this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
475 points (99.4% liked)
me_irl
8185 readers
1039 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely, but I'd be more specific.
Customers usually have rights to refund or partial refund if a purchase is not "fit for purpose" or "as advertised".
If a game/movie/show is purchased on the offer of unlimited access now and into the future, and that access is then revoked, the customer should be by law entitled to compensation - either full refund if the product has never been used (which is surprisingly common), or a partial refund based on number or duration of times accessed.
Providers would be a LOT more careful about revoking access to purchased materials if that action had a monetary cost associated with it.
Not as advertised. But as per the t&cs. Many countries have truth in advertising lately s that the t&cs cannot override, but only clarify so if it's outright misleading, the t&cs don't matter.
Fun fact - terms and conditions are not legally binding. They are only a guideline that you must follow to use the product; so long as said terms and conditions abide by law, and they only apply going forward so long as the consequences for breaking the terms and conditions are also legal. In other words they can't make you do anything - they can only tell you what they will do if you violate the terms, and they can't make you, the user, do anything.
If a court one day says that you legally own the games you buy, all of these terms and conditions are legally null and void, and the company is in violation of the law if they revoke access.
Edit: in addition, if you buy a product in the US and sign a version of a contract (terms and conditions) and they change the conditions you are only beholden to the original conditions unless you consent to the new conditions. If you own the product they cannot take it away from you. This is why they are so insistent on you not owning anything.
I don't think you know what legally binding means. By your definition laws are also not legally binding because they can't make you do anything; they can only tell you what will happen if you break them.
You're right in that no contractual obligation can override your rights (and their obligations). Nevertheless the breadth of the things to which you can give consent to (often unknowingly) is wild.
Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding. It just means that a contract cannot be put on an equal pedestal as a legal basis since a law can override it. Say a consumer protection law states you have a warranty that is tied to the device and not the purchase. But then the manufacturer put ToS/contract clause stating the warranty that comes with the device must be accompanied by sales receipt as well as the warranty card. Those clauses are not legally binding and if the company doesn't honor the warranty, you can sue them for breaking said consumer protection law instead
I think this is the one time I can pull out my fancy word knowledge and say: this is a non sequitur.
Also my original comment intended to point out the flaw in the above commenters argument (which argued that you can sue games companies that sell you digital games and then revoke licenses).
Other than that, I agree with you.
This why I only buy games on Steam for $20 or less. Once I’ve played them it’s not as big a deal if they disappear since I’ve spent more than that on lunch
You can always change the terms and demand a refund, just like they can change the terms and demand more money.