Via Wotlankor comes this sad tale:? an Eve Online player has been scammed by a gold seller/RMT trader for $19,000.? In a nutshell, a Danish player sought to use the services of OwnYourGame, and transferred nearly 20k via PayPal to the RMT company.? This was in exchange for a huge amount of ISK, the in-game currency utilized in Eve. OwnYourGame never ponied up any of the in-game money, and the Danish gamer got scammed.
The details on this one are a little sketchy.? First of all, RMT companies are notorious for ripping people off, but somehow our naive Dane sent them huge chunks of cash, repeatedly, over the course of 3 months.? During that time, he never received a single ISK in return.? After repeatedly being ripped, the player finally took his own bank to court (attempting some kind of charge back), and lost. ?
Although this is certainly a quirky cautionary tale, we decided to utilize the always amusing tactic of translating the original Danish court decision into English.? Here’s a snippet:
?stre Landsret has today pronounced a fundamental sentence about use by one VISA/Dankort for prepayment for an output bought over the Internet. The case is about, to what degree such a payment made with electronic money via the Internet-company PayPal can be back called for of short holder in relation to the shorting issue bank, because the bought output isn’t delivered. The consumers’ ombudsman has in his guidelines of December 16th 1996 concerning remote sales etc. in payment systems with debit cards decided that the bank has to make refund in such situations – so-called rank back, but ?stre Landsret got to that the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines didn’t find use in the involved situation.?
There’s more of this highly questionable translation after the jump.? 
There was speech about the lack of delivery of goods in the form of virtual outputs that the buyer had paid for and ordered with the game company OwnYourGame for delivery in the internetspil EVEonline. The payment had happened in connection with use by the buyer’s VISA/Dankort through PayPal, who is a purveyor of and arranges payments with electronic money. The virtual outputs, as if had an overall value of ca.100.000 DKK, were bought over a period in about 3 months at more rounds. When there after several reminders still didn’t happen delivery, the buyer made application for Nordea Bank Danmark A/S (”Nordea”), as if were an issuer of his VISA/Dankort, with request that Nordea made rank back in agreement with the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines.
Nordea announced that the payment for the virtual outputs had happened through PayPal, and that the payment therefore had happened with electronic money and not with a debit card. In the bank’s opinion the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines didn’t find therefore any use.
The buyer lodged a complaint after this with the Bank board of appeal that obliged the bank in a majority vote to pay for the money back. Nordea didn’t however wish to be bound of Pengeinstitutanken?vnet’s decision, and Forbrugerstyrelsen therefore brought in the case for K?benhavns Byret, as if referred the case to ?stre Landsret. During the High Court’s treatment the Consumers’ ombudsman as a biintervenient set in in support of the buyer, while PBS International A/S set in as a biintervenient in support of Nordea, which was represented by Finansr?det.
It was under the case among other things announced that VISA had entered into agreement with PayPal about the receipt of VISA-payments, but not about further-arranging VISA-payments. It was furthermore announced that VISA had not entered into agreement with the game company about the receipt of VISA-payments, and that the game company’s homepage, doesn’t contain a VISA-logo. The buyer could therefore only pay for the virtual outputs with his VISA/Dankort, if he paid through PayPal.
The Hight Court gave Nordea support under the case, as the law contrary to Pengeinstitutanken?vnet’s majority thought that the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines cannot be used in the concrete case. Nordea didn’t have therefore after these guidelines a duty to make rank back.
The Hight Court’s decision in the case is reasonable like this:
The consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines concerning remote sales etc. in payment systems with debit cards of December 16th 1996 are issued in pursuance by the then in force law about debit cards ?12 A, piece 2 (now the means of payment act’s ? 4, SIC paragraph 3) and the then in force marketing act’s ? 17 (now the marketing act’s ? 24).
It says in the wording in the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines pt. 1 that these find use in payment systems with debit cards. It’s furthermore assumed that there has to happen an updating of the guidelines, before these can apply to electronic payment systems without debit cards. As such a updating isn’t enacted, it must be presupposed of that the guidelines only apply to payments made in payment systems with debit cards.
Neither the consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines nor the legal text nor the remarks to law about debit cards, have defined the idea “payment system with debit cards more closely”.
The Hight Court however thinks that a natural understanding by the idea leads to that a payment system only includes the parties who apart from short issuer have entered into agreement with this about giving away, receiving or arranging a payment in connection with use of the debit card.
It’s under the case undisputed that the short issuer, VISA, hasn’t entered into a cashing agreement with OwnYourGame, and that OwnYourGame therefore isn’t entitled to receive payments, which are made with a VISA-card. It’s furthermore announced that VISA and PayPal have entered into a cashing agreement, but not a communication agreement, and that PayPal therefore is only entitled to receive payments, which are made with a VISA-card. Under these circumstances the High Court finds that the Consumers’ ombudsman’s guidelines, which have come about after negotiation with the involved parties, cannot be stretched out to be valid in comparison with a payment recipient, who isn’t included by the involved payment system.
They notice hereby that[Name] with his VISA-card has bought and managed to deliver E moneys of PayPal. That circumstance that PayPal through appointment with [name] have used the bought E moneys to pay for the outputs that he has bought from OwnYourGame, do not concern the visa system. The circumstance that there is a temporal connection between [name] buy from E moneys and this’s use for payment for outputs delivered by OwnYourGame, cannot lead to another result.
In consequence the High Court takes it off Finansr?det as a agent for Nordea Bank Danmark A/S closed acquittal assertion to consequence.
?stre Landsret, 3. department, case B222-07.
~~~
If you enjoyed this post, visit our illustrious Wandering Goblin main page. There’s lots more tomfoolery just like this. 
