consumer protection
Latest
FTC warns tech companies against AI shenanigans that harm consumers
On Monday, FTC attorney, Michael Atleson, laid out how generative AI systems could be used to violate the FTC Act and what the commission would do to companies found in violation.
Washington DC's AG sues Google for 'deceiving users and invading their privacy'
DC AG Karl Racine says that Google misled users about location tracking.
MMO Family: Is it time to regulate MMO cash shops?
"I want it now!" We're all familiar with that screechy demand by Veruca Salt in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. And for those of us raising children, it's an all-too-common request. When kids want something, they'll pull out all the stops, and for many kids, that brand-new video game warrants an Oscar-winning tantrum. MMOs, on the other hand, are a different breed because the bulk of kid-friendly MMOs are now free-to-play and make use of cash shops and a variety of subscription plans in order to generate revenue. In essence, MMOs have to work for their money now rather than rely on the traditional monthly subscription, but that has led to questions about how far studios should go in getting players to part with their money. In some instances, it's led to children (and some adults) spending large amounts of money without fully understanding what they've done. Should there be regulations on marketing practices of game companies? A recent announcement by the U.K.'s Office of Fair Trading regarding web and app-based games might hint at that answer.
Apple facing European investigation into how it sells AppleCare
Ever hemmed and hawed over buying AppleCare with your shiny new gadget? European chiefs are worried that you don't know all of your rights. They're concerned that Cupertino's warranty-selling practices hide the fact that all customers are entitled to a statutory two-year warranty to fix defects present at sale. The company has already had to open its checkbook to Italian regulators, but pointed out that the protection plan is there to remedy issues that may crop up after you've taken your new toy from its perfectly-engineered box. Nevertheless, commissioner Viviane Reding is pushing for a Europe-wide inquiry into the company, contacting all 27 member states to look into the matter. In the meantime, we're left working out how many times we're likely to drop our new device in the next three years.
Apple accused of misleading EU customers about warranties
The Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection, DECO, is unhappy with Apple's representation of the European Union's warranty policy. DECO has filed a lawsuit accusing Apple of misrepresenting the EU's warranty policy in a way that encourages customers to buy the company's optional and pricey AppleCare warranty. The lawsuit cites statements like the one found on Apple's website which says the EU's two-year consumer protection law only covers defects present at the time of delivery. According to a report in The Verge, the EU's warranty policy covers any defect that occurs within this two-year timeframe. Apple is facing a similar suit in Italy that threatens to shut down retail sales for 30 days in the country.
Australian court fines Apple $2.27 million over '4G iPad' claims
It's a good thing Apple has that huge cash reserve, as the company is going to have to fork over a lot of money Down Under for "deliberately" misleading Australians about the 4G capabilities of the new iPad. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought an action against Apple, saying that the company misled Australians by advertising new iPad connectivity with 4G networks in Australia. An Australian Federal Court judge agreed with the ACCC and as a result of the settlement, Apple will pay AUS$2.25 million (about US$2.27 million) in fines as well as AUS$300,000 in court costs. In March, Apple offered to refund customers who felt that they had been misled by the advertising, and they also published a clarification of the actual capabilities. Outside of North America, the new iPad is now advertised as "Wi-Fi + Cellular". Australian advertising specifically states that the device "is not compatible with current Australian 4G LTE and WiMax networks." News of the proposed settlement first surfaced about two weeks ago; the latest statement from the Australian courts fixes the amount that Apple will be fined. Similar consumer protection suits may follow in other countries now that the ACCC has successfully sanctioned Apple. [via Engadget]
Swedish Consumer Agency considers investigation into iPad 4G LTE marketing
The Swedish Consumer Agency is thinking about investigating whether or not Apple's marketing of the new iPad's 4G LTE connectivity is misleading. The agency has apparently received "several complaints" from consumers who have discovered that the new device doesn't work with the 4G LTE networks in Sweden. The new iPad supports LTE on the 700 and 2100 MHz frequencies, while in Sweden, 700 MHz is used for television broadcasts and 2100 MHz is used for 3G data. The only countries at this time that support LTE on 700 and 2100 MHz are the U.S. and Canada. Marek Andersson, an attorney for the Swedish Consumer Agency, said that "One may rightfully ask if the marketing of the new iPad is misleading ... the question is whether this information is clear enough in Apple's marketing." Apple is under fire for the same marketing concern in Australia, where the company has agreed with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to clarify the claim that the new device supports 4G LTE and to refund early adopters of the new iPad who feel that they were misled.
