Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

Zenimax Employee comment on reddit :



source

I don't know how the customer protection works in your country and I don't know much about the law but if you're going to pursue something like this in where I live, the lawyer is going to tell you "LOL no".

Probably, and that's because no one is going to spend many thousands of dollars bringing a case to court only to get back the 20 bucks they spent on a video game, but that doesn't change the fact that they dun goofed.

Admittedly, it gets slightly weird when it's an ongoing service and the like, but in contract law, which governs these interactions..the OP (pending he didn't know it was stolen) has done nothing wrong. We're not even talking about consumer protection laws. (They'd definitely fall foul of that in Australia but that's a completely different matter).

 

[Hektor]

If you clicked a box that said "I agree to terms and conditions" then yes they can.

Thats not as much of a clean cut as you make it.
Terms and Conditions have to obey specific laws.

LOL.

No. The full doctrine is called Bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Each jurisdiction treats those elements slightly differently but if he knew, or had notice, then it wouldn't work. He basically has to have no idea and be reasonably thinking that it was a legit sale.

If your PC gets stolen, you have every right to go after the person who stole it and claim compensation, it just doesn't allow you to get it back from someone he's sold it too that's completely innocent.

But thats insane. Why should the victim of the shop should've more rights than the vicitim of the theft? And how would you even find out if he knew or didnt knew that the goods were stolen?

I should get my pc back in this example and the one who bought it from the thief should be the one asking for comepansation from him imho.

 

[Mets9]

I was tempted to buy a key for ESO from a key reseller, thank god I didn't buy it.
And btw: I don't know how it works in every state, but in many states buying stolen goods (even if unaware of it) IS illegal.

 

[Koren]

Zenimax Employee comment on reddit :

source

I don't know how the customer protection works in your country and I don't know much about the law but if you're going to pursue something like this in where I live, the lawyer is going to tell you "LOL no".

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.


That being said, the shady reseller has either bought a bulk of keys from Valve/Bethesda (and I wonder why they aren't more cautious with bulk sales if they want to have authorized resellers) or the keys have been bought one after one with different accounts (and while I can understand that they can link the key to a different region or a fraudulent credit card transaction, the "3rd-party seller" is at best a guess... although a safe one).

 

[Arksy]

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.


That being said, the shady reseller has either bought a bulk of keys from Valve/Bethesda (and I wonder why they aren't more cautious with bulk sales if they want to have authorized resellers) or the keys have been bought one after one with different accounts (and while I can understand that they can link the key to a different region or a fraudulent credit card transaction, the "3rd-party seller" is at best a guess... although a safe one).

If it's merely the case that the keys were legitimately bought in Russia, and then onsold to people in other regions, then it's not the case that the keys were fraudulently obtained at all.

 

[Kurt Russell]

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.


That being said, the shady reseller has either bought a bulk of keys from Valve/Bethesda (and I wonder why they aren't more cautious with bulk sales if they want to have authorized resellers) or the keys have been bought one after one with different accounts (and while I can understand that they can link the key to a different region or a fraudulent credit card transaction, the "3rd-party seller" is at best a guess... although a safe one).

I doubt that, Bethesda wouldn't revoke the keys if that was the case. I don't even understand the point of this thread though, unless it was a warning of some sort for others to avoid buying games from illegal sources.
It's been known for years that buying keys from unauthorized resellers will most certainly lead to games being revoked.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I am, actually. Credit card fraud has nothing to do with this case. You're talking about a case that's not at all analogous that uses completely separate areas of law that have nothing to do with the present case.

Are you a lawyer in the Netherlands, where I'm pretty sure OP is from?

Also I'm 90% sure you are not a lawyer.

 

[Spyware]

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.


That being said, the shady reseller has either bought a bulk of keys from Valve/Bethesda (and I wonder why they aren't more cautious with bulk sales if they want to have authorized resellers) or the keys have been bought one after one with different accounts (and while I can understand that they can link the key to a different region or a fraudulent credit card transaction, the "3rd-party seller" is at best a guess... although a safe one).

