What are everyone’s thoughts on IMVU taking away purchased music with no clear answers or compensation?

@YutakaSuzuki I'm sorry you lost your accounts. I know how frustrating that is because I lost one of mine too. They accused me of creating a black market when I didn't, and I lost my Creator rights after they claimed I stole a texture that I never stole. Even after 8 years, IMVU still hasn't reinstated my Creator rights, despite my belief that my case deserved a fair review.

Yes, let's stand together and fight for fair treatment with everything we've got. The more voices that speak up, the harder it is to ignore. If people are being told there will be no refunds or feel they've been treated unfairly, they deserve clear answers and transparency. We should keep sharing our experiences, documenting what happened, and holding the company accountable through lawful means. If enough of us believe things need to change, then one way to make that clear is to stop spending money until they start listening. No more staying silent, and no more spending until they address the concerns of their community.

I Don't Know If Anyone Is Ummm... Aware Of, But The American Government
Isn't Exactly Anyone's Friend Here... To Say That A Company Or Private
Corporate Can't Be Above The Law, Is Foolish...

Think About It For A Min, We Are The Only One's Abiding By The Law Here,
Not Even The Government It's Self Is Abiding By Any Form Of Law...

We The Customer Are The Only One's, ~_____~

Even In Our Towns, Their Just Dumping Drugs & Alcohol Off,
& Taking What They Want Away...

The Government Isn't Exactly On Our Sides,
& These Supposed Corporates & Private Companies
Know This, Sooo They Are Taking All A Bit Advantage
Of This As They Can...

I've Dealt With This Company Long Enough To Know
That Being Silent Will Get Us Nowhere, & That Attacking
The Company Will Only Get Our Accounts BANNED...


Sooooo, The Only Question Here Is,

If We Care Enough About Our Accounts Enough To Do What Needs Doin,
Or If We'll Just Sit Here & Complain All Day, While They Get Away
With All & Everything, o_____O

They Already Stole 2 Of My Accounts As It Is,
& Now They Stole My Music Without Compensation As Well...


What Do Others Think ??

I'll show you exactly how, from my perspective, IMVU has changed since Together Labs assumed ownership and why many long-time users believe the platform has gone downhill. This isn't simply about one removed feature it's about a pattern of decisions that, in my view, has fundamentally changed the user experience and deserves public discussion and legal scrutiny.

You raise a valid point that users should read the Terms of Service before agreeing to them. From a Criminal Justice perspective, I would never advise someone to blindly sign or agree to any contract without understanding it first.

However, agreeing to a Terms of Service does not place a company above the law or eliminate a consumer's legal rights. A contract cannot override federal or state consumer protection laws. Courts have repeatedly recognized that Terms of Service are subject to judicial review and cannot excuse unlawful, deceptive, unconscionable, or otherwise unenforceable business practices simply because a user clicked "I Agree."

The Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Likewise, California consumer protection laws continue to apply regardless of what a company includes in its Terms of Service. A private company cannot create its own rules and expect those rules to supersede state or federal law.

While companies have the right to establish reasonable terms governing the use of their platforms, those terms are contracts not laws enacted by a legislature. Likewise, the inclusion of mandatory arbitration clauses, limitations of liability, or broad discretionary language does not automatically shield a company from accountability. Courts have, in appropriate circumstances, refused to enforce contractual provisions that are unconscionable, contrary to public policy, misleading, or inconsistent with applicable law.

That is why the existence of a clause stating that IMVU may change features, terminate accounts, or limit liability does not automatically end the legal analysis. The question is not merely what a contract says; the question is whether the company's actions are consistent with applicable law and whether consumers are being treated fairly.

From my perspective, several current business practices implemented by IMVU under Together Labs raise legitimate questions regarding fairness, transparency, and the treatment of long-standing customers. The increasing emphasis on monetization, the restructuring of paid memberships and VIP tiers, changes to Access Pass benefits, the introduction of AP+, the removal of previously purchased digital music functionality, and the continued reduction of legacy features collectively warrant public discussion and careful legal scrutiny. These actions have left many long-time users questioning whether the balance has shifted too far toward revenue generation at the expense of customer expectations and the overall user experience.

