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

[dfphetteplace]

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.

And you obviously don't understand the point of class action lawsuits. An individual could not afford to fight Sony alone. So when people sue corporations, it is with others that have to same problem, so they can all share the cost.

Oh I understand, but no ones ever actually won something worth while from a class action lawsuit. A CAL is a groupd of people, and the profit is split evenly among them. lets just look at the sony one. the last time i cared to look at numbers, you were getting a refund of 400 dollars. So you could easily be losing money on a prodcut you bought, and at best getting maybe an about equal return.

Not to mention, youre better off just going alone, cause you stil have to have someone represent your CAL, and if they can be ought off, youre basically fucked and you have to take it.

You can easily go after sony, sue them and make a case. CALs just create an annoyance on the company's ass that pisses them off and keeps them from actually address an issue.

I personally find them pointless, but if you want to go ahead and start one, then by all means be my guest.

So because apparently you got screwed on one, they are pointless? Yes, you still have to have someone represent you. Yes, the money is split among the winners (which the original settlement is increased per person).

Explain how one person can afford to pay to enough attorneys that a company like Sony have on their payrolls. They can't, and they won't win. Why else would companies hate CAL so much? It is pretty obvious they don't mind taking one an individual, because they know they will win.

CAL do have flaws, but what kind of crap is it to remove the option? I won't have to worry though, as I won't ever own anything from Sony.

 

[Atmos Duality]

HAHAHAHA!!!! This is so damn funny. It can't possibly be true...

...
...WHAT THE FUCK?

"Any dispute resolution proceedings, whether in arbitration or in court, will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class or representative action or as a named or unnamed member in a class consolidated, representative or private attorney general action, unless both you and the Sony entity which you have a dispute specifically agree to do so in writing following initiation of the arbitration. This provision does not preclude your participation as a member in a class action filed on or before August 20, 2011."

Sony:

YOU ARE NOT THE LAW. YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT. YOU ARE NOT THE GOD-KING-CORPORATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCTS IN.

This clause would be thrown out of court entirely.

I can't wait for the Sony-Apologists to get a load of this. If any of you are reading, THIS IS SONY TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. Trying and failing, mind you, but their intentions are written here as clear as day. You can't reinterpret this as anything else.

 

[emeraldrafael]

snip

thats fine. when Microsoft, apple, or nintendo does it, sony will just look like an innovator.

And FYI, no, I havent. I dont get in on them for that reason. and individuals can sue any company and win. Most times, the company settles out of court, and the amount is a msall and paltry fee that it would cost more to fight in a legal battle and receive the bad PR. its only with the inbreds come out of the wood work and say they want the derptastic millions of dollars that a company brings a full weight down on you and gives you no chance.

So there is no crap option. Sony didnt say you cant sue us period, they just said we're not going to have this media outfall of goon tactics by fighting a group of people a portion of whom likely arent even affected and just want free money, or who the severity doesnt apply to.

and just so you know, the practice is very legal in the US, so you may already be supporting a company that does use that policy.

 

[Sparcrypt]

I really don't know why companies seem to think they can use an EULA to cancel out actual laws... it just doesn't work like that :/

 

[Atmos Duality]

Am I the only person who thinks that arbitration is often a better solution then a courtroom lawsuit?

It is, but courtroom cases carry the full weight of the law behind them. You tend to break out class-action suits when (in aggregate) attempts in peaceful arbitration fail for a given issue.

Sony is trying to rend itself essentially immune to most lawsuits brought on by their negligence by stating this, because while an individual might not get as much of a cut in a class-action suit, they are far more likely to succeed simply because they aren't footing a potentially MASSIVE legal bill as the case drags on.

And that's how corporations often crush individuals in court; whoever can afford to hold out the longest will win. Individuals generally can't while a corporation can, and the threat of that holdout is why most individuals settle out of court (typically with VERY unfavorable terms).

