This past week, the PS3 received a patch removing Linux support. This of course, upset many original PS3 owners because of the fact that they lost a feature that they paid for. One consumer was so enraged that he demanded a refund from Amazon.com after buying his console. And, guess what?
He got one.
European PS3 owner and NeoGAF forum moderator “iapetus” received more than $100 USD (Â£84.00) in credit when he filed an online complaint after the retailer sold him the console when the listing said that Linux was compatible. The problem is that this violates 2002 European law, Directive 1999/44/EC, because the product no longer performs as advertised.
“The goods must: comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods. Be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.”
Since the customer, “iapetus”, was not made aware of the removal of “Other OS” upon purchase, he was able to obtain a partial refund from the retailer, Amazon. Now, with all that considered, was this a legitimate complaint or just a stunt to bulk the company out of cash?
Though the law states that the retailer should be held responsible, is it really their fault? Sony is the one who removed the functionality in the first place. Furthermore, most people were not aware of the removal of Linux until the day of the update.
This by no means excludes the fact that Amazon did not update the listing, and continued to sell the PS3 without informing buyers that a feature was stripped from their console. But, that’s neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that in certain ways, “iapetus” was correct because he was “mal-informed.” Though, its improbable that this exploit would have worked elsewhere.
In America, this case would have been thrown out the door. Most likely due to the fact, that in the U.S. these laws are not as concrete and clear, unlike their European counter-part. As much as one wishes that they were, they’re not.
Nonetheless, this is a step in the right path for PS3 owners everywhere. Even if this refund was over a listing of the product, if people can still make cases against retailers stating that they paid for functionality that was never there, we might start to see similar cases pop up across the internet.
Be sure to tell us below, will you try to get a refund?