The issue many long-time IMVU users are raising is not simply that a feature disappeared. The concern is whether customers who invested substantial amounts of money over many years into licensed music, VIP memberships, Access Pass benefits, and other digital content received fair treatment when those features were changed, restricted, or removed.

History has repeatedly shown that many consumer protections exist today because individuals challenged business practices that companies believed were protected by contracts. Consumer rights have advanced because people questioned unfair terms, sought judicial review, and held corporations accountable. A Terms of Service is an important legal agreement, but it is not absolute, and it does not grant immunity from legal scrutiny.

Consumers have every right to read the Terms of Service, understand the risks, and still question business practices they believe are unfair. Exercising those rights is not ignorance of a contract it is exercising the legal protections that exist outside of that contract.

Simple question. When any user signs up to use IMVU. Do they or do they not agree to the terms of the conditions set forth by IMVU's TOS? I believe that when any user signs up they click either I Agree or I Don't Agree. Something on the lines of I have read and agree to the terms set forth by the TOS?

Biggest lie ever told on the internet. I have read the terms and conditions... As I said before, if someone chose not to read it, is that the fault of IMVU? Is ignorance of the TOS a valid excuse?

But from a Criminal Justice POV would you EVER advise someone to blindly agree to something or would you advise them to read or have someone read the TOS or contract? If the answer is "No don't read it, it's just a bunch of legal blah blah." My answer to that would be yikes. If on the other hand the answer would be, "Yes read the TOS or have someone read it for you that can understand it." Kudos to you!

The point I'm making at the end of the day is, sure be upset a feature you loved is gone. But how much of this upset would have been avoided if people would have bothered to actually read the TOS instead of just blindly agreeing to it? Especially if they knew that they agreed to the simple fact of: "IMVU at any time can add, remove, or alter features on their site at will and are under no obligation to offer refunds."

@Sarirea

That's your perspective, but I respectfully disagree.

From my perspective as a Criminal Justice student, this is a legitimate issue that can be debated. Customers entered into a transaction with IMVU not with Sony or any other third party. We paid IMVU, and IMVU accepted our payment in exchange for a feature that many of us reasonably expected to continue.

Whether IMVU kept 30%, 10%, or even 1% of the purchase price doesn't automatically eliminate its responsibility to its customers. Businesses remain accountable for the products and services they sell, regardless of how revenue is divided behind the scenes. Any agreements between IMVU and its licensors are business matters they should not be shifted onto paying customers.

Whether full compensation is ultimately owed is something that can certainly be argued, but dismissing users' concerns as "nonsense" ignores the fact that there are legitimate consumer rights questions involved. Many long-time customers have raised these same concerns, and they deserve to be heard rather than brushed aside.

Their profits are kind of irrelevant because I doubt the 61 million was from credits bought to buy digital music alone. That always seems to be a default answer though. They have the money, they can afford it!

I do agree that IMVU probably did make something from the hosting so people could get music into their chatting experience, but now that percentage is what matters. More than anything. A few stores where I live, they have the little claw machines. One store I go to, the owner was saying that it was a 70 / 30 cut. So I'm only assuming that IMVU has a similar deal. Not saying that it's the exact percentages, but, using it to make my point.

When not on sale, credits run for about 1,000 credits per 1 USD. Let's say for easy math that a single song was 1,000 credits. If IMVU's cut was 300 and Sony get's 700. I could see the argument to some degree of users getting compensated for IMVU's portion, but to demand the whole refund when IMVU didn't get the whole sale is just nonsense. 

At this point I really dont care they took from us many years and profited they made a hefty profit last year on imvu approx. 61 million so they not hurting they can give everyone compensation and 600 promo credits whatever is not acceptable middle man or not they are the ones that got the profit ive said enough now imvu needs to pay up. 

