Page:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3).pdf/68

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

- 60 -

Summary of the alleged representations

229 The ACCC made nine allegations of representations amounting to conduct which contravened s 18(1) and s 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law. As I have explained, there was overlap between those representations but submissions were made on each representation individually and it is necessary to consider each separately.

230 The representations derive from three separate sources: (i) the various versions of the SSA, (ii) the various versions of the Steam Refund Policy, and (iii) online chats between representatives of Steam Support and Australian consumers. The ACCC provided a chart which helpfully summarised the nine representations.

No. Representation Source FASOC ref
1 No Entitlement to Refund Representation SSA [15]
2 Contractual Exclusion of Statutory Guarantee Representation SSA [19]
3 Contractual Exclusion of Statutory Guarantee Representation
[further or in the alternative to Representation 2]
SSA [21]
4 No Refund Policy Representation Steam Refund Policy [24]
5 No Entitlement to Refund or Replacement Unless Required Local Law Steam Refund Policy [28]
6 No Obligation Where No Recourse to Developer Representation Steam Support Rep [62]
7 No Obligation to Refund Representation Steam Support Rep [64]
8 Non-Applicability of Statutory Guarantee Representation Steam Support Rep [66]
9 No Remedy Where Goods Used Representation Steam Support Rep [68]

231 One general submission made by Valve in relation to all these representations was that it changed its refund policy from 2 June 2015 and that the new refund policy has not been the subject of any complaint by the ACCC. Valve submitted that as far as it was concerned "that has resolved four of the nine alleged "representations" raised by the ACCC". It is unclear whether this submission in relation to representations 1, 4, 5, and 7 was intended to suggest that the change to the policy could prevent any contravention from having arisen or whether it was raised as a significant matter which might later be relevant to penalty. If the intention