US Supreme Court says companies can force arbitration on class-acting consumers
Before today, Californian consumers were free to ignore the arbitration clause tucked in the fine print of every AT&T service contract because state law had declared them unconscionable -- which kept the courthouse doors open to class-acting consumers. However, in a ruling that no doubt pleases AT&T and others of its ilk, the highest court in the land has stripped the states of their power to so avoid arbitration with its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In an opinion penned by Justice Scalia (pictured), the Supremes said that the Federal Arbitration Act was passed to promote arbitration's quick and easy dispute resolution, and they couldn't have California (or any other state) contradicting the will of Congress by allowing lengthy group litigation when parties already agreed to private arbitration. That means companies are free to force customers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of joining together to file high-dollar class-action lawsuits, no matter what state laws say. Guess those large-scale litigation lawyers will have to look elsewhere to find the funds for their next Ferrari.
LGJ: Does PS3 Firmware 3.21 come with a refund?
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: [Flickr: DeclanTM] By now you've installed the PS3 Firmware 3.21 update that removes the "Other OS" option (more or less) from your console. (You've at least read about it.) Besides angering the PS3 users who had been enjoying the Other OS feature, this incident has had some unintended consequences in the realm of consumer protection and warranty laws, both in the US and abroad. It's certainly a bit of an unusual situation, but hopefully this column will provide you a bit of an explanation on a global scale, and answer the question, can I get a refund? For anyone who's not clear on what laws are involved, the broad areas of consumer protection and warranties both deal with protecting the purchasers of products from those who make or sell those products. The idea being that you should be entitled to purchase and own the product that you intended to buy, rather than something that's misleading, fraudulent, likely to break on its own, or broken. This is to help ensure the integrity of the marketplace, which helps secure consumer confidence. After all, aren't you more likely to buy a game console when you know it's a game console and (if new) covered by a warranty against defects, rather than an empty case or a box with bricks in it?
PS3 owners eligible for cash refund after 'Other OS' removal?
Admit it, most of you don't use the "Other OS" option on your PS3, do you? That's ok, we don't either, at least not regularly. Nevertheless, it's irksome, nay, vexing that Sony had the audacity to pull it; that feature was part of the deal bargained when we purchased the unit after all. Forum moderator, "lapetus," over at NeoGAF decided to take on the man by invoking European directive 1999/44/EC, a consumer protection law that requires goods to be "fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase." That little tactic earned lapetus a refund of £84.00 from Amazon without physically returning the console even though his (?) PS3 was well out of warranty. Oh just you never mind that Sony's user agreement claims the ability to revise settings and features without limitation to, "prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system." In other words, request your refund before installing Geohot's hacked 3.21 firmware.
LGJ: FTC could target EULAs
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A few weeks back, I mentioned that the FTC was looking into regulating DRM. Well, in part on some discussions at the Game::Business::Law Conference, I have a sneaking suspicion that the FTC likely won't stop with DRM. In fact, I would be willing to guess that within the next few years, the often maligned End User License Agreement ("EULA") may fall into the realm of being regulated as further "consumer protection." Is it necessary? Well, that's a matter of opinion, really. The only certainty is that it will be able to bring in additional revenue for the government, which is certainly short on cash these days.If the FTC opts to regulate EULAs, I see three probable scenarios to accomplish its goal. Before I get ahead of myself, I should describe what the theoretical goal of consumer protection is: to prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers. Generally, though, it isn't necessarily the average consumer who's seeing the greatest benefit from the regulations. Often it's the most uneducated consumer, which usually means the regulations tone things down to a level of near absurdity.
