final Fantasy 13-2 and three items still showed up as purchaseable, causing me to accidently buying one of them. I contacted support and my request was denied on reasons of sales being final under the terms and services. I have contacted Square Enix support to try getting that corrected for any future buyers.
Message 16 of 18 (159 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 12/29/2011
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013

Yea but that isn't really Sony's fault or SE's fault, it's a store bug a simple mistake on your part... same thing happened to me with Mass Effect 2, I redeemed the code it came with which unlock the Cerberus Pack, however not paying attention when I went to buy all the DLC for the game I bought a second copy of the Cerberus DLC from the PSN...on both out parts it was negligence... though I agree it's stupid it shows them as purchasable instead of having a bag icon.... most bundles the include multiple store product do this to me, I could go buy the Fury campaign for WipeOut right now even though I already own it..

And yeah, I don't have high hopes for a refund, but my friends in law school ensure me I have a stronger case than Sony.  However, even if I don't get my refund, they clearly awknowleged the need to update the product description and if they at the very least do that, they can stop somebody else from throwing money away...

I just don't understand... it's literally 3x more a year than my PS Plus subscription and it wasn't mentioned???  

Message 17 of 18 (155 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Highlighted
First Son
Registered: 09/29/2013
Offline
7 posts
 

Re: False Advertisement on the Playstation Network

Oct 1, 2013
The thing though is PSN support said that the showing it as purchasable was a problem for Square since it's their product. I'd rather have it be fixed in the store than have the dollar fifty back. The only good part though is that it probably counts for the $10 back deal.
Message 18 of 18 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes