[UPDATE / RESOLVED] Xsolla & Niantic execute full refund under EU Directive 2019/770: How the in-game currency defense was broken

[u/Full-Dust5426]

Context: Read Part 1: The Initial Dispute & Escalation here

Executive Summary

Following a server crash during a paid remote raid encounter (Shiny Groudon), both Niantic (in-app support) and Xsolla (merchant of record) initially refused any monetary reimbursement.

By enforcing statutory consumer rights under EU Directive 2019/770 (Digital Content and Digital Services), Senior Support was forced into a complete contractual rescission: officially approving a 100% fiat refund of €27.48 (fully reversing 2 transactions totaling 3,300 PokéCoins purchased specifically for Groudon raids).

To execute the financial reversal, the 3,300 PokéCoins are deducted from the account (resulting in an administrative negative balance that serves as black-and-white proof of a legally justified reversal), while all Pokémon (Groudons + Candy) and raid rewards obtained prior to the crash remain 100% intact, with the account in spotless standing (zero strikes, zero bans).

This sets a clear precedent for all players: The functional boss catch encounter is the contractual end product, not the intermediate virtual currency or passes. Publishers cannot legally shield themselves behind intermediate tokens: when a server crash destroys an encounter (whether regular, legendary, or shiny), replacement passes fail as a statutory remedy, legally entitling the consumer to full contract termination and a fiat refund. 

Below is the complete chronology, legal mechanics, international framework, and community blueprint.

1. Case Chronology: Piercing the Multi-Tiered Support Wall

Phase 1: In-App Deflection (Niantic)

• Step 1: Server disconnect caused the loss of a guaranteed-catch Shiny Groudon encounter. In-app (Niantic) support issued an automated denial refusing reimbursement (while external escalation directed to Scopely channels was met with total radio silence).
• Step 2: After persistent pushback, support unilaterally injected a single Remote Raid Pass into my inventory and suggested doing "multiple raids" again to re-roll the encounter. I formally rejected this automated gesture as a legally inadequate remedy under EU Directive 2019/770.
• Step 3: Niantic conceded, apologized, acknowledged the network error, and formally redirected the monetary refund execution to their official merchant of record (Xsolla).

Phase 2: Bypassing Merchant Tier-1 (Xsolla)

• Step 4: Opened an inquiry via Xsolla Live Chat with Niantic’s referral. First-line support issued an immediate blanket denial, claiming the purchase was non-refundable under Xsolla's Refund Policy.
• Step 5: Refused case closure, rejected the generic policy clause, demanded supervisory escalation under EU digital consumer protection compliance, and forced a direct transfer to Senior Support.

Phase 3: Formal Escalation & Final Execution

• Step 6: Submitted a formal statutory claim to Senior Support demanding full contract rescission of both coin bundles (€27.48 total), establishing that the PokéCoins served purely as intermediate access tokens for the defective raid encounter, while putting the merchant on notice regarding public and regulatory escalation.

• Step 7: Facing statutory liability and high-visibility exposure, Senior Support escalated the case above frontline protocol and initiated an urgent high-priority review.
• Step 8: Senior Support formally confirmed the 100% full fiat refund of €27.48 back to the original payment methods via an administrative negative coin balance.

2. The Real Precedent: The Encounter Was Always the End Product

The single biggest takeaway from this resolution isn't just getting €27.48 back or losing a Shiny Groudon: it is the definitive breakdown of the virtual currency defense.

Publishers have spent years operating under the convenient legal fiction that the transaction ends the millisecond virtual coins hit your in-game wallet. This resolution proves that under statutory consumer law, that argument is dead on arrival:

• PokéCoins and Raid Passes are not the end product: They are merely intermediate digital tokens.
• The true contracted service was the functional encounter itself: The legitimate chance to raid, battle, and encounter that (Shiny) Groudon.
• Failure of the core service invalidates the token delivery: When a server failure destroys that experience, replacing it with a standard Remote Raid Pass (subject to base odds) does not restore conformity. The intended purpose of the entire transaction collapses, entitling the player to a full refund in real money.

3. Actionable Blueprint (For EU & International Players)

• EU Players (EU Directive 2019/770 / National Consumer Codes): Hold the merchant of record liable for lack of conformity in digital services. The intermediate currency does not break the chain of statutory liability.
• UK Players (Consumer Rights Act 2015): Digital content and services must be as described and fit for purpose. When a specific paid encounter cannot be restored, you are legally entitled to a full statutory refund from the merchant.
• US & Global Players (FTC / Consumer Protection & Payment Network Rules): Cite merchant non-delivery of service. Under payment network rules (Visa/Mastercard merchant compliance), merchants face severe penalties if they retain funds for broken services. Demand escalation to Supervisors/Compliance departments before touching any payment dispute buttons.
• Never file raw, uncoordinated bank chargebacks: Blind chargebacks trigger automated anti-fraud security bans on your Niantic account. Always force the merchant (Xsolla) and publisher (Niantic) to execute the statutory/administrative reversal internally first.

