HOW SQUARE ENIX TRULY TREATED ABYSMALLY

[NekoNova]

I don't get these third party things.
Is this like a US thing or something?

[RoyalBeef]

I don't get these third party things.
Is this like a US thing or something?

In Germany the banks use algorithms to detect suspicious and potentially fraudulent debits on your account, and they will charge those back or decline payment before even informing you, which is a good thing, but can get you into trouble in cases like these, because it makes it look like you're trying a scam on SE, so of course they will shut down your account if they cannot collect the money for your sub, or the money is charged back from them, which means you already used playtime you didn't pay for.

[NekoNova]

In Germany the banks use algorithms to detect suspicious and potentially fraudulent debits on your account, and they will charge those back or decline payment before even informing you, which is a good thing, but can get you into trouble in cases like these, because it makes it look like you're trying a scam on SE, so of course they will shut down your account if they cannot collect the money for your sub, or the money is charged back from them, which means you already used playtime you didn't pay for.

Interesting, never had this happen to me in Germany.

Guess I'm old-school with just using my card and expecting payments to work.

[Goji1639]

Sorry for all caps, thats not my doing - its a quote from the ToS you agreed to when you installed the game. While I'm wishing you all the best in resolving the issue (your bank might be a good place to start), I figured it might not be to bad to remember this bolded, all-caps part at the very beginning of the ToS before talking about what they legally can or cant do.
Suspending your account at any time for any or no reason given to you is well within their rights and you agreed to that. Your anger and frustration are still understandable but you should keep this in mind before you make matters worse..

Eh, first off, a ToS you click through is BARELY legally binding. It's not like a real contract. Second, even if it were a real contract there are tons of state and federal laws protecting customers from illegal provisions. Like say, if the ToS clearly stated somewhere that SE will sell your personal information to black market internet data brokers, and you clicked agree, you could still sue SE once your identity is stolen and accounts are drained.

Digital property is obviously different. SE can't just delete 100's of dollars worth of digital property for spurious reasons, though; unless they refund you that's basically theft. The ToS stating they can doesn't make it legal; it all depends on the circumstances around why it was deleted.

[Vidu]

Eh, first off, a ToS you click through is BARELY legally binding. It's not like a real contract. Second, even if it were a real contract there are tons of state and federal laws protecting customers from illegal provisions. Like say, if the ToS clearly stated somewhere that SE will sell your personal information to black market internet data brokers, and you clicked agree, you could still sue SE once your identity is stolen and accounts are drained.

Digital property is obviously different. SE can't just delete 100's of dollars worth of digital property for spurious reasons, though; unless they refund you that's basically theft. The ToS stating they can doesn't make it legal; it all depends on the circumstances around why it was deleted.

You cant honestly believe that SE didnt had a team of lawyers look over their ToS and make sure they're legally binding - to my knowledge and research a ToS that you have to actively agree to by clicking a button or checking a box like is common with video games is indeed legally binding (the one that isnt would be one that you passively agree to like you'd have in cases like browsing a website that states somewhere that by simply browsing you agree to their ToS).
As I understand it that part I quoted or the example you've given might be dodgy if they were hidden in fine print on page 10 - but the part I quoted is in bold print right at the beginning of the ToS that you have actively agree to.

SE also has no intrest in just deleting digital property for no reason - but in the case of the OP they had one and OP was even aware of that: He didnt fullfill his side of the bargain and didnt pay them. It would be bad buisness if SE actually went out and just deleted accounts left and right for no reason whatsoever. But suspending an account thats not paying them or making charge backs? Thats protecting their buisness - no matter if you did it yourself or if there was an issue with your bank.
I also have some bad news for you: One day the servers will shut down, they'll stop running the game and all your digital property will be gone.

[Goji1639]

You cant honestly believe that SE didnt had a team of lawyers look over their ToS and make sure they're legally binding - to my knowledge and research a ToS that you have to actively agree to by clicking a button or checking a box like is common with video games is indeed legally binding (the one that isnt would be one that you passively agree to like you'd have in cases like browsing a website that states somewhere that by simply browsing you agree to their ToS).
As I understand it that part I quoted or the example you've given might be dodgy if they were hidden in fine print on page 10 - but the part I quoted is in bold print right at the beginning of the ToS that you have actively agree to.

SE also has no intrest in just deleting digital property for no reason - but in the case of the OP they had one and OP was even aware of that: He didnt fullfill his side of the bargain and didnt pay them. It would be bad buisness if SE actually went out and just deleted accounts left and right for no reason whatsoever. But suspending an account thats not paying them or making charge backs? Thats protecting their buisness - no matter if you did it yourself or if there was an issue with your bank.
I also have some bad news for you: One day the servers will shut down, they'll stop running the game and all your digital property will be gone.