They don't actually know, they assume indeed. Probably because a bunch of chargebacks came in at around the same time and so on.
Read this post:

What?
Industrial credit card fraud - which is what this is - doesn't just sign up an account under the name "Mrs Shady K. Reseller" then buy 10,000 keys.

They use automated scripts to make multiple transactions using multiple stolen cards with information sent to multiple harvestable junk email accounts created as they buy.
Then a lot of them keep the credit card details of anyone foolish enough to use them to fund the next wave of fraudulent purchases.

It's literally organised crime.

BTW, Sweden does not have a "good faith" law thingie that's been talked about in this thread (if I understand the lawyer speech correctly) since 2003. If you buy something that was stolen you can't do anything to keep the goods. You are merely just another vicitm of the original crook.

 

[Arksy]

Are you a lawyer in the Netherlands, where I'm pretty sure OP is from?

Also I'm 90% sure you are not a lawyer.

No. Australia, and you would be wrong.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

People randomly entering their payment details into obviously shady random websites are going to learn they shouldn't fucking do that the hard way sooner or later.

Better they lose access to a videogame than some of the possible alternatives.

Problem is those people will get mad at the publisher for revoking their keys, which is what happened during that whole Ubisoft/EA/G2A/Kinguin debacle some months ago. People bought these keys from what they thought was a legitimate source and so felt entitled to keep them. Ubisoft felt compelled to reinstate keys which had already been activated.

It would be in the best interest of publishers to try to educate people about these shenanigans.
But they don't seem particularly bothered. Like, Ubisoft said: "We strongly recommend that players purchase keys and downloadable games only from the Uplay shop or trusted retailers."
....ok, and who are those trusted retailers? They could do a lot better in this area. For instance there could be a thing on the activation screen telling users that Ubisoft/Valve/EA/etc. does not guarantee the functionality of keys acquired from unauthorized resellers such as this and that, and then a link to an explanation why, and an actual list of authorized resellers.

 

[Tunesmith]

Zenimax Employee comment on reddit :



source

I don't know how the customer protection works in your country and I don't know much about the law but if you're going to pursue something like this in where I live, the lawyer is going to tell you "LOL no".

Any lawyer would tell you that your quarrel lies with the point of sale and not Zenimax in such case. You're not a paying customer of Zenimax, you're a paying customer of X reseller.

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.


That being said, the shady reseller has either bought a bulk of keys from Valve/Bethesda (and I wonder why they aren't more cautious with bulk sales if they want to have authorized resellers) or the keys have been bought one after one with different accounts (and while I can understand that they can link the key to a different region or a fraudulent credit card transaction, the "3rd-party seller" is at best a guess... although a safe one).

Any cd keys have specific batch codes associated with them that can be traced back to their original source. It's also not uncommon for legitimate merchants to do sting purchases from grey market places and trace back the codes that way. Zenimax probably has a very good idea where their keys came from but aren't saying for legal and other reasons.

 

[Simon Belmont]

No. Australia, and you would be wrong.

I know lots of lawyers (my wife is a partner at a firm). None of them are super keen to comment on cases that take place in jurisdictions that they don't practice in, and most of them preface casual legal statements they make with the phrase "this is not legal advice". Walking into a thread and throwing around suggestions to sue without all of the facts just seems so...unprofessional.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't, but even if you are in Australia, it's irrelevant to this matter.

 

[Arksy]

Any lawyer would tell you that your quarrel lies with the point of sale and not Zenimax in such case. You're not a paying customer of Zenimax, you're a paying customer of X reseller.

Sigh. Yes, that would be the case if the product was a box of tissues, or a cat. In this case, the product requires a relationship to be set up between the paying customer and Zenimax in order to access the product. This complicates things.