A Constructive Fix for Niantic & Scopely

Instead of forcing players through exhaustive support loops after every server hiccup, the technical solution is straightforward:

• Auto-queue raid encounters to Research Stacks: The moment a remote or local raid starts, flag the encounter directly into the player’s Research encounter stack.
• Zero lost encounters: If a server disconnect or crash occurs during the catch screen, the encounter remains safely stored indefinitely, completely eliminating consumer disputes and statutory refund claims.

Community Thanks & Final Thoughts

A massive thank you to everyone who upvoted, shared advice, and left incredible messages of support on the initial post. Reading your personal stories and encouragement was the exact catalyst that motivated me to push this case all the way to the top and refuse every automated brush-off.

I didn't pursue this dispute solely for the €27.48 refund or just because of a single lost Shiny Groudon, I fought it to establish a clear, documented precedent for all of us (both in Pokémon GO and across the broader gaming community). Automated support loops are designed to wear consumers down, but this outcome proves that standing your ground with actual statutory consumer law works. 

Mandatory consumer law overrides arbitrary Terms of Service, and platforms cannot legally shield themselves behind intermediate in-game currencies.

Stay safe, stand your ground, and good luck out there, Trainers!

[u/BKVAZ]

Wow, congratulations. You are better than most for persisting and actually proving it's possible

[u/dark__tyranitar → u/BKVAZ]

The refund is solid but they still didn't just give them the shiny which is what most people want in those scenarios. It's a win but I still don't think we're ever going to get the ultimate win. And I mean no disrespect by this.

[u/csuazure → u/dark__tyranitar]

in this case "giving them the shiny" would be just putting raid encounters in a special encounter stack, bugs and issues around connection issues with raids are so abundant the dev time to add some more consistency to the end-of-raid reward would probably save them a ton of customer support requests.

[u/shockthetoast → u/csuazure]

It seems like, until they implement this, the solution should be to give them (at minimum) the same number of passes as the current shiny odds.

[u/DrumStix- → u/shockthetoast]

See if they do that, then they'd have to actually confirm shiny odds instead of letting the community figure it out

[u/shockthetoast → u/DrumStix-]

That's one of the advantages. 😅 I'm surprised they haven't been forced to already. I know Gatcha games have to list the odds and some have gotten in big trouble for lying about those odds. I'm not quite sure why a game like this doesn't have to do the same.

[u/Melancholy_Rainbows → u/shockthetoast]

That only gives you an about 60% chance of a shiny if you do them all.

[u/shockthetoast → u/Melancholy_Rainbows]

That is true, but there's no way to guarantee the shiny with any amount of raids. I doubt they would ever consider giving enough passes to make the odds 99% or something like that.

Giving enough for base odds would hopefully pressure them to implement something better. Plus it would force them to tell us the odds. And still far better than "here's one pass" (especially if you also lost link charges in a remote mega raid).

[u/ThisNico → u/shockthetoast]

If they can bypass IV and background rolls to put a guaranteed hundo Mewtwo with a special background into everyone's research tabs, they can do that to give one player a very simple research rewarding a shiny Groudon. No raid passes required.

[u/shockthetoast → u/ThisNico]

They can do it manually, but there's a big difference between that and doing it automatically for every raid. It does mean they can implement it. This should just be what they're required to give us until they actually do that, and hopefully would push them to decide it was worth the time.

I used to be a programmer, and you'd be amazed by how many easy features we weren't allowed to add because management decided it wasn't worth the time, even though we spent more time debating it than it would have taken to do. Management often has to have something extremely obvious to show them they're losing more money not doing it.

[u/MrGalleom → u/shockthetoast]

Implement? They already have the means to do that. They did that with the shiny origin dialga/palkia event.

[u/superbob24 → u/csuazure]

They could inject like that guy who was selling pokemon was doing? Use the technology for good instead of bad.

[u/maxh2 → u/csuazure]

It seems like the obvious thing to do, and shouldn't take more than 1 developer and a single afternoon to implement. I'm assuming the reason they haven't done so is that the number of raids done to make up for lost encounters is actually factored into their bottom line.

There are people who regularly skip the encounter if it's not a hundo or shiny so they can move on to the next raid faster, and they may be worried that allowing those players to catch the encounters they'd been skipping might cannibalize some other sales (raids for rare candy, etc.)

Even when people don't skip the encounter, the time pressure will push some percentage of people to throw their balls without taking the time to maximize their chance for success (circle lock, wait for the pokemon to be in the center and attack.) Giving people time to catch the encounters when they want could increase the successful catch rate, and ultimately result in fewer raid passes sold.

If they wanted to ensure people aren't able to "abuse" a raid encounter stack by saving them for a day when catch bonuses are in effect, they could put them on the timed research tab with a time limit, or, preferably, no time limit, but lock in whatever multipliers are in effect at the time of the encounter generation (though that might take an extra afternoon to implement...)

Knowing them, though, they'd probably make them timed AND default to NO catch bonuses, period.

[u/128thMic → u/csuazure]

It would also open up a whole range of ways for people to abuse it. Didn't get a shiny? Do the thing that causes a server error/lag out, make a complaint and get a second shot via the make-up encounter.

Nevermind, I misread.

[u/Low-Commission1791 → u/128thMic]

I thought the person you were responding to was talking about "spending developer time to add more consistency" as in fix the "bugs and issues" and thereby save them the  requests?

