Page:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3).pdf/76

 254 Thirdly, the expression "applicable law" is not defined in the SSA. A reasonable consumer, even though reading the SSA with the knowledge that it is expressed to the world at large, would not know whether the expression "applicable law" meant the law of a local jurisdiction.

255 Fourthly, the qualification applied only to subclause A and not to subclause C.

256 Although the qualification might, as a matter of legal construction, have had the effect, by implication, that the representations were not false as a matter of strict legal construction (a point on which I received limited legal argument), each of the two pleaded representations was misleading.

Representation 4 (in the 2011–2013 and 2013–2014 Steam Refund Policy) 553, 555, 349

257 The fourth alleged representation is that, from about 1 January 2011, a consumer had no entitlement to a refund for digitally downloaded video games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or through the Steam Client (No Refund Policy Representation).

258 From 1 January 2011 to July 2014, the Steam website included the following statements:

259 There is no evidence that any consumer read this Steam Refund policy. However, the Steam Refund Policy was easily accessible and some consumers were likely to have viewed it if they had problems with games. I do not conclude that it is likely that this would have occurred on many occasions. The general accessibility of the Steam Refund Policy can be seen by a specific link "Steam Refund Policy" on the Steam Support section of Steam's website concerned with "General Purchasing Questions" (p 347).

260 If an inference from the statements could be drawn by a reasonable consumer that Valve was representing a lack of entitlement to a refund, then this representation was misleading for the