Taiko vs SE - UK Law - Data Protection Act (Taiko Wins)Follow

Err, what? It's supposed to be rly @#%^ing cute.

Edited, Nov 18th 2010 1:16pm by ThePsychoticOne

Peimei, it all stems back to about 18 months ago, when SE brought out the banhammer and banned several people who had done nothing wrong. When they called the POL helpdesk, they were told it was due to "irregular activity" and to submit a ban complaint if they wanted their account back. SE at no stage would release to those affected exactly what they meant, and a lot of it was left to guesswork.

If SE was more open, which they should be, they would have more respect from their customers. All it takes is for them to say "We banned you for this because we noticed this this and this". By just saying irregular activity and not detailing it, it was causing distress for a lot of people. Admittedly, most of those affected were in North America. I opted to push for it under UK law, in the hope that SE would change their ways worldwise. That's the long term goal, whether it will happen I have no idea. But dealing with it the way I did gets their attention. It might even make a few others be aware of it. And the more awareness of how things are currently, the worse they look. If they look too bad, people will avoid them, which in turn will lower profits and annoy shareholders.

By dealing with this, I'm hoping that Square Enix will start paying more attention to customers. I've nothing against those banned for genuine reasons, but I do against those who get banned through no fault of their own.

It's perfectly within their right to ban anyone for no reason at all. They could pick a list of names with random.org and ban them if they really want to. And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Oh? Then the whole nail them to the wall thing threw me off.

And yet, people continue to buy Square products and continue to fund their online games to where they can continue these practices. So ... Thanks consumer *****, thanks a lot.

What really gets me is lolgaxe continues my thought and gets rated up while my post gets rated down.

Edited, Nov 19th 2010 6:55pm by ThePsychoticOne

There is an argument though that, if SE opt to ban for any reason at all, it would be classed as an unfair contract term which again is illegal here in the UK. SE is required to comply with the law of whatever company they do business in.

I'm not banned though, as I've mentioned.

However, I think there's an argument for the fact that service has been provided and agreed previously. It's a bit of a murky area in fairness.

It's really not. They aren't required to provide a service to anyone. They don't need a reason to refuse service to someone.

I'm afraid i'm not an expert on global laws. Could you give an example of places with such laws?

Edited, Nov 21st 2010 3:47am by ThePsychoticOne