Man Sues Apple for Terminating Account with $25,000 in Purchases

Usual_suspect said:
I wonder but could he perchance have set-up up his account on a new device that he gave to someone (a relative, friend, etc.) that may have abused the ToS? Could they possibly have seen his account logged in and being used in multiple, let's say three locations: Cell, Home, and some other location that's different from the billing address simultaneously (different ISP possibly)? I don't know if any of this is possible, or if that scenario would be a violation of the ToS or if that would even work, then again I don't know the extent of Apple's control or snooping either.

If none of this is this case, I hope he wins.
Click to expand...
No. You as a single owner can sign into multiple devices if you want. It’s not uncommon for Apple users to have an iPad or a MacBook all of which use the same AppleID.

Even in the case of ‘sharing’ there is an Apple family sharing option to allow others in your family to gain access to content. Mostly music/movie purchases but other things as well. I don’t know all the details as I don’t use it, but a quick skim of their page on it would likely give all the most pertinent info.
 
deruberhanyok said:
No one could buy it again, and if you deleted the copy you bought, you couldn’t even re-download it.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, because Google Play (and, IIRC, Steam), will still let you redownload apps you'd bought even if they get pulled from the store.
 
deruberhanyok said:
don’t know that I’d call buying physical copies of console games “owning” then these days. Probably all the way back to later Xbox 360 and ps3 games. Once you got to the point where patches and dlc were dependent on the company running the storefront and providing the downloads, it becomes entirely up to MS, Sony, Nintendo as to whether you can still get your games.

I bought the TMNT arcade game release on Xbox 360 when it came out. But then Microsoft or whoever lost the distribution rights for it, so it got pulled from the store. No one could buy it again, and if you deleted the copy you bought, you couldn’t even re-download it. I’m not sure what I bought if that’s the case. It was more like an unlimited term rental that could be revoked at any time.




I’d agree with this. As far as owning digital media goes, it’s got to be a storefront where you can download a copy of whatever it is you’ve purchased - music, movie, game - and then play it without it needing to check in with any kind of service at all. Ever.

so we’ve got various music stores where you get MP3s or Flac files. That’s ownership I think. And sites like GoG for PC games.

there absolutely should be provisions baked into digital storefronts to account for this. If an account can be banned, then that ban should still allow you to log in and access all media you’ve “purchased.” Alternately the company needs to provide you a refund for everything they’ve taken away from you.

more likely they’ll change the terminology and say they’re no longer purchases for ownership but an access fee for a license or some other nonsense, and most people won’t ever notice.

Far as consoles go, I think the last gen where you could say you clearly owned the games were PS2 / GameCube / Xbox. As soon as everything started tying into online services and day one patches for game-breaking bugs became a thing, that was the end.
Click to expand...
MK trilogy got pulled and I could still download it the last time I fired up my Xbox 360.

Also my PSX, PS2, N64, sega, 32x, sega Cd, NES, SNES all have no updates. Xbox 360 and PS3 are mostly RPGs because they’re games I haven’t gotten around to.

Finally when the servers do come down and they eventually will I do believe someone will have the files to make the games work. It’s a big part of video game documentation for the future. If I can’t play COD:MW on my 360 I don’t really care as that was an online multiplayer game that people quit playing years ago (I know they did a remake I own it but I’m talking about the original).

That said I’d be surprised if my ME games or bioshock didn’t work. At least the first 2.

I’m also into supporting these guys for the reasons above.
https://www.themade.org/about
 
Nicklebon said:
While I personally agree with you 100%. The DMCA would vehemently disagree. The bastards won't be happy until fair use is dead and cold.
Click to expand...
It more of publishers and content owners. They want you to own nothing and have you pay a sub everything for the rest of your life.
 
1_rick Krazy925 yeah I was not thrilled by it. I had deleted it by accident when I was trying to make space on my 360 and learned about the de-listing.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...9-arcade/a65bc8ef-638f-494d-b014-f1ae01ca726e

And despite what people thought at the time, they’re just gone:

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-turtles/5b547110-e59c-487f-8385-b00858720c4a




Krazy925 said:
Also my PSX, PS2, N64, sega, 32x, sega Cd, NES, SNES all have no updates. Xbox 360 and PS3 are mostly RPGs because they’re games I haven’t gotten around to.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. Like I said, it started around the 360 / PS3. Earlier physical copies were pretty clear cases of ownership.