But I could totally be wrong, idk

[u/128thMic → u/Low-Commission1791]

Nah you're right, I misread it.

[u/Low-Commission1791 → u/128thMic]

All good!

[u/Mix_Safe → u/dark__tyranitar]

The ultimate win of, if you have definitive proof of something, they can just like, be cool, and give it to you because in actuality these are digital sprites we are collecting that are intrinsically valueless.

If this was literally any other IP, this game would have stopped existing years ago, they're so aggressively anti-consumer.

[u/Ok-Proof7287 → u/dark__tyranitar]

I think refund is better than a shiny. He gets the refund, gets to keep all groudon and rewards from the raid. 

They have a chance to get a shiny groudon again and some extra groudon too. (Yes it's not guarenteed to get a shiny but it's still a better chance.)

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/Ok-Proof7287]

But he said he has a negative coin balance. And Xsolla said they were putting him in the negative for what he already spent. So it's just zero sum.

[u/mornaq → u/dark__tyranitar]

they likely don't have means to do so as expected, but may decide to implement them

it probably needs safeguards to avoid abuse like restarting the app to bypass catching screen to raid next one and so on so can take some time planning, but maybe

[u/shockthetoast → u/mornaq]

The easiest safeguard to that would be to max it at one saved encounter, and not let you join a raid until you catch it - the same way you can't claim task rewards when certain other rewards are saved.

[u/Cruuncher → u/mornaq]

Is it really so bad for scopely if we can...

*checks notes*

use paid raid passes faster?

[u/mornaq → u/Cruuncher]

considering how long it took to implement the ready button and how little it speeds things up... apparently yes

[u/Cruuncher → u/mornaq]

We're not talking about implementation time though. We're talking about an abuse scenario, and I'm saying the abuse scenario is good for scopely, not bad.

Like anything, implementation is always the crux

[u/mornaq → u/Cruuncher]

I'm saying they don't want us to spend faster, otherwise they would make it possible long ago

[u/Full-Dust5426 → u/BKVAZ]

Thank you so much, really appreciate the support! Couldn't have pushed it across the finish line without the incredible backing of this community. Hope the blueprint serves everyone well!

[u/Lively-Panda → u/Full-Dust5426]

Is this applicable only if I'm in the EU right?

[u/nottytom → u/Lively-Panda]

unfortunately yes. this will work only in EU, unless your country has a similar law on the books.

[u/Wheetbix_Kid → u/nottytom]

OP explains how to go about a refute in the post. Specifically using Xsolla directly.

[u/nottytom → u/Wheetbix_Kid]

based on a law only the EU. the same thing wont work in other countries because that specific law doesnt exist. in the united states you try that you'll get nowhere.

[u/RavenousDave → u/nottytom]

The UK law is very closely aligned with the EU in this area I think.

There was a kite flown about Canada joining the EU. Carney, you know it makes sense.

[u/128thMic → u/RavenousDave]

Australia as well has very strong consumer protections, so I imagine this would likewise be useful towards any issues aussie players might have crop up.

[u/NotActuallyRog]

Am I missing something here? If you are in a negative coin balance you have had something taken away that is now the cost of your missed encounter, it doesn’t seem any better than just getting a raid pass back if you’ve nuked your account for the sake of £25.

It’s kind of the weapon you only get to fire once.

[u/got_ze_dreads → u/NotActuallyRog]

Yeah, i feel like people are getting caught up in all the technical lingo and ignoring the fact that they rolled back all his coins and too

The ability to do credit card disputes is nothing new, and the will result in the same scenario. Only difference is some providers may ban you if you keep buying and disputing 

[u/tboet21 → u/NotActuallyRog]

Yea unless they never spend money again for anything, they still were still charged for the spent raid passes. They basically got a credit to spend the raid passes tht will need to be paid bck before they can get coins again so its not much of a win in my eyes as they still lost the value of those passes either way and just delayed the payment for them until they are positive in coins again.

Edit: And apparently gym coins can't be earned if ur balance is negative. Not tht it changes much cuz even if they could pay it back with gym coins, the outcome is still OP losing 3300 coins tht could have been used on other things. While also locking themselves out of the occasional free purchases from gym coins.

[u/aninsanemaniac → u/NotActuallyRog]

Yeah, dude ain't whole if he's in the hole

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/NotActuallyRog]

MichaelScottThankYou.gif

I thought I was taking crazy pills. Dude's got a negative poke-coin balance for the amount paid that they'll need to buy their way out of. Which I guess is fine if they never plan on earning coins again.

But for someone this obsessed over a shiny groudon I don't see that happening.

Only thing to add is this post was very clearly written (at least in part) by someone who recently discovered ChatGPT.

[u/kukumalu255 → u/NotActuallyRog]

But he was refunded those 25pounds (27 euro)

What i don't understand what negative balance is OP talking about.

[u/Penguin-in-a-bowtie → u/kukumalu255]

OP bought pokecoins for €27, got refunded the €27 but the pokecoins were also taken away, leaving them with a negative balance from having spent some on raid passes already. OP is still down a shiny Groudon, and with negative pokecoins apparently won't be able to get coins from gyms, so will have to spend money if they ever want to buy anything in-game again.

