And yes. If someone does a charge-back instead of a refund. Something that is intended for fraud. They are misusing it. Which is a clear breach, and it would not be surprising if you could get banned for that.
You think all German laws are EU laws?
Ubisoft deleted lots of accounts from people everywhere due to “inactivity”, even if you had paid games on it. I didn’t see a successful lawsuit from germans.
No but they are the laws i learned and are very close to ths EU guidelines. So companies usually comply with the German laws on EU level because its the biggest market and otherwise it would be a unnecessary clusterfuck. The other EU countries have basically the same laws as Germany when there is a EU guideline for it.
So i don’t think they are, but they literally kinda are.
Ubisoft deleted lots of accounts from people everywhere due to “inactivity”, even if you had paid games on it. I didn’t see a successful lawsuit from germans.
Thats their right, you have to show interest in keeping a contract running otherwise it can legally be canceled. Also, there is Noone suing because people that where effected either didn’t want the account anymore or just logged in once. Ubisoft send out emails and tried to notify people about this, they even extended the time frame once because to make it 100% legal proof. I don’t approve of that personally, but legally its perfectly fine.
Yes… and if you try to issue a chargeback for a transaction you simply regret. That is you engadging in fradulent behavior. And the company have every right to ban your account for trying to defraud them.
No a charge back is blaming the company for fraudulent charges.
And no, the company doesn’t have the right to cancel everything because one thing is not going good. That’s not how it works, keep being law illiterate. And now shut it. You are obviously not interested in actually arguing a point, you just keep hitting a strawman.
But you know. Some people. They do things that are not intended. They’re not supposed to. But they do it anyway. Maybe that’s a difficult concept to grasp for a German. But take my word for it when I say that some people do those things.
And you keep claiming that its illegal for companies to cancel someone’s account as consequence.
Please show me the EU guideline stating that. If you can’t. Please shut up and realize you don’t know shit.
But you know. Some people. They do things that are not intended. They’re not supposed to. But they do it anyway. Maybe that’s a difficult concept to grasp for a German. But take my word for it when I say that some people do those things.
Still no reason to cancel already ongoing things plus its not legal to withold refunds.
And you keep claiming that its illegal for companies to cancel someone’s account as consequence. Please show me the EU guideline stating that. If you can’t. Please shut up and realize you don’t know shit.
In the European Union, whether a company can cancel all contracts because one has failed depends on the specific circumstances of the contracts and the terms they contain. Generally, EU law prioritizes contractual freedom, meaning that the terms of the contract will usually dictate the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.
However, there are principles and directives at the EU level that can influence such decisions, particularly in terms of consumer protection and business-to-business relations. For instance:
Principle of Proportionality: The decision to cancel all contracts must be proportionate to the breach or failure. This means the action taken (cancelling all contracts) should not exceed what is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party seeking to cancel the contracts.
Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (93/13/EEC): This directive protects consumers against unfair terms that create a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations. If the contracts are with consumers, and the term allowing for the cancellation of all contracts due to one failing is deemed unfair, such a term might be considered invalid.
Rome I Regulation (EC No 593/2008) on the law applicable to contractual obligations may also be relevant. This regulation governs choice of law in contracts and may influence the enforceability of terms across different EU member states.
If the contracts are interrelated (e.g., if they are part of a framework agreement or if the performance of one contract depends on the performance of the others), the cancellation of all contracts might be justified under certain conditions. However, each case must be evaluated based on the specifics of the contracts and the nature of the breach.
In practice, a unilateral decision to cancel all contracts because of one failure without a clear contractual basis or justifiable reason can lead to legal disputes, potentially involving claims for damages or enforcement actions.
For specific legal advice and the most accurate and up-to-date information, consulting a legal professional who specializes in EU contract law would be necessary.
Specified for Consumer contracts
For business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts within the European Union, the consumer rights are particularly protected under various EU directives and national laws that aim to ensure fairness and transparency. Here are some key points and directives relevant to B2C situations, where a business considers canceling all contracts because one contract failed:
Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (93/13/EEC): This directive is especially important in B2C contracts. It aims to protect consumers against unfair terms in a contract. For example, a clause that allows a business to cancel all contracts if one fails could be considered unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. If a term is deemed unfair, it will not be binding on the consumer.
Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU): This directive provides consumers with rights regarding transparency and information requirements for contracts. It ensures that consumers are adequately informed about the terms of the contract and the consequences of any breaches. It also includes rules on the right of withdrawal, which could be relevant in situations where contracts are being canceled.
General Principles of EU Law: Principles such as good faith and proportionality also play a role. These principles can influence the interpretation of contractual clauses, potentially impacting whether a business can cancel all contracts based on the failure of one.
In practical terms, a clause that allows a business to terminate all contracts with a consumer because one contract has failed would likely be scrutinized under the directive on unfair terms. Such a clause could be considered disproportionate and unfairly punitive to the consumer, thus risking being declared void.
In case a business seeks to implement such a drastic measure, it would need to:
Ensure that the terms allowing such actions are clearly stated in the contract in a transparent and understandable manner.
Demonstrate that such terms are not creating an imbalance that harms the consumer.
Consider whether there are any specific circumstances under the particular contract or national laws that may allow or prevent such actions.
For consumers faced with a situation where a business is attempting to cancel all contracts, it would be advisable to:
Review the contract terms carefully.
Seek advice from consumer protection organizations or legal professionals.
Check if national consumer protection agencies or European Consumer Centres can provide assistance or guidance.
Legal routes could also be considered, such as lodging complaints with relevant authorities or pursuing legal action if consumers believe their rights have been violated. In every case, the specific contract terms and the legal context will be crucial in determining the outcome.
