Hearthpwn

It's illegal for Blizzard to unilaterally break the contract under which I bought cards from them. But that's what they've just done.

I can't get onto Hearthstone unless I read and sign a new contract. But we already have a contract. That's strictly illegal. Can anyone say "class action suit?"

You might have a case since you're obviously incompetent and can't understand contracts.

9. Alterations.

A. Alterations to the Agreement.

i. Blizzard’s Rights. Blizzard may create updated versions of this Agreement (each a “New Agreement”) as its business and the law evolve.

ii. New Agreements. This Agreement will terminate immediately upon the introduction of a New Agreement. New Agreements will not be applied retroactively. You will be given an opportunity to review the New Agreement before choosing to accept or reject its terms.

1. Acceptance. If you accept the New Agreement, and if the Account registered to you remains in good standing, you will be able to continue using the Platform and Account(s), subject to the terms of the New Agreement.
2. Rejection. If you decline to accept the New Agreement, or if you cannot comply with the terms of the New Agreement, you will no longer be permitted to use the Platform or Account(s).

Quoted verbatim from Blizzard's EULA.  They retain the authority to alter the deal at any time.  And no one has ever spent the time and money to fully challenge a EULA in court.

Well said WintrWolf. Just want to mention there is good documentary about this topic called "Terms and Conditions May Apply".

edit: And ofc even better said daigotsurezan, somehow missed it :D

Quote from daigotsurezan >>

9. Alterations.

A. Alterations to the Agreement.

i. Blizzard’s Rights. Blizzard may create updated versions of this Agreement (each a “New Agreement”) as its business and the law evolve.

ii. New Agreements. This Agreement will terminate immediately upon the introduction of a New Agreement. New Agreements will not be applied retroactively. You will be given an opportunity to review the New Agreement before choosing to accept or reject its terms.

1. Acceptance. If you accept the New Agreement, and if the Account registered to you remains in good standing, you will be able to continue using the Platform and Account(s), subject to the terms of the New Agreement.
2. Rejection. If you decline to accept the New Agreement, or if you cannot comply with the terms of the New Agreement, you will no longer be permitted to use the Platform or Account(s).

 

Quoted verbatim from Blizzard's EULA.  They retain the authority to alter the deal at any time.  And no one has ever spent the time and money to fully challenge a EULA in court.

Quote from HS_Vault >>

Quote from daigotsurezan >>

9. Alterations.

A. Alterations to the Agreement.

i. Blizzard’s Rights. Blizzard may create updated versions of this Agreement (each a “New Agreement”) as its business and the law evolve.

ii. New Agreements. This Agreement will terminate immediately upon the introduction of a New Agreement. New Agreements will not be applied retroactively. You will be given an opportunity to review the New Agreement before choosing to accept or reject its terms.

1. Acceptance. If you accept the New Agreement, and if the Account registered to you remains in good standing, you will be able to continue using the Platform and Account(s), subject to the terms of the New Agreement.
2. Rejection. If you decline to accept the New Agreement, or if you cannot comply with the terms of the New Agreement, you will no longer be permitted to use the Platform or Account(s).

 

Quoted verbatim from Blizzard's EULA.  They retain the authority to alter the deal at any time.  And no one has ever spent the time and money to fully challenge a EULA in court.

 Its a standard practice of all online games period well said.

Its done because if they wanna change stuff they have the right to in order to insure balance and that there product continues to work to there best interests. They basically include it in case they want to nerf shit that you bought and you dont like it. Basically to say tuff shit you dont wanna keep playing thats your call but we plan to change what we feel we need to in order to insure balance. You enjoyed it for a time we thought it was unbalanced the community thought it was unbalanced were changing it if you dont like it were not refunding you.

There are many limits on contracts - you can write what you want but the law simply forbids contracts that aren't actually binding on Blizzard, since consideration is what makes a contract a contract. They can write "we get to do illegal things", but no, they don't get to.

Quote from henomar >>

There are many limits on contracts - you can write what you want but the law simply forbids contracts that aren't actually binding on Blizzard, since consideration is what makes a contract a contract. They can write "we get to do illegal things", but no, they don't get to.

Are you an American? Just curious 

The responses seem to suggest the OP necessarily lives in the USA. Laws concerning digital property vary greatly by jurisdiction, and enforcement of the EULA in the EU or other places is almost certainly very different.

I've read since that Americans are entitled to a full refund any time the license is altered - regardless of any language in the agreement.

Why do people think companies can get away with murder just because they say they can? Probably because in the U.S., and countries like Mexico, laws vs corporations haven't been enforced in a very long time; except in civil courts. They system is remarkably corrupt. The govt isn't interested in doing its job. But the civil courts still work some of the time if you're rich enough to afford 'em.

This isn't an isolated legal issue, Steam offered no refunds for a long time, but the common law principle that goods must be suitable for the purpose they were sold for is spread out all over the west and goes back a long time; so refunds have to be available. It was Australia that finally took Steam/Valve to court over the lack of refunds.

There is so much beknighted certainty in this world! Or at least in this forum. Nearly all of it thoroughly mistaken. Where do you get your certainty? Wouldn't you rather do some research and have knowledge?

It's so remarkable to me how people think they can just make **** up, and it'll somehow turn out to be true. Everybody, or most people in at least one country, thinks they're Trump or Putin.

Quote from henomar >>

I've read since that Americans are entitled to a full refund any time the license is altered - regardless of any language in the agreement.

Why do people think companies can get away with murder just because they say they can? Probably because in the U.S., and countries like Mexico, laws vs corporations haven't been enforced in a very long time; except in civil courts. They system is remarkably corrupt. The govt isn't interested in doing its job. But the civil courts still work some of the time if you're rich enough to afford 'em.

This isn't an isolated legal issue, Steam offered no refunds for a long time, but the common law principle that goods must be suitable for the purpose they were sold for is spread out all over the west and goes back a long time; so refunds have to be available. It was Australia that finally took Steam/Valve to court over the lack of refunds.

There is so much beknighted certainty in this world! Or at least in this forum. Nearly all of it thoroughly mistaken. Where do you get your certainty? Wouldn't you rather do some research and have knowledge?

It's so remarkable to me how people think they can just make **** up, and it'll somehow turn out to be true. Everybody, or most people in at least one country, thinks they're Trump or Putin.

@catman: Try to sue Blizz and tell us, how it worked out!

RQuote from henomar >>

I've read since that Americans are entitled to a full refund any time the license is altered - regardless of any language in the agreement.

Quote from henomar >>

I've read since that Americans are entitled to a full refund any time the license is altered - regardless of any language in the agreement.

Why do people think companies can get away with murder just because they say they can? Probably because in the U.S., and countries like Mexico, laws vs corporations haven't been enforced in a very long time; except in civil courts. They system is remarkably corrupt. The govt isn't interested in doing its job. But the civil courts still work some of the time if you're rich enough to afford 'em.

This isn't an isolated legal issue, Steam offered no refunds for a long time, but the common law principle that goods must be suitable for the purpose they were sold for is spread out all over the west and goes back a long time; so refunds have to be available. It was Australia that finally took Steam/Valve to court over the lack of refunds.

There is so much beknighted certainty in this world! Or at least in this forum. Nearly all of it thoroughly mistaken. Where do you get your certainty? Wouldn't you rather do some research and have knowledge?

It's so remarkable to me how people think they can just make **** up, and it'll somehow turn out to be true. Everybody, or most people in at least one country, thinks they're Trump or Putin.

We should have locked this after someone posted the relevant section of the EULA as that's the nail in the coffin. Not much to discuss as seen by the comments here ;)