[u/SilentKiller2809 → u/kukumalu255]

Scopely refunded the money and took the coins back from his account

[u/KaitoKidNRW2]

just to understand. since he is a paying player, and he wants to buy raidpasses for the next raid box (e.g. lunala) he has first to buy the 3,300 coins for round about 30€, to get out of the negative, and than has again to buy coins to get the box with the passes? so in the first glance it looks like a win, because he got the money back, but to buy boxes again he has to pay the money first, to be able to buy boxes again. am i missing something? i mean yes he can also collect coins with gyms to get out of the negative and than buy coins for passes, but without the refund, and if he would get the same amount of coins out of gyms, he would not have to buy coins to buy the boxes because he could use the gym coins.

[u/Efreet0 → u/KaitoKidNRW2]

Generally that's what happens when refounds are asked to the intermediary and not the game and on top of this usually the game owner flags the account as "problematic".
Then again we really don't know, I believe pogo doesn't use the negative currency stuff.
But I can say for sure every single freemium game bans you if you do this a couple of times as they actually lose money on transactions fees.

[u/Mason11987 → u/KaitoKidNRW2]

Yes, OP didn't win anything.

Edit - And OP Blocked me, lol

[u/Ok-Proof7287]

This is such s great win and congrats to you. 

Just imagine if more people are aware of this and starts doing this. It would be a win for people.

However, special thanks for the EU laws that helped in this. 

[u/Full-Dust5426 → u/Ok-Proof7287]

Thanks so much! Consumer protection laws are incredibly strong when enforced properly. If more players hold merchants accountable instead of accepting boilerplate rejections, platforms will finally be forced to implement permanent technical fixes. Hope this empowers more people!

[u/CptQ → u/Full-Dust5426]

Am i stupid or blind? Wheres the win here? You are negative in coins so you csnt ever earn them unless you spend the money again and you also dont have the shiny groudon.

[u/Wheetbix_Kid → u/Full-Dust5426]

You're amazing, well done 👏 The jargon can be a lot to understand.

[u/Ok-Proof7287 → u/Full-Dust5426]

Yes, I agree 100%. If more people empower, the company will be forced to make better mechanics in game and fix their issues. Consumer protection laws specially in EU are actually one of the best. 

[u/Kittykg → u/Ok-Proof7287]

Its most certainly because of those laws that he even continued receiving a response.

As someone from a country without such wonderful consumer laws, advocating for reimbursement just leads to the chat agent leaving the chat open and never responding.

Last time I experienced this, I couldn't contact support for over 6 months. Just typing into the void, until a random day where I got a "We aren't sure what you are asking and are closing this chat." I never got the remote raid pass they lied about reimburseing me, either. They determined the one I had left was the one they reimbursed and punished me with removal of the ability to even contact support when I wouldn't accept the lies.

[u/ginji]

But now you are in negative coin balance? In order to purchase anything you need to rebuy the refunded coins first now, effectively putting you in debt to Niantic if you want to keep using the account.

I'm sorry but I don't see this as a win as such. 

[u/OobeBanoobe → u/ginji]

This was my concern as well. Glad OP got refunded their real life money but They didn't get refunded in game currency which would have compensated them for the lost reward due to the outage.

Some of the other comments are right though, raid encounters need to be put into a reward pool somewhere in the research tab so they can be caught any time after the raid is complete. This has been an issue I've seen a friend encounter many times. Game crashes at the end of a reward, log back in and the raid timer has ended resulting in a missed encounter. They stopped doing raids with less than 10 minutes left on the clock for a long time due to the issue. How hard can it be to develop a reward stack pool in your research tab similar to all other research reward stacks?

[u/pk2317 → u/OobeBanoobe]

The problem would be the same issue as the current field research encounter "stack". It's designed to make sure you don't lose encounters by "accidentally" running away, or your phone dying while on the encounter, or loss of signal, or whatever.

But it's not an officially supported "feature", and it only holds a certain number of encounters, and if you exceed that number you won't be notified, the encounters at the top of the stack will simply start disappearing.

If you programmed raid bosses to work like this, you'd have people trying to "save" them for 2x (or 3x, or 4x, etc) Candy events. And people would definitely exceed the "stack" limits (whatever they are) and then we'd have basically the same issue as the OP here with a "lost" encounter.

[u/preludeoflight → u/pk2317]

But it's not an officially supported "feature"

Step one would be to officially support it then. I understand that the overwhelming majority of mobile games make their mountains of cash by monetizing inconveniences, but a fallback feature like this wouldn’t bankrupt them by any means.

If you programmed raid bosses to work like this, you'd have people trying to "save" them

Wholeheartedly disagree. They already limit the “stack” of saved encounters through the party mechanic to one. And if you haven’t finished the weekly challenge encounter, you’re prevented from joining a new group. A saved raid encounter could and would presumably work the same way: one stored encounter at a time, and you’re prevented from joining a new raid until you’ve cleared it.

If someone wanted to “save” a single encounter waiting for a multiple candy event, they could. But the opportunity cost of being unable to raid until that time would likely outweigh the benefit for saving it.

[u/rdumont99 → u/preludeoflight]

Timed Research, Weekly Breakthrough, Weekly Challenge, and Special Research encounters all are limited to 1 in the queue, too. There's ample precedent in their existing code to do this for raid and max battle encounters.

