Apparently Sony is sick of class action lawsuits, so........They're banning us from doing them!

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

A friend of mine just sent this to me, and while I don't like IGN much...

If this is in fact, true...Rage will ensue.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/119/1194580p1.html

What the hell, Sony? Why the hell would you do this? Your customers are your "partners", not criminals after your money!

EDIT for new info:

If you read the contract you can send them a letter with in thirty days of agreeing to the contract and you are not binded by that section of the contract. That section only states that if you have a problem with Sony, that you take it up with Sony personally in arbitration, which means an outside source settles the dispute between you and Sony.
Please update you post to include this info.

 

[stabnex]

And the final nail in the Sony Coffin gets rammed home!

 

[Worgen]

ehhh, chances are that wont hold up in court at all

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

...Bullshit.

This level of stupidity would require brilliance to orchestrate, for anyone stupid enough wouldn't be able to to function. And they don't have that.

 

[Kiardras]

Is that even legal for them to do?

 

[emeraldrafael]

Oh yes, all the customors are their partners. what with the frothing hate you get from this community for them, and we're supposed to be one of the better forum communities.

Besides, people didnt read very well cause it only says that you cant sue as a group. Now its going to be as an individual case by case thing, which... actually sounds like a better idea to me for both parties involved. You get to potentially win more suing the company solo then splitting up a class action suit, and as sony you can pay less cause the area of damage is targeted specifically to one person.

EDIT: Plus you acutally know the person is having a problem, and what that specific problem is, and you can work towards a satisfying compromise. Most Class Action Suits are just people bandwagoning cause they hear that the money will be distributed to the winners, which in their eyes means free money for bitching.

 

[Gennadios]

And the final nail in the Sony Coffin gets rammed home!

Oh please, the average gamer can't tell an consumer hostile EULAs from their own ass. Partially because they don't read them, but this will do absolutely nothing to their player base.

 

[Tyrant T100]

The main reason I'm a pc gamer, although STEAM still restricts you and more and more games have DRM.

 

[Enkidu88]

Is that even legal for them to do?

No, no it's not. But since the EULA and TOS aren't legally binding anyway, they can put whatever they want in it. If anyone ever wants to form a class action suit, them agreeing to this stupid TOS isn't going to stop them.

 

[rokkolpo]

That's goddamn hilarious!

I can just imagine that conversation.
Boss: Fuck these bastards just keep suing us! WHAT CAN WE DO?!
Employee: Well....we could just...forbid them to, it's not like anyone ever reads the terms of agreement right?
Boss: BRILLIANT!

 

[razer17]

Is that even legal for them to do?

No, no it's not. But since the EULA and TOS aren't legally binding anyway, they can put whatever they want in it. If anyone ever wants to form a class action suit, them agreeing to this stupid TOS isn't going to stop them.

Actually, I think you will find that a lot of jurisdictions will actually hold these sort of TOS or EULA's to be perfectly binding. However, they technically have to allow a waiving period during which you are allowed to return the product. I've never tried to return something due to not agreeing to the EULA, and I imagine the shop wouldn't take it very well, and I should doubt I'd get my refund.

Most EULA's will probably include ammendment clauses, saying that the terms of use can be changed at any time. They have it for bank accounts, credit cards etc, I have no doubt Sony will have similar terms. Because you have to click I Accept, you are legally bound by the EULA.

It's pretty much a legal minefield. Each jurisdiction has different legal statuses on certain parts of EULAs. Also , each Court Circuit has different rulings, so one circuit might rule differently to another in general. I'm actually not sure if the subject of the EULA on the whole has ever been ruled on, though. It's always just on a specific part of an agreement.

 

[Vankraken]

Incoming class action lawsuit about there being an anti class action lawsuit clause in the EULA. Joking aside I'm curious if this would even hold up in court. Especially given a product that has been out for numerous years and then they change it now to prevent a type of legal action and if do not agree to the change then you are unable to use your product. Seems like an illegal denial of due process and holding your product hostage.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I've always found it hilarious when an agreement says "you must be 18 to click this button" as if the 12 year old's actually will read and follow it's rules.

Spoiler: section I'm talking about

THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS LICENSE TERMS COVERING YOUR USE OF CONTENT. THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOU AND SONY NETWORK ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC. ("SNEAINTERNATIONAL LLC ("SNEI") AND CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY BY AN ADULT OF LEGAL AGE OF MAJORITY IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH YOUR SONY ONLINE SERVICES (PSN OR QRIOCITYSEN) ACCOUNT IS REGISTERED.

crossed out words were put in to reflect the actual contract.
source: [a]http://www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/SEN-legal-docs/TERMS_OF_SERVICE_AGREEMENT-EN.pdf[/a]

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Is that even legal for them to do?