Krazy925 said:
Finally when the servers do come down and they eventually will I do believe someone will have the files to make the games work
Click to expand...

but “someone finding a way to make it work” is not the same thing as “you bought a game and have been provided the thing you bought to play whenever you like.”

it’s more of a “maybe I can download a working copy of this game I own from somewhere because the legit copy I own isn’t playable anymore.”

there’s a pretty big difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deruberhanyok said:
1_rick Krazy925 yeah I was not thrilled by it. I had deleted it by accident when I was trying to make space on my 360 and learned about the de-listing.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...9-arcade/a65bc8ef-638f-494d-b014-f1ae01ca726e

And despite what people thought at the time, they’re just gone:

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-turtles/5b547110-e59c-487f-8385-b00858720c4a






Well, sure. Like I said, it started around the 360 / PS3. Earlier physical copies were pretty clear cases of ownership.



but “someone finding a way to make it work” is not the same thing as “you bought a game and have been provided the thing you bought to play whenever you like.”

it’s more of a “maybe I can download a working copy of this game I own from somewhere because the legit copy I own isn’t playable anymore.”

there’s a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I have a brand new sealed copy of COD:BO from like 2010 and I bet it would be a pain to get it to work.

I don’t even have a disc drive on my PC lol

I try to stick to GOTY versions but I gotta be honest I own every AC, ME, bioshock, kingdom hearts and a lot of big titles. Ive never played any of them.

Funny enough I think I kept TMNT when I copied my vanilla 360 to the elite one 5 years ago. I wouldn’t know though because I haven’t even plugged in that Xbox since I bought it and copied the drive lol.

Im more annoyed at my Xbox games not being compatible with my 360. I’m not gonna buy an OG XBOX though.
 
When epic games decided to kill off Paragon (fps/moba hybrid), they refunded all of your purchases back into epic store credits I believe.

Just wanted to toss a stone from the epic side, although I do not forgive them for ruining Paragon once they brought tencent into the fold. It was fun when it was more fps and less moba.
 
If I recall correctly, Bioshock 2 used Games for Windows Live, which shut down.

I owned the game legitimately, but on launch it would check for GFWL servers (which were bust) and the game would crash.

I ended up having to find a cracked exe file just to play the game I legally owned.
 
1_rick said:
That's interesting, because Google Play (and, IIRC, Steam), will still let you redownload apps you'd bought even if they get pulled from the store.
Click to expand...

In my decade on Google Play this is true up to a certain time - eventually the app becomes delisted from the store even for purchasers when the app or the dev account isn't updated to comply with something new Google mandates or the app has an online kill switch/authentication so redownloading doesn't help anyway
 
if you don't have a physical copy of it that you can install and use right away, i am going to say you are not really the owner...

Apple needs to give him his purchased items or refund the purchase price
 
pillagenburn said:
That's what he gets for thinking he owns anything in the new normal.

The new normal where the corporate central authority can revoke your access at any moment for any reason or no reason.

I for one welcome to our new technocratic corporate overlords! More bug slurry please?
Click to expand...
Look at Mr. Moneybags over there with bug slurry, I can only afford the Algae paste.
 
1_rick said:
The closest brick-and-mortar analogy I can come up with is your son gets caught shoplifting from Best Buy, so they come in and take back the refrigerator, washer, dryer, and cell phones you bought there.

If Apple, Steam, whoever bans you, they should refund all the money they've taken from you.
Click to expand...
Unless it involves illegal actions taken by the customer, and as ordered by the court, I totally agree. It's not apples fucking money. It's his fucking money. And it's his fucking property. Apple is strictly it's custodian.

Here goes Apple again, and yet another big pile of shit that it doesn't need to.

On the other hand, I also feel that we are not getting the whole story here.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't know.

If it was a clear violation of the TOS that resulted in the termination of the account, it seems legit.

You have to agree to these terms in order to use the account, so I don't really see what legal leg he has to stand on.

I don't think we know enough about what happened to make that determination.

And yikes. $25k of apps/media? 😳
Click to expand...
I do. If Apple actually has written itself the right to do this, this is an abusive terms of service.
 
TechLarry said:
Unless it involves illegal actions taken by the customer, and as ordered by the court, I totally agree. It's not apples fucking money. It's his fucking money. And it's his fucking property. Apple is strictly it's custodian.

Here goes Apple again, and yet another big pile of shit that it doesn't need to.

On the other hand, I also feel that we are not getting the whole story here.
Click to expand...
You're right... many people want this guy to be a martyr to fit their existing anti-Apple narrative, and I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. Whatever Apple's TOS are like, it's still pretty rare for the company to give someone the boot this way. I doubt this man just committed a minor infraction.

