Apple Tweaks Taiwanese App Store Terms to Formalize 7-Day Return Policy

[JAT]

Well, it's amazing then that Amazon's Kindle return policy has not hurt the Kindle store... You have more than enough time to read a book the size of the bible and can still get a full refund for it.

The fact simply is that Apple's "no refunds" policy is extraordinarily customer hostile and that every country should have laws that protect the consumers in a similar way as Taiwan obviously does it.

Or maybe the book buying crowd has a different ethical viewpoint than the video game buying crowd.

 

[puma25uk]

The regulations (here) expressly exclude software unless sold in a sealed package. See Regulation 13(1)(d).

That interpretation is wrong. The actual text reads:

13.—(1) Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer will not have the right to cancel
the contract by giving notice of cancellation pursuant to regulation 10 in respect of contracts— [...] for the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer;

Meaning the onus is on breaking the seal of a sealed software package. It does not say anything about software sold unsealed (which the legislators maybe did not foresee back in 2000)

So I guess the question then is: how do you unseal a download?

It is easy to click on purchase by accident, but not that easy to unwrap a PS3 game accidentally... All I'm saying is that, if exposed correctly in a legal setting, that clause does not apply because there is no seal to break in the first place.

Anyway, since the whole Apple App Store is about control and use of iTunes, can't they implement a kill switch like Google? Google removed several rogue apps from Android devices, Apple could do the same for refunds. That would be some admin to justify their 30% cut, instil confidence in the purchase experience, and help developers sell higher-priced apps.

 

[iStudentUK]

Meaning the onus is on breaking the seal of a sealed software package. It does not say anything about software sold unsealed (which the legislators maybe did not foresee back in 2000)

I disagree- the onus is not on the opening, but rather on the seal being there in the first place to see whether the software has been used. Use the purposive rule of interpretation (contrary to popular belief laws are not always read literally). The purpose of that clause is to protect the retailer from people purchasing software, copying it, and then returning it. For this reason downloaded software should also fall into this exception as there is no seal in the first place, so the retailer still can't tell if the software is still installed or not.

It is quite common to see terms online stating something like "software that is unsealed by the computer immediately on purchase is exempt under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000". However, I don't know if those terms have ever been challenged.


I suppose it may be possible to electronically seal software in some way. For example, making registration compulsory and so being able to tell when it is first installed, allowing the distance selling regs to come into play. However, I doubt consumers would like this hassle very much.