I know lots of lawyers (my wife is a partner at a firm). None of them are super keen to comment on cases that take place in jurisdictions that they don't practice in, and most of them preface casual legal statements they make with the phrase "this is not legal advice". Walking into a thread and throwing around suggestions to sue without all of the facts just seems so...unprofessional.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't, but even if you are in Australia, it's irrelevant to this matter.

Shrug. Not sure what you want me to say. Nothing I've said here could constitute as actual legal advice. I'm merely discussing recent developments on a forum. I just came in here to counteract the hordes of people saying that EULAs allow companies to do whatever they want without a regard to anything else. There are some interesting legal issues worth discussing here...and I came in here to discuss them.

 

[Mihos]

LOL.

No. The full doctrine is called Bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Each jurisdiction treats those elements slightly differently but if he knew, or had notice, then it wouldn't work. He basically has to have no idea and be reasonably thinking that it was a legit sale.

If your PC gets stolen, you have every right to go after the person who stole it and claim compensation, it just doesn't allow you to get it back from someone he's sold it too that's completely innocent.

Funny, I actually went through this exact thing. The civil side went down like this. The douche who stole it was caught and there was a whole criminal side of things, I went to court to sue to get my computer back from the innocent guy who had my stuff, who basically had the argument you listed. The judge instructed I get my things back and that the innocent dude would need to sue the douche to get his money back. I don't remember what the judge told the innocent guy word for word, but it was basically something about the crime against him not entitling him to the benefits of a crime against me, or something. We both got money in addition to the original claim for court fees etc.

In this case, I am with Bethesda, they should not be required to provide a service for a key that violates their terms. Your argument is with the douche that sold it to you. They sold it to you in good faith and lied. If I photocopied my coupon for a year of free hair cuts and sold it to someone, or even if I sold my original which says 'non-transferable' on the agreement I signed... the barber is in no way required to cut some ass hats hair for a year, because I was the douche in that scenario... he would need to sue me.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Admittedly, it gets slightly weird when it's an ongoing service and the like, but in contract law, which governs these interactions..the OP (pending he didn't know it was stolen) has done nothing wrong.

There is no contract between the provider of the service and the OP in this case.
The provider of the service agrees to provide a service to customers, and to customers of their agents, who are explicitly defined as being "authorised resellers".

Any contract breach is between the zenimax and the person using a stolen credit card initially - where the fraudster has breached contract by not providing payment, or with the Op and the key reseller as a secondary seperate contract - where again, the reseller has breached contract by not providing the service they were paid for.

There is literally no contract between zenimax and the Op, implicit or otherwise.

 

[Arksy]

There is no contract between the provider of the service and the OP in this case.
The provider of the service agrees to provide a service to customers, and to customers of their agents, who are explicitly defined as being "authorised resellers".

Any contract breach is between the zenimax and the person using a stolen credit card initially - where the fraudster has breached contract by not providing payment, or with the Op and the key reseller as a secondary seperate contract - where again, the reseller has breached contract by not providing the service they were paid for.

There is literally no contract between zenimax and the Op, implicit or otherwise.

No contract? That's debatable. In the most literal sense. Does signing a EULA establish a contract? There's no consideration, so how could it? This is actually a fairly open legal question in most jurisdictions. It gets pretty fuzzy pretty quickly, the big legal question in your description comes down to whether Zenimax can actually only agree to provide service based on the exact location of purchase. Or whether that breaches restraint of trade clauses, etc.

There's also the issue that if Zenimax only provides the keys themselves and the authorised resellers, how could a key be purchased at all otherwise?

There's also the issue that regardless of whether there is a contract or not, BFP works as an element of equity, not contract law. So any claim that the keys being fraudulently obtained by the customers.

Let's assume there is no contract, does that mean Zenimax might be liable in tort?

There's also the tertiary issue of having initially provided the service then cutting it off...establishing a false representation in the customers that a service will be provided.

 

[Dhuie]

Something doesn't quite add up....



If you were not getting a "special/discounted" price why not buy directly from the official site?


The site shows "paypal" as the only option, why not get a refund through them ?

Agreed, I'd be angry at the seller not ESO.