ToS in general are barely legally binding. I'm sure they have lawyers and I'm sure it was analyzed, but the method in which they are implemented makes them very easy to fight. A contract would be signed and notarized, that's tight legal binding. Clicking "agree" on an online form, witnessed by nobody, is just legally tenuous by nature. If you wanted to you could fight every word of it.

Also, SE could have plenty of interest in deleting digital property for "no reason" or "bad reasons." It forces you to repurchase things. Creating provisions in the ToS that make unfair deletions easy for SE to do would be abusive. Deleting a ton of purchased digital content because of a payment snag that wasn't the customers fault could easily be interpreted as abusive. They definitely shouldn't just flat out delete everything and keep the customers money before investigating what happened.

As for the servers, of course they'll eventually disappear. An inevitability isn't abusive. SE just deleting a bunch of stuff I purchased because of a misunderstanding is different.

[Vidu]

ToS in general are barely legally binding. I'm sure they have lawyers and I'm sure it was analyzed, but the method in which they are implemented makes them very easy to fight. A contract would be signed and notarized, that's tight legal binding. Clicking "agree" on an online form, witnessed by nobody, is just legally tenuous by nature. If you wanted to you could fight every word of it.

Also, SE could have plenty of interest in deleting digital property for "no reason" or "bad reasons." It forces you to repurchase things. Creating provisions in your ToS that make unfair deletions easy to do would be abusive. Deleting a ton of purchased digital content because of a payment snag that wasn't the customers fault could easily be interpreted as abusive.

As for the servers, of course they'll eventually disappear. An inevitability isn't abusive. SE just deleting a bunch of stuff I purchased because of a misunderstanding is different.

Its odd that you say that because all I can find on this matter is that ToS are infact legally binding if they meet a few conditions, including:
- that you actively agree to them by (for example) checking a box (check that box, since SE is meeting it)
- that they're clearly visible and not hidden somewhere (again: check, you have to agree to the ToS before you can install or play the game)
- that they have to notify you in advance if they make any changes to their ToS - afaik SE has done that
- they need to store some data to prove that you've agreed to their ToS at somepoint (I cant tell if they do that, but I would surprised if they didnt)

Seriously, every google search I do on this matter comes up with a result like this (for example this one: https://www.nextadvisor.com/how-enfo...ce-agreements/ ) and I cant find any source that agrees with the statment you're making of ToS being barely legally binding - yes, some arent if they dont meet certain criteria. But if they do meet them they are infact legally binding. If you have any sources that say otherwise, I'd like to see them!

[Goji1639]

Its odd that you say that because all I can find on this matter is that ToS are infact legally binding if they meet a few conditions, including:
- that you actively agree to them by (for example) checking a box (check that box, since SE is meeting it)
- that they're clearly visible and not hidden somewhere (again: check, you have to agree to the ToS before you can install or play the game)
- that they have to notify you in advance if they make any changes to their ToS - afaik SE has done that
- they need to store some data to prove that you've agreed to their ToS at somepoint (I cant tell if they do that, but I would surprised if they didnt)

Seriously, every google search I do on this matter comes up with a result like this (for example this one: https://www.nextadvisor.com/how-enfo...ce-agreements/ ) and I cant find any source that agrees with the statment you're making of ToS being barely legally binding - yes, some arent if they dont meet certain criteria. But if they do meet them they are infact legally binding. If you have any sources that say otherwise, I'd like to see them!

No interest in a google war with you; I'll just ask you one question. Do you know why real contracts are notarized and generally require a hand printed signature.

Not every agreement you enter into has the exact same legal veracity. Yes, a ToS is legally binding, but far less so than many other types of official agreements. A good lawyer could shred an strictly online agreement to pieces. A ToS is the best form of legal contract a game like this can manage with it's customers, but that doesn't mean it's a solid one.

[Lunavi]

Interesting, never had this happen to me in Germany.

Guess I'm old-school with just using my card and expecting payments to work.

Here is the "wonderful" part about it, even if it happened to you, chances are 99% that you wouldn't actually know about it, unless they thought a legit payment was a fake one, which is actually pretty rare, but not non-existent. They basically do this to cover up for how ridiculously unsafe the whole credit card system is. How do you think RMT companies in games pays for things? I can 100% tell you it isn't out of their own pocket, and due to the large amount of them, wouldn't it be strange that we hear so few people complain about getting their credit card information stolen? These things are almost always handled under the table, unless the rare cases algoritms miss the transaction in question in which case the victim reports directly, which I can tell you rarely happens.

[Auron_Wolf]

This is why I use crysta

Totally agree, it save you a lot trouble.