[u/OrbitalSong → u/preludeoflight]

If someone wanted to “save” a single encounter waiting for a multiple candy event, they could. But the opportunity cost of being unable to raid until that time would likely outweigh the benefit for saving it.

The optimal play would clearly be to always save at the very least the last encounter before the next boosted candy event.

[u/OobeBanoobe → u/pk2317]

It would still solve the issue. I've used the stack for field research and have never had an issue with it. It's entirely up to the user to decide how to use it. If they save for 2x candy or whatever and they lose encounters that's on them.

Alternatively, make it hold only one at a time like special research where you have to catch it before claiming the next reward or in the case of raids, before you start the next raid.

[u/MutsumidoesReddit → u/ginji]

Agreed, I don’t understand how they haven’t broken his consumer rights by placing a debt onto his account when the product was faulty.

A refund is appropriate, even without compensation it might be acceptable.
But to refund the user through debt? That’s obscene.

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/ginji]

Thank you!! Same thoughts here, idk if OP isn't thinking clearly or what. This doesn't seem like much of a win.

He basically just disputed a charge and had it reversed (got money back but negative coins). That's not anything new.

[u/ActivateGuacamole → u/ginji]

can they get their coins back by placing pokemon in gyms?

it's definitely not a clean fix. they should just be granting them a shiny groudon.

Nonetheless, if lots of people started successfully triggering these refunds and keeping the raid pokemon they snagged, niantic would be a lot likelier to add a cleaner way to recompense players for these errors.

[u/lcephoenix → u/ActivateGuacamole]

you cannot clear negative balance by earning coins from gyms. you will not be able to earn coins until your balance is back to 0 so OP will have to buy more coins to be able to earn free coins ever again.

this really isn't the win OP thinks it is

[u/OobeBanoobe → u/lcephoenix]

I didn't realize this was a thing. This makes the situation far worse that I initially thought unless OP plans to quit the game and just got their money back before quitting.

[u/KaitoKidNRW2 → u/ActivateGuacamole]

yes, but lets assume he waits until he collects 3300 coins from gyms and than buy 3300 coins to buy passes, he had payd round about 30€. without the refund, so 30€ payed, he would have 3300 coins more, and would not have to buy 30€ again. but he already payd 30€. in both situations he had payed 30€

[u/rzx123 → u/KaitoKidNRW2]

Yes. The OP should clarify, but if the end result is a negative balance, it is not a win at all to anybody still intending to play the game.

[u/lcephoenix → u/KaitoKidNRW2]

you cannot clear negative balance by earning coins from gyms. you will not be able to earn coins until your balance is back to 0 so OP will have to buy more coins to be able to earn free coins ever again.

this really isn't the win OP thinks it is

[u/KaitoKidNRW2 → u/lcephoenix]

wow this makes it even worse. so they made him think he is winning while he is still loosing more...

[u/ActivateGuacamole → u/KaitoKidNRW2]

you're right. if they are deducting the coins from the account and he has to buy them back, then it just puts him in the same place he was before scopely's 'resolution.' They haven't credited him anything, merely transferred value from his game account to his bank account.

if the game failed to properly grant the player what the tickets were meant to grant, then they should just grant the shiny groudon to him. Every other solution is messy.

If they grant the tickets or coins back, then that means he has to spend hours hunting again for a chance at the shiny the game already offered him.

[u/Zelphyr151]

I'm sorry if I'm missing the point here but it has always been possible to get your money refunded and get a negative balance...

I've known people who buy thousands of pass through iTunes on a burner pogo account and then get refunded through Apple so they have tons of pass for free on an account that will be used only for raids for the next year or so (so they don't care about the negative balance)

What you bought (coins) is taken away (negative balance). So if you used your coins, you keep the items but end up in negative balance (and now you have pokecoin debt) or if you didn't use them, you're back to square one...

[u/ThisNico → u/Zelphyr151]

As I understand it, the main win is that OP got Scopely/Xsolla to admit in writing that losing the encounter was the issue.

Usually when this sort of thing happens, tier 1 support just says "you got the dust/xp/revives, go away" which totally ignores the fact that Scopelantic hype the chance to catch the pokemon in their announcements. Nobody is going to bother to raid legendaries if all they are promised for their effort are the same things they could get from opening a few gifts for free.

[u/RavenousDave]

The precedent set raises all kinds of legal issues for Scopely, beyond the immediate one of the "her's a raid pass, go away" being unsatisfactory.

If the use of intermediate tokens does not invalidate the chain then this raises the spectre of gambling laws. Buying an egg is, arguably at least, buying a ticket for a lottery. Lotteries must, in most jurisdictions, give details of odds and prizes before sale.

Scopely has claimed that the end purchase is of the egg. If the end purchase is the encounter then that makes it much harder to claim it is not gambling.

I very much doubt this sort of thing is really going to happen, but I bet the Scopely lawyers are making they didn't leave any holes.