Is OP sure his payment went through and wasn't charged back !

 

[Simon Belmont]

Shrug. Not sure what you want me to say. Nothing I've said here could constitute as actual legal advice. I'm merely discussing recent developments on a forum. I just came in here to counteract the hordes of people saying that EULAs allow companies to do whatever they want without a regard to anything else. There are some interesting legal issues worth discussing here...and I came in here to discuss them.

The buyer didn't steal anything, nor had any notice that they were buying stolen goods. Everyone affected by this should start a class action (to stop this crap from happening over and over again, and to recoup their money) because it's a pretty clear breach of the law in my own eyes.

Pretty sure this, along with you identifying yourself as a lawyer could be interpreted as legal advice.

In any event, I would not trust the advice of any lawyer who speaks freely about jurisdictions they don't practice in.

 

[Arksy]

Pretty sure this, along with you identifying yourself as a lawyer could be interpreted as legal advice.

No. It can't. Legal advice is a term of art and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Anyway this has nothing to do with the thread so I won't speak of it any longer.

 

[Simon Belmont]

No. It can't. Legal advice is a term of art and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Anyway this has nothing to do with the thread so I won't speak of it any longer.

You'll just continue to overstep your legal bounds and pretend to know NL law?

That would be odd, considering Aus practices the British derived common law and NL practices the Roman derived civil law, but hey you're the lawyer here.

 

[TheFatMan]

It cracks me up to see people get mad at the Publishers when someone gets there key revoked.

You bought shady merchandise at a shady website. You bought a game at a ridiculously low price. Do you think it's fair to the publishers that you just get to keep your stolen merchandise and screw them out of your money?

Say you make statues for a living, and someone steals one and sells it to someone else. Would you really be ok letting that person keep your hard work because they paid a thief for it?

Give me a break.

 

[pompidu]

What?
Industrial credit card fraud - which is what this is - doesn't just sign up an account under the name "Mrs Shady K. Reseller" then buy 10,000 keys.

They use automated scripts to make multiple transactions using multiple stolen cards with information sent to multiple harvestable junk email accounts created as they buy.
Then a lot of them keep the credit card details of anyone foolish enough to use them to fund the next wave of fraudulent purchases.

It's literally organised crime.

Bethsda issues the keys to retailers, at least i assume so. I imagine that they dont sell keys directly to consumers (no idea if this is true or not). Your whole theory falls apart, assuming my assumptions are correct.

 

[derExperte]

Funny, I actually went through this exact thing. The civil side went down like this. The douche who stole it was caught and there was a whole criminal side of things, I went to court to sue to get my computer back from the innocent guy who had my stuff, who basically had the argument you listed. The judge instructed I get my things back and that the innocent dude would need to sue the douche to get his money back. I don't remember what the judge told the innocent guy word for word, but it was basically something about the crime against him not entitling him to the benefits of a crime against me, or something. We both got money in addition to the original claim for court fees etc.

That's exactly what would happen and has happened in Germany too. Keeping stolen goods you bought from the thief? How absurd. If you didn't know the item was stolen it protects you from getting sued for dealing with stolen goods and allows you to go after the person that sold it for damages but that's it. The item itself of course goes back to the original owner.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Bethsda issues the keys to retailers, at least i assume so. I imagine that they dont sell keys directly to consumers (no idea if this is true or not). Your whole theory falls apart, assuming my assumptions are correct.

I'm not going to give you instructions on how to commit credit card fraud and convert it into basically untraceable cash, but its a serious problem that affects anyone involved with selling goods online, especially virtual goods or software services, and high enough up the foodchain it is directly linked to actual serious real world organised criminal and terrorist organisations, as laughable as that might sound on paper.

All a producer of keys can know from within their own system and the systems they put in place to prevent and reduce fraud is which keys were purchased fraudulently. Which is why these sellers make sure they make their sales entirely outside of the system.