I'm no lawyer, but from my understanding, no


If my legal ethics class has taught me anything, this constitutes an "unconscionable contract"

Wikipedia says
In the 2009 case of Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., the plaintiff argued that Blockbuster's provision to compel arbitration and forbid class action lawsuits was illusory and unconscionable. However, whether or not it is unconscionable is unknown, as the court agreed that it was illusory (not enforceable), and disregarded all further consideration

So it's kinda up in the air.

I mean, my father (a doctor) can't refuse to see people unless they agree not to sue them. My uncle (A lawyer) cannot do the same as well. I wonder how this would hold up against an actual lawsuit.

 

[neblim93]

Oh yes, all the customors are their partners. what with the frothing hate you get from this community for them, and we're supposed to be one of the better forum communities.

Besides, people didnt read very well cause it only says that you cant sue as a group. Now its going to be as an individual case by case thing, which... actually sounds like a better idea to me for both parties involved. You get to potentially win more suing the company solo then splitting up a class action suit, and as sony you can pay less cause the area of damage is targeted specifically to one person.

True, but these positives assume you can win. The biggest draw for Sony to push this is if you DO want to pursue legal action, you have to sue them yourself. Meaning you have to pay for your own legal fees. And considering the size of Sony as a company, have fun trying to beat the massive legal team they can throw at you because they have the money to do so, unlike the average consumer.

And as I recall, the Supreme Court recently ruled in a similar fashion with the whole Walmart not treating its female employees as equals.

 

[Macgyvercas]

And the final nail in the Sony Coffin gets rammed home!

Oh please, the average gamer can't tell an consumer hostile EULAs from their own ass. Partially because they don't read them, but this will do absolutely nothing to their player base.

In the average gamer's defense, who actually DOES read the EULA? I mean come on, they are designed to be deliberately confusing and are written in legalese and doublespeak, which requires you to have at least a masters degree in law to even get your head around.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

And the final nail in the Sony Coffin gets rammed home!

Oh please, the average gamer can't tell an consumer hostile EULAs from their own ass. Partially because they don't read them, but this will do absolutely nothing to their player base.

In the average gamer's defense, who actually DOES read the EULA? I mean come on, they are designed to be deliberately confusing and are written in legalese and doublespeak, which requires you to have at least a masters degree in law to even get your head around.

*Slowly raises hand and looks around*

I do, mainly becaus of how funny it gets.

If I recall, Blizzard has (or had) a clause stating that in the event that a Meteorý hits their offices, they are not responsible for WoW going down.

Or that Apple forbids you from using your iPhone to work on nuclear devices

 

[instantbenz]

Hmmm I read this as 'any lawsuit brought against us won't see any publicity because we'll pay you off'

'individually out of court' doesn't mean no lawsuit. just how i see it. aka no 'nail in the coffin' schtick that the xbox fanboys want to pump out

 

[emeraldrafael]

Oh yes, all the customors are their partners. what with the frothing hate you get from this community for them, and we're supposed to be one of the better forum communities.

Besides, people didnt read very well cause it only says that you cant sue as a group. Now its going to be as an individual case by case thing, which... actually sounds like a better idea to me for both parties involved. You get to potentially win more suing the company solo then splitting up a class action suit, and as sony you can pay less cause the area of damage is targeted specifically to one person.

True, but these positives assume you can win. The biggest draw for Sony to push this is if you DO want to pursue legal action, you have to sue them yourself. Meaning you have to pay for your own legal fees. And considering the size of Sony as a company, have fun trying to beat the massive legal team they can throw at you because they have the money to do so, unlike the average consumer.

And as I recall, the Supreme Court recently ruled in a similar fashion with the whole Walmart not treating its female employees as equals.

You dont get much in a class action suit. When it was worked out, people basically got enough to get a near refund of $400 USD, which if you have a $600 USD PS3 meant you actually lost money.

And of coures I could be wrong on those numbers. that was at one point during that main week that the escapist went out and made that the big site issue.

Besides, you're not even guaranteed to win in class action. the reason they win, is they get public appeal. And most good laywer law firms (at least around my area) dont ask you to pay if you dont win, and court costs are often or can be added to the gains you get.

Id ont know, maybe its just me, but i see this as the better way to go. it doesnt bother me so much, but I just see a better way of conducting law.