"Closing the music store is one matter; stripping users of previously purchased digital content is another." Not when it's tied to the same entity. IMVU was just the middle man and nothing else. If you read the first paragraph in the TOS under "Music Store Terms" it describes it much better than I could.

"If IMVU was still selling songs last year while already planning to remove or disable access to that purchased music, then users have every right to question whether that conduct was fair, transparent, or even legally defensible." This still assumes that IMVU was the music provider.

Though in defense of the argument. If there was an issue with the provider starting 2 years ago. I can see the question of: "Why continue being the middle man?" My guess would be that maybe there was some stability from the actual provider, but then the provider closed up shop.

Now that I think about it. I think people are yelling at the wrong entity. If IMVU is only the middle man as per their own TOS stating that digital music is considered third party. People need to stop yelling at IMVU for taking the music since it wasn't IMVU that shut down. It was their music provider that did.

Which might also account for why music was still being provided for those two shaky years. Perhaps IMVU was lead to believe everything was fine and then had the rug yanked out from them.

@ Sarirea 

Respectfully, I disagree.

Yes, IMVU may have a non-refundable clause in its Terms of Service, but that does not automatically excuse a company from accountability when it continues accepting money for digital music purchases while allegedly knowing that access to that content would later be removed. Those are two separate issues. Closing the music store is one matter; stripping users of previously purchased digital content is another.

If IMVU was still selling songs last year while already planning to remove or disable access to that purchased music, then users have every right to question whether that conduct was fair, transparent, or even legally defensible. A blanket “all sales are non-refundable” statement does not give a company unlimited protection when consumers paid for a product with the reasonable expectation of continued access.

The real concern here is not entitlement or people simply being upset over a feature they liked. The concern is whether consumers were induced to spend money on digital content that IMVU either knew, or should have known, would not remain accessible. That is why people are speaking out. This is about consumer trust, transparency, and corporate accountability.

And when users push back, IMVU should not be hiding behind arbitrary policies or trying to silence the very customers who financially supported the platform for years. If enough of us continue to stand together and challenge this, IMVU will eventually have to make a choice: either ignore and alienate a large portion of its paying community, or take responsibility and provide proper compensation for content people already purchased in good faith.

Here is something to ask yourself and it's just a general question. For anyone that may have been on this platform for 10+ years. When has this part of their TOS changed? "You bear all risk of loss upon purchasing Digital Content and for any loss of Digital Content that you have downloaded, including any loss due to a computer or a hard drive crash. We may, from time to time, remove Digital Content from the Music Store without notice." Two things really matter in all of this in my opinion. The first 10 words and the whole last sentence. Now people could say, "Who has time to read all of that?" Is ignorance of the rules and regulations a reasonable defense though? Digital music has been available for 13 years, or that's what the search is saying. So I would assume this snippet has been in their TOS just as long.

Now in my opinion in regards to the digital music, it's not IMVU's fault if people just assumed that it would always be there with that cloud always hanging over them. I understand people being upset because it was a feature they enjoyed but to be like, "WE DESERVE COMPENSATION!"

Also in regards to the users that have been on this platform 10+ years. When has this clause been altered? "All purchases are non-refundable, " Further cementing my point of finding it weird that people are demanding a refund when the site clearly states all sales are non-refundable and made at their discretion." And people saying, IMVU should do the right thing! If people didn't read the TOS and understand that every purchase is made at their own risk. Maybe IMVU could do better in informing people of this that didn't bother to read the TOS?

If I'm Not Mistaken, I Was Given A Whopping 4 Credits For
Compensation Of Over 100 Songs, If Not 65 Songs, Or Something... ~_____~

Those Songs Were Not Cheap, Soooo I Always Was Iffy About Paying For Them...

With The Way They Went About Removing Them??
---> I Won't Be Doing Music Again

With The Way They Treat Their Company,
I Won't Even Spend Anymore Credits On This Platform...

You Can't Even Sell In Your Own Shop Anymore,
They Recently Removed Option Of Peer Review,
Which Is Required To Own A Shop At All, o____O

They Are Killing Their Company Heavily...