Buying a key from unreputable sources to save yourself a few bucks isn't just harmful at a societal level in indirectly allowing criminals to make money by providing a market for stolen goods, its also fucking stupid at a personal level, because you're giving people whose business depends on using unauthorised payment details your actual payment details.
Would you hire a burglar to go steal something cheap for you, then give him your home address and details of your security system and what times of the day the house is unoccupied while you're at it?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Correct, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. That's how BFPVWN works.

Person A steals car from person B.

Person A sells car to person C. Let's assume Person C has no way of knowing that the car is stolen.

Person B finds out what has happened and sues person C when he finds out to get it back, court says NOPE. Because of BFPVWN.

Person C keeps the car.

I can say this is fundamentally incorrect in UK law. Person C has no good title, and never owned the car, because it was not person A's to sell. Person B would have the car returned to them immediately. Though this is a little more complex with insured items such as vehicles, because if a claim had been paid it would then be the property of the insurance company. I find it hard to believe person C would get to keep the vehicle in the US or AU.

 

[JumpJeff84]

If it's any consolation OP, this game will likely be F2P within a few months

 

[Tunesmith]

If it's any consolation OP, this game will likely be F2P within a few months

The mandatory subscription was dropped in March.

 

[Lanrutcon]

The mandatory subscription was dropped in March.

If it was still around they probably wouldn't disable his key.

 

[Aureon]

That may, depending, put any BFP claim in jeopardy....this is where it kind of gets a bit fuzzy and each different jurisdiction has different case law regarding what is notice, but the bare bones of BFP exist in every jurisdiction that has/had a Court of Chancery.

There's a note you're missing, and that's why BFP doesn't apply in most of those:

The sale has to be for value. Abnormal discounts are both grounds for reasonable suspicion the good may be stolen, AND grounds to reverse the transaction.

Also, in both jurisdictions, courts try to strike a balance between bona fide purchases and the nemo dat rule (latn. Nemo dat quod non habet, no one can give what he doesn't have). It's not a clear cut case, and generally depends on a whole slew of factors.

It also generally requires that the sale be in "overt market", which can have strict definition, and although i'm not qualified to comment, probably doesn't apply to a website held by an organization in another nation.

Interesting reading about a pair of such cases, swung either way: http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lists/SAL Journal/Attachments/132/1994-6(2)-SAcLJ-439-Ho.pdf
e: The rule that allowed the case to swing the buyer's way was removed in 1995, thanks bibi.

 

[Minions]

I can say this is fundamentally incorrect in UK law. Person C has no good title, and never owned the car, because it was not person A's to sell. Person B would have the car returned to them immediately. Though this is a little more complex with insured items such as vehicles, because if a claim had been paid it would then be the property of the insurance company. I find it hard to believe person C would get to keep the vehicle in the US or AU.

That is how it works in the USA. No idea how it works in Australia.

Stolen things once located (pawn shops have this happen all the time). Get seized, and returned to the actual owner. If you bought it from someone else, you are entitled to your money back...... by tracking down the person you bought it from and suing them.

Stolen property cannot have it's ownership transferred. Now most people don't write down or report inexpensive stuff as stolen as it is not worth a damn. Stuff like consoles, ipads etc. does get reported all the time though.

 

[Nokterian]

NEVER TRUST KEY RESELLING SITES

G2A, gamedeals, etc. You have no recourse for fraudulent keys. Nuvemn, GMG, gamergate, are authorized and give you much better support.

This.

I bought this game yesterday on GMG because trusted reseller.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I can say this is fundamentally incorrect in UK law. Person C has no good title, and never owned the car, because it was not person A's to sell. Person B would have the car returned to them immediately. Though this is a little more complex with insured items such as vehicles, because if a claim had been paid it would then be the property of the insurance company. I find it hard to believe person C would get to keep the vehicle in the US or AU.

There's a note you're missing, and that's why BFP doesn't apply in most of those:

The sale has to be for value. Abnormal discounts are both grounds for reasonable suspicion the good may be stolen, AND grounds to reverse the transaction.

