Some rules you can break, others you cannot. In consumer rights, there are certain rules you cannot break. What muddies this however is the fact that it is not European law per se that applies. While I am not an expert in consumer laws per se, I believe that it is typical for an online store to state what law applies. If you say that in the US a consumer gets 30 days, then that rule applies if US laws are applicable here. What I am uncertain of is what kind of rule the 'US law refunds within 30 days rule' is. It is common for the people who make laws to make rules that can be broken but the agreement that diverts from the law must be laid down in a written agreement. I am uncertain if this 30 day rule is a rule that stores can break or not. If they can, I would not expect a refund. I can see one escape however. If it is true that even with some research, like the one wolfigor executed, it is completely unclear that a user must accept the steam EULA, then you may break the contract saying 'I would not have accepted this deal had I known the implications.' In Dutch law there are several grounds that you can provide to succesfully bring this up. In Dutch this is either 'dwaling' or 'bedrog', with dwaling being the least hard to proof. Bedrog is basically where you were purposefully misled, while dwaling is merely when there is a misunderstanding that should not have occured had the vendor handled things correctly, or at least a misunderstanding that should not be contributed to the consumer. To be more exact: You can proof dwaling if either a) the misunderstanding is caused by information provided by the seller This one I think is not provable because the seller does not provide any info, let alone false info. b) if the seller, had he known why the consumer was misinformed, should have known that this was causing 'dwaling' and the vendor should have informed the consumer This one may be doable, but I do not have the proper tools to look into this really deep at my disposal at the present. c) the vendor and the consumer both got to the agreement based on misinformation Good luck proving that... So while you may not be without chance altogether, you need to proof that D2D knew you had concerns about accepting EULA's, and knowing this, they should have provided info. Again, it is clear that a consumer who just pre-orders and who does not even try to be informed is without protection. As you can see I came to somewhat the same conclusion based on this situation and based on the fact that you can proof that you researched this. You still need to prove a few things though. It will not be easy getting the money back. Please note that all this is assuming that the clausule in the agreement that there will be no money back is a legal one, and one clausule that may indeed be broken.