The only permanent change is the blacklisting of the payment account/method used; all of the other restrictions either auto-expire after nine weeks or are immediately lifted if you elect to reverse the chargeback (not my image):
It is indeed not "fucking" hard. Don't willingly use a old credit card that is potentially not even yours and commit fraud. His parents didn't even know that he used it. He didn't even inform them when he willingly used an old credit card that he knew could potentially not be his
www.playstation.com
Obvs. The kid's like 7 and his dad knows absolutely zero about technology and put his card on the kid's account with zero restrictions or oversight. Whole thing was dumb from all angles.
^^^^^Sony has a web form to fill out to repay the charges due from chargebacks to reopen accounts.
How to reverse a PSN suspension for account debt
If your payment method has had a charge reversed on a PlayStation™Store purchase, this can result in your account being restricted from accessing PlayStation™Network (PSN).
Sorry but if that's the case, wouldn't you text/alert your mom that you are using her card?
I think everyone understands and accepts the severity of doing a chargeback, but there's no need to restrict the whole account.
Hell yeah brother, you gotta teach them kids how to take consequences, not teach them how to avoid them. 👏
Restricting purchases is enough to combat that particular behavior. You're not targeting real scammers by restricting their access to their library.
OP says he didn't know the card was his mother's, which honestly is a bit fishy to me that he knew CVV for it but couldn't remember were it came from and didn't seem bothered to find out the account for it when he would eventually have to pay for it?
There are better ways to handle it than to cut off all access to previously purchased games.
Then what are we talking about here? Because I don't see any relevant difference in semantics.
Wrong. They can always prevent you from having futur business with them. But they have no right to "take back" what you paid for legaly.
Yes, but why isn't restricting future purchases enough to combat that particular behavior?
Or just don't do a charge back and basically accuse a company of fraud. He should be able to work it out with customer service.
But the company in question (in this case SIE) even provides a way to contact them to restore the account. The legal challenge would be entirely moot, given this.
Here is where the problem lies in your assumption that you get full ownership of digital goods.
chargeback is the nuclear option with most vendors, it is the option you choose after negotiations with customer service etc. have failed. it is not the option you would use if you are merely dissatisfied with a purchase though it can be used this way. its function is to aid against fraud. in 99% of cases it would not just "happen", it is requested by the cardholder.
I can almost guarantee you they will have a mandatory arbitration clause in the tos. Which is far more anticonsumer than banning people over charge backs. If you guys want to get angry at corporations today, that's a better focus.
There are many scenarios where a chargeback can happen
sorry but you doing this gamer anger cluster bomb stuff doesn't change the actual thrust and function of the chargeback as well as the OP deciding to roll the dice on his PSN account because he either: knowingly used his parents credit card and lied on the internet about it or did it accidentally as he claims (which does not actually matter when a company nukes you for a chargeback).
It sounds like your stance is based on the mere assumption "I'm sure they have their reasons" and if that's the core to your argument, fine, we can leave it at just that.