(for clarification, i used a LLM for the explanation in non legal speach the facts are correct)
Thats the opposite of what i explained and im 100% talking about EU (more specifically German) Laws
Its probably legal in muricaland, but not here.
And a charge back is for fraudulent charges. Not to “undo a purchase”.
And yes you having 10 games on a account and doing that with the 11th cannot legally destroy your 10 other games.
That’s not what I’m talking about either.
And yes. If someone does a charge-back instead of a refund. Something that is intended for fraud. They are misusing it. Which is a clear breach, and it would not be surprising if you could get banned for that.
You think all German laws are EU laws?
Ubisoft deleted lots of accounts from people everywhere due to “inactivity”, even if you had paid games on it. I didn’t see a successful lawsuit from germans.
No but they are the laws i learned and are very close to ths EU guidelines. So companies usually comply with the German laws on EU level because its the biggest market and otherwise it would be a unnecessary clusterfuck. The other EU countries have basically the same laws as Germany when there is a EU guideline for it.
So i don’t think they are, but they literally kinda are.
Ubisoft deleted lots of accounts from people everywhere due to “inactivity”, even if you had paid games on it. I didn’t see a successful lawsuit from germans.
Thats their right, you have to show interest in keeping a contract running otherwise it can legally be canceled. Also, there is Noone suing because people that where effected either didn’t want the account anymore or just logged in once. Ubisoft send out emails and tried to notify people about this, they even extended the time frame once because to make it 100% legal proof. I don’t approve of that personally, but legally its perfectly fine.
They literally, are not. But if that’s what you want to believe i cannot stop you.
And yes it is their right. Just like other services have the right to cancel your account if you are in breach with their policies.
E.g. issuing chargebacks, several months later just because you regret your purchase.
You seem to not understand laws.
And as i already said, charge back is for fraudulent transactions. Not because you regret buying something.
No it has nothing to do with their TOS, its literally laws.
Either learn law or shut up about things you obviously don’t understand.
Yes… and if you try to issue a chargeback for a transaction you simply regret. That is you engadging in fradulent behavior. And the company have every right to ban your account for trying to defraud them.
Keep up…
No a charge back is blaming the company for fraudulent charges.
And no, the company doesn’t have the right to cancel everything because one thing is not going good. That’s not how it works, keep being law illiterate. And now shut it. You are obviously not interested in actually arguing a point, you just keep hitting a strawman.
Yes. That is the intended function.
But you know. Some people. They do things that are not intended. They’re not supposed to. But they do it anyway. Maybe that’s a difficult concept to grasp for a German. But take my word for it when I say that some people do those things.
And you keep claiming that its illegal for companies to cancel someone’s account as consequence.
Please show me the EU guideline stating that. If you can’t. Please shut up and realize you don’t know shit.
Still no reason to cancel already ongoing things plus its not legal to withold refunds.
In the European Union, whether a company can cancel all contracts because one has failed depends on the specific circumstances of the contracts and the terms they contain. Generally, EU law prioritizes contractual freedom, meaning that the terms of the contract will usually dictate the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.
However, there are principles and directives at the EU level that can influence such decisions, particularly in terms of consumer protection and business-to-business relations. For instance:
Principle of Proportionality: The decision to cancel all contracts must be proportionate to the breach or failure. This means the action taken (cancelling all contracts) should not exceed what is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party seeking to cancel the contracts.
Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (93/13/EEC): This directive protects consumers against unfair terms that create a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations. If the contracts are with consumers, and the term allowing for the cancellation of all contracts due to one failing is deemed unfair, such a term might be considered invalid.
Rome I Regulation (EC No 593/2008) on the law applicable to contractual obligations may also be relevant. This regulation governs choice of law in contracts and may influence the enforceability of terms across different EU member states.
If the contracts are interrelated (e.g., if they are part of a framework agreement or if the performance of one contract depends on the performance of the others), the cancellation of all contracts might be justified under certain conditions. However, each case must be evaluated based on the specifics of the contracts and the nature of the breach.
In practice, a unilateral decision to cancel all contracts because of one failure without a clear contractual basis or justifiable reason can lead to legal disputes, potentially involving claims for damages or enforcement actions.
For specific legal advice and the most accurate and up-to-date information, consulting a legal professional who specializes in EU contract law would be necessary.
Specified for Consumer contracts
For business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts within the European Union, the consumer rights are particularly protected under various EU directives and national laws that aim to ensure fairness and transparency. Here are some key points and directives relevant to B2C situations, where a business considers canceling all contracts because one contract failed:
Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (93/13/EEC): This directive is especially important in B2C contracts. It aims to protect consumers against unfair terms in a contract. For example, a clause that allows a business to cancel all contracts if one fails could be considered unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. If a term is deemed unfair, it will not be binding on the consumer.
Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU): This directive provides consumers with rights regarding transparency and information requirements for contracts. It ensures that consumers are adequately informed about the terms of the contract and the consequences of any breaches. It also includes rules on the right of withdrawal, which could be relevant in situations where contracts are being canceled.
General Principles of EU Law: Principles such as good faith and proportionality also play a role. These principles can influence the interpretation of contractual clauses, potentially impacting whether a business can cancel all contracts based on the failure of one.
In practical terms, a clause that allows a business to terminate all contracts with a consumer because one contract has failed would likely be scrutinized under the directive on unfair terms. Such a clause could be considered disproportionate and unfairly punitive to the consumer, thus risking being declared void.
In case a business seeks to implement such a drastic measure, it would need to:
For consumers faced with a situation where a business is attempting to cancel all contracts, it would be advisable to:
Legal routes could also be considered, such as lodging complaints with relevant authorities or pursuing legal action if consumers believe their rights have been violated. In every case, the specific contract terms and the legal context will be crucial in determining the outcome.
(for clarification, i used a LLM for the explanation in non legal speach the facts are correct)