Also, in both jurisdictions, courts try to strike a balance between bona fide purchases and the nemo dat rule (latn. Nemo dat quod non habet, no one can give what he doesn't have). It's not a clear cut case, and generally depends on a whole slew of factors.

It also generally requires that the sale be in "overt market", which can have strict definition, and although i'm not qualified to comment, probably doesn't apply to a website held by an organization in another nation.

If that guy is actually a lawyer the bar should be taking his certification back. My guess is law student, or legal clerk at best.

 

[Aureon]

If that guy is actually a lawyer the bar should be taking his certification back. My guess is law student, or legal clerk at best.

Well, in complete honesty, Bibi's comment was incorrect. I've linked up actually one such cases in which a UK court (high court, in fact) sided with the bone fide purchaser.
Yet, the law is basically completely open for case-by-case interpretation by the courts.

e: Was, the rule was changed in 1995. Nemo Dat rule is now pretty absolute in UK law.

 

[Savitar]

If a deal seems too good to be true.

You know how the saying goes. In the end keys are being acquired through illegal means, a company does not have to honor them. Blame the ones who are ripping you off in the first place.

There really shouldn't be anything more to it.

 

[Yukiari]

I can say this is fundamentally incorrect in UK law. Person C has no good title, and never owned the car, because it was not person A's to sell. Person B would have the car returned to them immediately. Though this is a little more complex with insured items such as vehicles, because if a claim had been paid it would then be the property of the insurance company. I find it hard to believe person C would get to keep the vehicle in the US or AU.

It's the same here in America. My roommates car was stolen and sold to a woman some towns over. When the police found her car it was supposedly owned by someone else. Sorry no, her car was returned to her and the unfortunate woman now has her own police case to pursue. You do not get to keep stolen property.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Correct, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. That's how BFPVWN works.

Person A steals car from person B.

Person A sells car to person C. Let's assume Person C has no way of knowing that the car is stolen.

Person B finds out what has happened and sues person C when he finds out to get it back, court says NOPE. Because of BFPVWN.

Person C keeps the car.

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Try titling a stolen car in your name at DMV and see how far you get lol.

"What do you mean I can't get a title? Dont you understand what BPVMFM means?!

 

[madjoki]

If it's merely the case that the keys were legitimately bought in Russia, and then onsold to people in other regions, then it's not the case that the keys were fraudulently obtained at all.

Realistically, it's not even possible to trace single legally bought keys. They can't know if it was bought for personal or use reselling.

Keys can be regionally restricted to prevent selling RU keys to elsewhere.

But if they receive report that it was purchased using stolen card, they know it wasn't legal. (And likely to make quick buck from reselling it).

Fair or not, they actually must disable access, if they want to keep accepting credit cards. Because banks will stop dealing if you don't address issues causing charge backs.

Also, if you don't do anything, scammers will start targeting you. Which only makes it worse for everyone.

Better pay $1-5 more and get from authorized reseller rather than some random hong kong site.

Edit: If you do, use Paypal on those sites, makes it easier to get money if it turns out to be stolen.

 

[Shambles]

When games are sold as a service I just wait for them to hit $5 before I buy them. They want to sell me a long term rental? I'll pay them rental prices.

 

[HarryDemeanor]

This is one of the reasons why I don't deal with sites like G2A no matter how many times Twitch streamers keep championing them.

"B-b-but look at the prices!"

Gee I wonder why!

 

[Almighty]

GMG already got into hot shit with CD Projekt over Witcher 3 over where they got the keys from, and then changed their price back up to the usual price in other stores which implied they might have been doing something shady actually by getting the keys illegitimately or then they would've gone whole hog on that case to show CD Projekt might have been price fixing. In fact, the keys seemed to have been invalid for quite a few.

GMG might of fucked up a little over that whole thing, but I don't think it's fair to start putting them on the same level as G2A or the site the OP used now. From what I can tell the invalid keys were sorted out quickly and they tossed in a 40 percent off coupon to those who were hit by it as well.

