kohlrak: ... in reality they "got this game at an authorized seller" (amazon in this case) and Bethesda didn't honor the code (even though the reality is different, it's impossible for bethesda to trace)....
Trilarion: Did Bethesda not honor the code in this case? Is fraud even relevant for this single case here?
We don't know, because the guy didn't sell the game. If he had, we still wouldn't know, because it wouldn't showed up in an entirely differently labeled story: "Bethesda doesn't replace DLC codes missing in original packaging." That is, if we assume he's a scumbag, which he might be, but we don't know. Frankly, we don't know all the details here, but Bethesda's the more reasonable one in this case.
Again the law probably already has everything in place to deal with fraud between private sellers and buyers. Sometimes it's a bit behind but not that much behind. If you bought something from someone and it's not functioning as expected when buying, you can undo the transaction. That should work reasonably well, especially when having someone like Amazon as middlemen with more power to persuade the seller to comply. Don't see where Bethesda comes into play except maybe when their service is not reliable enough or in any case that would be a problem between Bethesda and the seller not between Bethesda and the buyer.
Right, but theory and practice are two different things. In reality, no one ever goes after gamestop for missing codes, right? Like, it's even been brought up in this topic that this is a known issue, but how many people have taken gamestop to task? Has anyone tried? I'm quite curious, actually. Meanwhile, when all those avenues fail, if you still want what you paid for, you have to go after the wrong guy, which might give in. In this case, Bethesda. Bethesda is getting a little sick of this, so they have a legal team out there trying to prevent this issue.
It's kind of like how the teacher always punishes the kid who "hits back" because the first kid is going to bully regardless of punishment, but the kid who hits back only hit back because they got punished for being, so you know they'll not hit back again if they get punished for hitting back (effectively, the teacher can "keep the peace" and not deal with the situation as long as the kid doesn't hit back when he hits). The only way to solve the problem is to have your kid hurt the bully enough that the bully moves on to another kid, but not in a way that gets the parents involved. See, the bully hurts someone, the teacher's trying to pass the buck, and the victim is supposed to quietly take it, so the victim would be smart to prevent the bully from acting in the first place: So Bethesda (the usual victim) is going after scam artists (and innocents who appear to be bullies) to prevent the customer (teacher) from dishing out the punishment (bad publicity).
In short it should go like this:
Seller buys X from Bethesda
Buyer buys X from Seller
Buyer tests X (if OK, then end here)
Buyer returns X to Seller, gets money back
Seller returns X to Bethesda, may get money back (I really don't care about that)
That's the flow that the law should support regardless of any other circumstances or whether the product is physical, digital or in any other form. If however, seller and buyer are in different jurisdictions then problems can arise in case of a dispute. I would recommend to simply not buy then.
Take home message: Check origin of any seller you buy from. Only buy from sellers within your jurisdiction that you trust.
More than jurisdiction:
SellerA buys X from Bethesda
SellerB buys X from SellerA
SellerB holds onto it for a while, maybe messing with it, maybe not, we can't know because there's no real way of guaranteeing this without expensive stickers or something (which i think Nintendo did once)
Buyer buys it from SellerB
Buyer tries to get codes from SellerB
SellerB is either guilty and plays dumb, or is innocent, and we can't really know for sure, but passes the buck to SellerA or Bethesda
SellerA has policy where they're just the middle-man, whether they tampered or not (gamestop), and does what SellerB does and passes the buck
Bethesda curbs to prevent topics about not being able to hold up their end of the bargin and giving what they promised, not knowing whether it was SellerA, SellerB, or the Buyer who lied, and thus doesn't have a clue how to fix the problem to prevent it in the future, assuming they even get told about SellerB
EDIT: Essentially, Bethesda can't really get rid of SellerA, but they know they can go after SellerB to narrow the problem down, because they're sick of being held hostage by the Buyer