I Also Refuse To Accept A Radio Linked To Random Websites As An Answer
To How You Handle Music Now... That To Me Is The Equivalent To Someone
Asking To Find Viruses On-Line...

What Are My Thoughts On Music??

My Thoughts Are It's Just A 1 More Reason To
Count Down On A Timer For Them To Expire The
Service Of IMVU...

I've Dealt With This Degrading Company For
Like 15 Years Now, It's Been Like This Ever
Since Middle Of 2009 / 2010...

They Don't Have Any Form Of Excuse For The
Trouble They Are Having With Customers...

It's Been Way Too Hard On People That We
Can't Just Ignore This Anymore, Ignoring
All Of This Has Not Done Anyone Any Favors...

When You Have Ignored This For 7 Years,
& Things Only Keep Getting Worst??

You Tend To Stop Ignoring This...

They've Done This A Long Time, & It's Not Something New,
The Company Needs To Start Having Consequences For Their
Actions, They Need To Start Paying For Those Consequences...

Ignoring This Is No Longer An Option Anymore...

If You Add Up Everything They've Done Since 2009,
All You See Is A Degrading Fan Base, While The Company
Constantly Degrades It's Self Into Darkness...

Anything Claiming Their Improving, Is A Flat Lie, o_____O

I get the whole “it’s IMVU’s playground” argument, but I don’t agree with it when real money is involved. People paid for that music. It wasn’t free content that just happened to be there, it was something users spent actual money on, and IMVU removing it without properly making it right says a lot about how little customer loyalty seems to matter to them.

Honestly, I think everyone who purchased music should be compensated, and I don’t care how old the purchase is. It doesn’t matter if it was bought 6 months ago or 10 years ago. If IMVU sold it, took people’s money for it, and then removed it, they owe those users something back. Maybe not necessarily cash in every case, but at the very least credits or some form of compensation equal to what was lost. You can’t profit off people for years and then just shrug when the product disappears.

To me, this isn’t about people being mad just because they “lost something.” It’s about a company selling digital content, then taking it away, and expecting the customer to just accept it because it’s in a game or virtual platform. That’s not how you build trust, and it’s definitely not how you show loyalty to a user base that has spent years supporting the platform.

I’ve been on IMVU for 16 years, so I understand digital purchases always come with some risk. But there’s a difference between a site shutting down entirely and a company still operating, still making money, and still choosing not to properly address paid content they removed. If IMVU wants people to keep investing money into the platform, then they need to show that when they take away something users paid for, they’re going to stand behind it and make it right.

Should IMVU offer some form of compensation for the music that was purchased? Only if it was purchased within a certain time frame. There must be a point where someone can reasonably say they got their moneys worth from the song before it's really beyond "I didn't get my moneys worth" and more like, "I lost something and I'm mad!" Keep in mind, this mindset is coming from a place where as a consumer of digital content, I'm used to the constraint of: 14 days or 2 hours to decide if my digital purchase is eligible for a refund.

Doing a bit of research on my own: I came across this topic https://support.imvu.com/support/discussions/topics/154001068467 and someone mentioned. "As of June 25, 2024, the IMVU Music Store's partner, VerveLife, is no longer active"

We are 2 days shy of 2 years since IMVU and their music provider have been having this issue. I don't know what else IMVU could reasonably do to keep their consumers up to date on this situation. Did they send a message out to the community? How many people read the messages and not think it was spam? Did IMVU make an official topic here? How many people actually bother checking? Though I do think someone on their discord channel said something in their news thread.

I may sound a bit unsympathetic, but as I have said in another topic on this very same thing. When dealing with something that we don't own. We don't own IMVU, we are playing in their playground. There is always that risk of things being added, removed, or altered. To include the possibility of IMVU closing up shop. Would users that have been here 10+ years and IMVU closed up shop expect monetary compensation as well?

I lost 13 years of purchased music....when will i get my refund?

There has been several threads posted in the forum on this topic and I agree with most of the things that folk have expressed. I can't think of anything new to add to this topic that someone else hasn't already posted in one of those threads.