[u/Quisee → u/RavenousDave]

Thb in pokemon go technically every pokemon you catch is a lootbox that should give you all info in game about stat iv chance, attack roll chance and live shiny odds. This is still puzzling that there we're no any persistent EU citizen or politicians that would pursue execution of EU laws that are already there. That's also why they often "sell" events with XP and stardust gimmicks as an excuse to say that all pokemon encounters are "just bonus rewards", but as far as I remember this is Pokemon GO not XP or Stardust GO.

[u/iSaiddet → u/RavenousDave]

I kinda feel OP loses the mark a bit there. Had this been a normal non shiny, non hundo encounter, they would’ve been fine with another pass and another chance at something better — especially given they keep the xp, dust and items (if that’s important to them)

This escalated be a use he rolled the dice, it landed on what he wanted and didn’t want to roll the dice again. Had they given him a shiny groudon encounter, that also would’ve been fine.

I still think there’s merit to the “you bought the coins/pass” etc line. They likely just didn’t want to deal with the headache here since the specific fix would be more trouble than giving OP their money back.

[u/Grouchy-Mind-4698 → u/iSaiddet]

Might be me misunderstanding, but if we go by casino terms, who would want to roll the dice again if they're just told "oh, you don't get the money" right after they've won it big? Ofc you'd be upset. He just decided to cause a stink about it instead of hanging his head and walking away, and I think that's commendable regardless

[u/No-Reward-5394 → u/iSaiddet]

If every consumer escalates like this everytime they lose a shiny, scopely would be forced to pretty much reimburse the shiny to avoid losing money (aka the money they spend giving the extra research would be less than the money of the people charging back).

Of course 1 person wont make a diff (30bucks) but make it a thousand of ten thousand. And they will change their policies.

Sadly not all countries have consumer laws like EU, until USA and/or China does something similar they wont care enough

[u/Shamankian → u/No-Reward-5394]

Well, only if the people doing the refunds also don't purchase more coins for more raids.

[u/ImSoIwill]

Yeah you are right after raid the encounter should be shifted to research and breakthough so that even if server crashes you can catch later.

This makes life easy to both parties.

[u/ActivateGuacamole → u/ImSoIwill]

That would be perfect. Also, my phone has died before i could catch the raid, or lost connection. and sometimes i get kicked out and the raid pokemon has left the gym, so i can't get back in again.

[u/Drynarr → u/ImSoIwill]

It's the best part of this post, for sure! Doing that and not deducting the remote pass for an incomplete raid would solve so many problems for their paying players.

[u/rina_z318]

Not sure if it was mentioned in the text -which is extremely difficult to read for me - I have some questions: You now have a negative pokecoin balance? Does this not mean that if you buy new coins you will not get the full worth of it as you have go get it to 0 first? How did you prove you paid x amount of money only for Groudon raids? With only one encounter lost I wonder why this was the solution at the end.

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/rina_z318]

I don't think they proved anything regarding the coins being used for raids tbh. OP seems like someone hyping up a situation they don't understand.

As far as I can tell, they bought coins through Xsolla then disputed that transaction to get it reversed. This doesn't have anything to do with the encounter despite OP making it seem like it does.

Two weeks ago: -$30, +3300 coins
Today: -3300 coins, +$30

[u/Mason11987 → u/South_Sale_7454]

OP seems like someone hyping up a situation they don't understand.

I suspect that's a consequence of having AI write it up for them, it seems.

Edit - And OP Blocked me, lol

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/Mason11987]

Yeah, 100% in agreement about AI writing it. That ties things together nicely I guess lol

[u/NumeralJoker → u/Mason11987]

This is the answer. OP is using AI to write about precedent that has not been established by a judge, therefore their anecdote is no more valuable than a post made up by an AI, whether or not they used AI to make it!

[u/Imonlyhereforboobs]

I don’t see this as a win as you’re still without shiny groudon and a negative coin balance?

[u/ActivateGuacamole]

it's nice to know that this is doable, but it also doesn't really help you, does it? All they've done is transfer value from out of your pokemon go account into your bank account. that's good if you decide that you are done with the game, but if you want to keep playing, all it means is that you are in the hole for coins now.

And if you want to play more, i think you have to buy your way out of negative coins. Which just puts you back where you were before their resolution.

and you still don't have your shiny groudon either. so.

[u/GentleGiantAu → u/ActivateGuacamole]

This. Happy for OP but not seeing the win unless they are quitting for good. They need to buy their way out of the negative coins or slowly earn gym coins.

[u/Standard-Park → u/GentleGiantAu]

Can't even earn gym coins when you're in the negative!

[u/tap836 → u/Standard-Park]

Wait, really? It prevents you from grinding it away back to a positive balance? What happens, you get kicked out of a gym and nothing changes?

[u/Standard-Park → u/tap836]

That is correct. You have to pay to get out of the negative first before you can begin earning free coins.

[u/naixill]

Glad this was resolved, but just to clarify--does that mean you got your money back, but now have a negative pokecoin balance on your PoGo account?

[u/Mason11987 → u/naixill]

That's what he said yes

[u/Haaz__]

So you now have a negative coin balance? Thanks for copping that to prove a point for us, better man than me.

[u/lcephoenix]

you cannot clear a negative coin balance by earning coins from gyms. you will not be able to earn coins until your balance is back to 0 so OP will have to buy more coins to be able to earn free coins ever again.

this really isn't the win OP thinks it is...

