Software licences have been held to be “goods” under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196. The case also clarified the position of “choice of law” clauses and highlighted the difficulties of contracting out of ACL consumer guarantees.
The alleged breaches of the ACL
Valve Corporation (Valve) operates Steam, a popular online platform for the distribution of computer games. In order to use Steam, customers are required to accept the terms of the Steam Subscriber Agreement that attempts to exclude any warranty as to the merchantability of the software, and the right to any refunds or compensation, even if the software is faulty.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Valve alleging that such provisions contravened sections 18(1) and 29(1)(m) of the ACL.
Valve argued that the ACL did not apply because:
- it was a foreign entity and did not “carry on business in Australia” under section 5(1)(g) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA);
- the law of Washington State applied due to a “choice of law” provision in the Steam Subscriber Agreement; and
- the issue of software licences did not constitute a “supply of goods” under section 4(1) of the CCA.
The judgement of the Federal Court
Valve’s arguments were dismissed, with the Court finding that:
- Valve did conduct business in Australia, as it had cached copies of the software on Australian servers, engaged Australian agents in its supply chain, and the relevant customer relationships and transactions had occurred in Australia;
- the ACL continued to apply despite the “choice of law” provision in the Steam Subscriber Agreement; and
- supplying software downloads was a “supply of goods” under section 4(1) of the CCA.
Therefore, the statutory consumer guarantees under the ACL (including that goods must be “fit for purpose” and “of acceptable quality”) applied to Valve’s supply of software licences via Steam. Valve had breached the ACL by purporting to exclude these consumer guarantees and refuse refunds to its consumers in the Steam Subscriber Agreement.
The Federal Court ordered Valve to pay a $3 million fine and cover 75% of the ACCC’s legal costs. Valve was also ordered to undertake a compliance program and publish Consumer Rights Notices regarding Australian consumers’ rights.
Takeaways
The case highlights that consumer guarantees cannot be excluded, restricted or modified, and serves as a reminder that all traders, even those who are based overseas, that supply goods and services to Australian consumers, should seek legal advice to ensure that their contractual terms comply with the ACL.
Links and further references
Cases
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196 – Principal liability
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 7) [2016] FCA 1553 – Corrective orders
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 8) [2016] FCA 1584 – Costs
Other links
Australian Consumer Law: Business and the ACL
Further information about Australian Consumer Law
If you need assistance determining whether that your online business complies with the ACL, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about Australian Consumer Law
-
Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises
The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…
-
IP Australia adopts Madrid Goods and Services list
From 26 March 2024, IP Australia has implemented the internationally recognised Madrid Goods and Services list (Madrid List), replacing the AU Goods and Services Picklist.[1] The adoption of the Madrid List comes as Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) seeks to align the Australian classification standards with the other intellectual property offices around the world.
-
Use of the © (copyright) symbol
It is something that is often overlooked, however it is considered best practice to add a copyright statement and the little © symbol (Copyright Statement) on any literary or artistic works (Works) that a business publishes and asserts that it owns. Under Australian law, the “material form” of all original Works is automatically protected by…
-
IP Australia guidelines for trade mark classification
There has been a surge in trade mark applications in the digital space, notably concerning virtual goods, virtual environments such as the metaverse, NFTs, and the blockchain according to observations made by IP Australia. This article discusses the things to consider when selecting the classification(s) for virtual goods and services when filing an application for…
-
Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright infringement lawsuit
This article examines the legal test for copyright infringement in Australia, using Ed Sheeran’s Court case in the UK as an example. Find out how the Courts determine when a song is a copy of another and what the implications are for musicians.
-
Australian Court: AI can’t be “inventor” in Australian patent
The Federal Court of Australia has made a groundbreaking ruling on the patentability of works created by Artificial Intelligence. Explore the implications of this decision and what it could mean for the future of patent law.