Sony might want to handle these cases in arbitration first, but they do not and CANNOT hold the right to eliminate class-action suits entirely (as stated before, this sort of a clause was thrown out on the precedent that it was an illusory term; meaning it's NOT ENFORCEABLE BY LAW).
At least, not in America.

 

[Reaper195]

I have no problem with this. The lawsuits that IGN mentioned are all bullshit cases anyway. "Oh noes, someone hacked Sony! Obviously it was their fault for not being better than those that managed to exploit something! Time to sue!"

"Oh noes, I can no longer install Linux on my PlayStation.....time to sue!"

What the fuck? Complain when there is actually something to complain about.

 

[Braedan]

I'm pretty sure this would get dumped in court just as fast as me saying

"Wherein any member of the escapist magazine official forums hereby agrees to relinquish any vehicles in their possession. Continuing to post is an agreement to these terms."


Ie. Don't worry, I don't think Sony can stop you from suing them in their EULA...

 

[infohippie]

Sony has long been on my "Do not buy" list, right alongside Ubisoft. I'll never be purchasing a product of theirs for as long as they keep up their anti-customer bullshit.

 

[Total LOLige]

When will Sony learn if you want to win you've got to be cooperative. The beetamax would have outlasted the VHS if you had allowed porn to be sold on beetamax tapes.

 

[]DustArma[]

I
"Oh noes, I can no longer install Linux on my PlayStation.....time to sue!"

What the fuck? Complain when there is actually something to complain about.

False advertisment is not something to complain about?

 

[Reaper195]

How? As far as I can remember, you could install linux. Then they removed the ability to install another OS. But I never saw them continue to say they could afterwards. How is that false advertising?

 

[Kopikatsu]

How? As far as I can remember, you could install linux. Then they removed the ability to install another OS. But I never saw them continue to say they could afterwards. How is that false advertising?

The answer you're going to get from this is 'Some people bought it because of that', but eh.

It's not -really- false advertising. They had it, it was abused, they had to remove it. I can't really blame Sony. I more blame the people who abused the OtherOS function in the first place.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Class action suits have far more power because there are more plaintiffs. Legal fees'll kill an individual every time, and it becomes a "one word against the company" situation. This is civil law, not criminal law, so the burden of proof is shared. He with the most resources wins.

Think of it this way: Try killing one ant. Done. Try killing one ant a thousand times. Done. Try killing one thousand ants at the same time. Now it's a problem. To Sony, we're the ants. Individually, they can easily take us. And they want to prevent us from banding together to address large problems.

This isn't legal or ethical of them. It's not unique to Sony, either. Quite a few companies put clauses like this in the agreement, hoping it will trick people into giving up their rights. Except in a few special circumstances, a contract cannot take away your rights. Not even if the contract has a clause that says, "You waive all right to..."

A company can say whatever they like in the contract. They can try to improve their chances by saying, "We warned 'em." But they cannot contractually rob a person of their rights. (Which makes sense, if you think about it. Otherwise, you could sneak a clause in your contract that says you can beat me with a bat for failure to pay.)

 

[Enkidu88]

Is that even legal for them to do?

No, no it's not.

And this is why you aren't a lawyer

Yes, it is completely legal. Its a free service, they can place whatever terms they want on your use of the service.

I suppose your right that it's not illegal, but like I said in the part of the post you pruned, it would never hold up in court. They could put in that they have the right to take your first born child.

There are consumer rights that can't be just signed away regardless of what is in a contract.

 

[MightyRabbit]

Is that even legal for them to do?

No, no it's not.

And this is why you aren't a lawyer

Yes, it is completely legal. Its a free service, they can place whatever terms they want on your use of the service.

I suppose your right that it's not illegal, but like I said in the part of the post you pruned, it would never hold up in court. They could put in that they have the right to take your first born child.

There are consumer rights that can't be just signed away regardless of what is in a contract.

Yes, because while it may be legal by the wording of law, a high enough court in any given country can dismiss it as it violates the spirit of law. Like the US Supreme Court. I think that it should be illegal to allow wavers for non-dangerous situations myself, otherwise this could set an unfortunate precedent.