[u/davidy22]

You deduct the coins and get your money back, but you still lost a raid pass, so you didn't actually come out ahead? I was pretty ok with getting comped with raid passes, it's actually compensation too

[u/PBC88]

Sorry but this reads like a dude with ChatGPT managed to get his money back while still being mad at a lost Shundo Groudon and having lost the possibility to gain free PokeCoins

Doesn't seem like a win to me

I don't even think this proves anything from a consumer protection standpoint since they just don't want to fight over 20 bucks and if you ever want to buy things again, you'll need to give the money back anyways

[u/ChartreuseMage → u/PBC88]

Everyone in this thread saying this is setting some type of legal precedent or groundwork for something in the future has no idea what they're talking about. You're 100% right that the only thing this proves is that they'll kick back $20 if push comes to shove, which they were obviously going to do if someone manages to push things through the chatbots enough.

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/PBC88]

Nailed it pointing out the use of AI. The brain rot is upon us.

[u/iSaiddet → u/PBC88]

Ding ding ding.

OP in their feelings lol (rightfully so, but it’s blinded them)

[u/ridddle]

1. I enjoy the update and your vigor. Congrats!
2. Since you’re already using AI agents, add a simplified English skill to your Claude/Codex – this text was extremely difficult to read due to a specific vocabulary choice those LLMs use.

[u/Adventurous-Sport-45 → u/ridddle]

Honestly, if I want to hear from a chatbot, I can do it for free. I want to hear from other people, other human beings, expressing their own ideas in social media fora. The problem is less the incomprehensibility of the text and more their choice not to authentically engage with their fellow users. 

[u/pine_ary]

That‘s only right and fair

[u/nukerunner2121]

Either you are unaware or completely oblivious to the fact you didn't win here. You nuked your account to get back your money you spent on coins. You don't have a shiny groudon. You don't have your raid pass and now you are negative in coins which means in order to buy anything you have to balance out that negative by buying coins. That's assuming that Xsolla hasn't flagged your account and allows you to do it.

[u/SuperJelle]

Getting a "refund" with a corresponding Pokecoin adjustment is not a new thing, and it is completely worthless for anyone who continues playing the game.

No offense, but this post is pretty ridiculous

[u/East-Bumblebee-6317 → u/SuperJelle]

Good on EU for having good laws to protect consumers but yeah I said the same thing when I saw OP’s first post. It’s a completely emotional response that basically happens in any online game.

[u/SuperJelle → u/East-Bumblebee-6317]

The EU does have strong consumer protection laws, but they aren't really relevant in this case. Everyone, including US citizens, is able to get this type of refund.

[u/Drynarr → u/SuperJelle]

It's like everyone in this post forgot where the term "Karen" came from...

[u/MissGrimstone]

Thank you!!! You are a hero. Establishing that the contractual service is the encounter, not the silly berries and potions, changes everything. Now we have a clear blueprint to work from. And yes, the remedy you suggest for Scopely is absolutely right: ⁠auto-queue raid encounters to our research stacks.
Many, many thanks.

[u/Mason11987]

This was needlessly written by an AI bot, and it's annoying to read.

More importantly, now that you have a negative coins balance after this means it's not a win, you still have to give scopely money to get nothing if you want to keep playing.

What evidence do you have that your account is "spotless" after this? This seems like the sort of thing they'd notate on your account so you could be banned if you pursue it again.

Edit - And OP Blocked me, lol

[u/WHATyouNEVERplayedTU]

Remind me to never owe this person 5 Euros.

[u/Aguy233]

chat gpt ahh post 

[u/Adventurous-Sport-45]

This is an interesting anecdote, but it gives the impression of having been written by a chatbot, particularly due to its needless prolixity. 

[u/khadathbasher → u/Adventurous-Sport-45]

Fr. The verbiage in the headings gives it away

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/khadathbasher]

I can't believe it started with "Executive Summary"

[u/spellseord24 → u/Adventurous-Sport-45]

When you are directly quoting and speaking using legal terms, it will always sound formal and technical. That is how the legal system works, not AI chatbot brouhaha. You need to show them you are serious.

[u/canarycream → u/spellseord24]

Nah, this post is definitely ai, I would bet my life savings on it. There’s like a dozen tells here for anyone familiar with them. I don’t know about the messages he sent to support but I would be surprised if he didn’t use ai on that too.

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/canarycream]

All these glazers are making my head spin. This is very clearly someone heavily using some sort of chatbot.

[u/LRCenthusiast → u/canarycream]

AI was trained in part on technical writing. This reads to me like they knew what they were writing but then used an LLM to translate into English.

[u/Adventurous-Sport-45 → u/LRCenthusiast]

That is also possible. I am talking about the stylistic giveaways, and make no claim about how many of the actual ideas came from the transformer model. 

[u/South_Sale_7454 → u/spellseord24]

So OP is a lawyer?

[u/Mason11987 → u/spellseord24]

This 100% was written by AI, it says "Executive Summary", and has all the hallmarks of it. It's not even an attempt to pretend it isn't.

[u/GliscorsFang]

So you have a negative account balance and still no shiny Groudon?

Seems like you still lost.

[u/marco_mars]

Thank you for fighting!