To be clear: I do think we need to reconsider how we handle digital purchases, just that we shouldn't rush to declare this a horrible injustice.
 
Aurelius said:
You're right... many people want this guy to be a martyr to fit their existing anti-Apple narrative, and I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. Whatever Apple's TOS are like, it's still pretty rare for the company to give someone the boot this way. I doubt this man just committed a minor infraction.

To be clear: I do think we need to reconsider how we handle digital purchases, just that we shouldn't rush to declare this a horrible injustice.
Click to expand...
Nah Apple just randomly bans people that spend that kinda scratch on their store. It's part of the culture or something.

Even though it makes shit sense from a business perspective Apple must be doing it because they can't do anything right /s

I'm still under the impression the guy was probably using stolen/fraudulent iTunes giftcards. I really want to see how this one shakes out.
 
Krazy925 said:
Nah Apple just randomly bans people that spend that kinda scratch on their store. It's part of the culture or something.

Even though it makes shit sense from a business perspective Apple must be doing it because they can't do anything right /s

I'm still under the impression the guy was probably using stolen/fraudulent iTunes giftcards. I really want to see how this one shakes out.
Click to expand...
This guy is in the news because he’s trying to sue but Apple has recently banned thousands of accounts in a crack down on accounts that have redeemed a large number of iTunes cards obtained through scams. Maybe he’s an unfortunate victim and he was unknowingly purchasing stolen cards but I doubt it.
 
Lakados said:
This guy is in the news because he’s trying to sue but Apple has recently banned thousands of accounts in a crack down on accounts that have redeemed a large number of iTunes cards obtained through scams. Maybe he’s an unfortunate victim and he was unknowingly purchasing stolen cards but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
He innocently bought $25k in iTunes gift cards lol.

People wanna grab their pitch forks before the actual information is revealed.
 
Krazy925 said:
He innocently bought $25k in iTunes gift cards lol.

People wanna grab their pitch forks before the actual information is revealed.
Click to expand...
Honestly, probably still worthy enough to take Apple to court. Firstly because Apple didn't tell him what he's done, and secondly because Apple has condemned someone who bought the cards and not the people that sold them. He probably knew that something wasn't right about those cards but it really wasn't his responsibility.
 
DukenukemX said:
Honestly, probably still worthy enough to take Apple to court. Firstly because Apple didn't tell him what he's done, and secondly because Apple has condemned someone who bought the cards and not the people that sold them. He probably knew that something wasn't right about those cards but it really wasn't his responsibility.
Click to expand...
Ehhh according to him Apple didn’t warn him.

My hope (if I was him) would be Apple would settle. $25k is a lot of money to us. Apples legal department probably doesn’t file anything for less than 10x that amount.

You’re basing that on a one sided court filing. I’ll keep my eye on this as it works it’s way around because I do strongly suspect there was probably some kind of infraction system. I also doubt that someone buying stolen iTunes gift cards would be shocked to find out they’re stolen when you’re getting them for way below market price.
 
Aurelius said:
You're right... many people want this guy to be a martyr to fit their existing anti-Apple narrative, and I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. Whatever Apple's TOS are like, it's still pretty rare for the company to give someone the boot this way. I doubt this man just committed a minor infraction.

To be clear: I do think we need to reconsider how we handle digital purchases, just that we shouldn't rush to declare this a horrible injustice.
Click to expand...
We have no choice in how digital purchases are handle. Companies been training people to make this the new normal. They want you to own nothing and pay a recurring subscription fee for the right to use their product. Ffs cars are starting to come with subs to turn on features.
 
vegeta535 said:
We have no choice in how digital purchases are handle. Companies been training people to make this the new normal. They want you to own nothing and pay a recurring subscription fee for the right to use their product. Ffs cars are starting to come with subs to turn on features.
Click to expand...
Subscriptions to me are fine if they offer things you couldn't realistically get with purchases. I know I don't own my music, but there's no way I'm going to spend a hundred-plus each month just making sure I have all the albums and singles I want to listen to. And if it's a service that costs significant money to operate on a sustained basis... well, one-and-done payments aren't always easy to justify.

However, I do think some companies are trying to milk subscriptions unnecessarily. Adobe and Microsoft in particular are charging for software that used to be tied to single purchases, and in some cases still is. There are some benefits to subscriptions (always having the latest version, cloud storage, that sort of thing), but it really boils down to "steady, recurring revenue looks much better on our balance sheets."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top