 

[iLLmAtlc]

I think it's wrong to say tc bought stolen goods. Owner of stolen goods never wanted to part with them, unlike a defrauded seller. Most common law jurisdictions recognize this distinction. For example consider the USA's Uniform Commercial Code:

(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased.

I.e. Holder of stolen goods can only transfer the same interest (none). However, a bona fide purchaser of a defrauded owner obtains good title:

A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faithpurchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though

(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403

This is likely the law in most common law jurisdictions. There's pretty much an identical provision in the UK sales of goods law, which is what most common law jurisdictions' sales law is based on.

 

[Jedi2016]

This is one of the reasons why I don't deal with sites like G2A no matter how many times Twitch streamers keep championing them.

"B-b-but look at the prices!"

Gee I wonder why!

This. I can't believe people buy from these sites and honestly believe them to be legit. It's no different from a guy on a street corner selling high-end electronics out of the back of a van.

If you go to sketchy places to buy your games, you don't get to bitch when it comes 'round to bite you in the ass. And look, it ended up costing your more than if you'd just bought the game straight from Bethesda or Steam directly. Savvy shopping indeed. Yeah, I pay a couple "extra" bucks to buy games from reputable sources, I never have any problems with them, and I sleep well at night.

 

[inner-G]

Why would you buy it from a different site?

 

[DealWithIt]

Caught exercising his right as a consumer to seek out the best deal? That is ridiculous.

The onus should not be on the customer to be aware of reselling sites. There are vast swathes of members of Gaf that aren't aware of it being legally gray at the best of times, how would you expect everyone outside of the immediate core of games coverage to make an informed decission on that matter either? Its not like mainstream media particularly picks up on it.



I don't support key selling sites, but to act as if using them is tantamount to a crime is ludicrous.

If you're getting a game for 20 or $30 less than the price is elsewhere, especially a new game, you should be suspicious. It's just like walking into a pawnshop and seeing a really expensive bike for cheap. It is your duty to be careful about not buying stolen goods. It sucks since there are unethical people all around, but that's just how it is. If you buy something stolen it will be taken from you and returned to its owner. That's life. Buying from shady key reselling sites is buyer beware and he got burned. Ignorance of the law is no defense, quite literally.

 

[Dead]

Something doesn't quite add up....



If you were not getting a "special/discounted" price why not buy directly from the official site?


The site shows "paypal" as the only option, why not get a refund through them ?

OP is embellishing. $40 is certainly not a normal price. The game is $60

 

[Altered Juice]

website name is shady as fuck!

 

[Locust]

What I find interesting is that:
- some argue that Bethesda/Valve has no idea which road the key took to reach the final customer
- at the same time, they still know those keys are "from unauthorized resellers".

Most probably, it's a region-lock kind of security, keys bought in a region detected as used in another one.

Nah, this is most likely a very simple scam and they can 100% tell which keys were stolen.

Basically, they could've bought several steam gifts of the game on one account, then activated them on different Steam accounts and stripped the (separate) ESO keys from them. Then just sold those on. Games get removed from Steam accounts after the chargeback, the ESO keys stayed valid (until now).

 

[Sora_N]

Visa charge back

 

[Halabane]

Wonder why the Bethesdas and Ubisofts don't go after the sites selling these shady keys as opposed to people who may or may not be aware of the situation with these sites, especially when a lot of these sites are being advertised by Twitch streamers/gaming media sites.

They don't go after them because they don't know where you bought. They also don't know if you used a stolen credit card yourself and bought a key. They are assuming its not you.

 

[Messofanego]

GMG might of fucked up a little over that whole thing, but I don't think it's fair to start putting them on the same level as G2A or the site the OP used now. From what I can tell the invalid keys were sorted out quickly and they tossed in a 40 percent off coupon to those who were hit by it as well.

Yeah, I've used GMG many times and I hope they don't go down this route, get back to their usual approved ways rather than sneaking for codes from disreputable places.