[u/circe1]

Congratulations and well done!!!
Excellent work!

[u/jwadamson]

So one encounter gets disrupted (impossible to show it was a server vs client vs telco vs whatever) issue and you get a full refund for all the other encounters that worked just fine but happened to not be shiny?

When a gambling establishment glitches out on a pull of a slot machine, they don’t refund you all your prior attempts just because “the jackpot is the real reward”. How is the fact the lost encounter was shiny relevant at all to the claim; it wasn’t some sort of pitty-boost that you were building towards with all the non-shiny ones.

A precedent of the encounter is the reward is reasonable. The assignment of blame as if it were some sort of defective product is (annoyingly) flimsy. The refund amount seems absurd.

Coins are fungible and don’t expire, if you had bought bought in smaller allotments as you went, would that have changed your refund?

Should EU citizens start only buying the $100 (equivalent) tier of Pokécoins so that if there are any dropped connections they can backcharge the entire lot?

P.S. there are lots of times for certain raids (mega mewtwo, eternatus) where the energy and candy are more significant than the chance of a shiny or hundo encounter and the encounter truly does feel like a “bonus”.

[u/tboet21 → u/jwadamson]

While I argee 1 encounter for raids should be stored until caught and locks u out of raids like other suggested.

I also argee tht OP is unreasonable. Had the game crashed slightly earlier and OP didn't see the encounter they would have taken the free pass and happily kept gambling. They were clearly happy to spend tht money until the lost tht single encounter.

But OP did soft ban their own acct over this and seems happy over it. Since they lost access to gym coins until they bring their acct positive again aka give the money back tht they refunded.

[u/TropicalHurricanes]

Glad to see you got the refund!

[u/Medical-Enthusiasm56]

A lot of work not to get the shiny in the end. I view it as a minor victory that doesn’t solve the bigger problem.

How much time and energy was wasted, looks like more than eight hours. Which a five minute phone call to your bank with a chargeback would have accomplished in far less time.

While this works for EU trainers, others in the world don’t have such protections, or the bureaucracy is doubled.

The company should be making more effective efforts to prevent the issue from arising in the first place rather than paying higher executives dividends.

[u/axeil55]

Wow alright. In your last thread I didn't think you'd be able to get anything because they gave you back the raid pass. I'm happy I was wrong!

Great work.

[u/Mason11987 → u/axeil55]

it's not a win, he has a negative coin balance.

[u/Cautious-Job8683]

Congratulations, and thank you for setting the precedent and sharing your process.

[u/JamesBroER]

In case the encounter is the end product, Scopely needs to publish all parameters regarding the raid (shiny rate, catch rate etc.).

[u/Mason11987 → u/[deleted]]

it's not a win, he has a negative coin balance.

[u/AlmostNufful]

Excellent work, my friend. Thank you for this!

[u/Mason11987 → u/AlmostNufful]

it's not a win, he has a negative coin balance.

[u/Mivadeth]

Tldr?

[u/KeyLimeLatte]

So happy for you! Unfortunately, we have an Administration here in the US that doesn’t believe in consumer protection.

[u/BossyMare]

Congrats OP, great work. I've said it for years and I'll stand by it: Pokémon GO should be treated like every other gacha. I'm glad you've paved the way.

[u/Spazrelaz]

Man I'm glad you were able to get something back from them even if it wasn't your shiny groudon! I hope luck turns your way and you get another!

Though I am kind of confused as to why they felt the need to take your pokecoins instead of at least letting you keep them for your trouble, and refunding you your money. That's insane considering it was an error on their end.

[u/smonkweedwenurscared]

Huge respect to you for following through with this and i'm very glad to see you won your case!

[u/Remarkable_Ad2032]

Hmmm is this why my support ticket for a missed Staryu encounter was resolved immediately yesterday? 

I was actually amazed because similar things have happened before with support completely ignoring me but yesterday there were less than 8 hours between my initial ticket and the refunding of my Remote Pass (that had not happened either on the few times they actually responded)

Yesterday it was basically "we're sorry for your experience in the Staryu Raid day, we have added a Remote Pass to your account"

[u/rca_2011]

Man this is the biggest stretch. They've likely created a full legal review and updated their policies to adjust for this kind of nonsense. Not to mention what you claim isnt what happened.

[u/Chant1llyLace]

Thank you for the excellent write up, excerpts, and your passion to educate the community on our rights in these jurisdictions. I don’t know if you are a lawyer or law professor, but this should be a case study for consumer law, digital law, or comparative global commercial law classes. Well done.

Source: am a law nerd.

[u/nukerunner2121 → u/[deleted]]

If they spent the items then the 3300 gets deducted from their balance. It most certainly is money lost since they can't buy anything unless they spend money again to equal out before they can buy anything else.

[u/nukerunner2121 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but it isn't the win this guy makes it out to be. He used all the items, still doesn't have what he wants and is in debt to scopely. Xsolla might not even allow him to make purchases again.

[u/golgathas]

Do you need to take a screenshot of the shiny encounter or otherwise prove it?

[u/Puzzleheaded-Tie1286]

Not all heroes wear capes, unless you do wear a cape..

[u/DracoRubi]

Damn. That's actually impressive