EA Adopts "Can't Sue Us." Terms of Service

[Xannieros]

Just like Sony did, EA's new Terms of Service makes you waive your right to a class action lawsuit.

By accepting these terms, you and EA expressly waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BY THIS PROVISION, YOU AND EA ARE FOREGOING THE RIGHT TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL.

YOU AND EA AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING.

Seeing this topic pop-up around different forums, and didn't see it here yet. What do you think? Can this really hold up in a United States court?

See for more information: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/09/remember-electronic-arts-wont-let-you-sue-them-either/

 

[LordZ]

Yes and no. It's pretty much up to the whim of a judge as to whether it's legally binding. Most EULAs are so ridiculous that they've been pretty much tossed out entirely. Others have only portions upheld in court. In the end, you end up with a definite maybe.

It's hard to say whether something this heavy handed would ever get upheld. However, because judges sometimes uphold portions of these retarded agreements, companies feel like nothing is lost in putting every stupid thing they can think of into these things.

Honestly, I have trouble seeing any of them as legally binding since there's no lawyer there to explain it to you and clicking "Accept" isn't quite the same as signing and notarizing a document. Then again, there are lawyers legally extorting people over downloads that they've never even heard of. So, anything can happen.

 

[LilithSlave]

Because the world didn't have enough reasons to hate EA already.

And darn it, I still like Alice: Madness Returns. I don't care how negatively people reviewed it. It's amazing.

 

[Jordi]

I have no idea about American law, and I'm also not a lawyer in the Netherlands, but I have a very strong suspicion that shit like this doesn't fly here. Another party cannot legally hold you to illegal parts of a contract, and waiving your right to sue seems like it would not exactly be legal. I'm even skeptical that the courts here would view these ToSs and EULAs as valid contracts to begin with, because everybody knows nobody reads them and they are often forced on you after you already bought a product.

I'm curious how this is in other countries (and my own if anyone wants to correct me).

Of course, all this doesn't stop people/EA from putting bullshit like this into their "contracts" to scare customers of.

 

[Altorin]

ehh, nothing like this has been tested in actual trials, so its validity isn't sure, so I wouldn't worry about it that much. They can put whatever they want in a terms of service, but i it ever gets as far as a jury or civil dispute it will be up to a judge to determine if the terms of service hold up legally, and then it will be upto another judge to decide if that judge's judgement stands up.

almost everything in US law is based on precedence, so Sony or EA puts up the idea of putting a "You can't sue me" terms of use, then if a customer decides to sue, they can tell the court "they agreed not to sue us", and a judge will say "yes, they did, so they can't sue" or "No, because that agreement isn't constitutional or breaks common sense and undermines the power of the court and the rights of a customer"

I have a feeling any judge would rule the latter, and then these "can't sue us" clauses will go away. If a bunch of judges, particularly if it goes to the supreme court, find in favor of the terms, THAT is a scary proposition, but we're jumping that gun.

ALL OF THAT BEING SAID I personally think it's pants on head retarded.

 

[Rawne1980]

I'm going to take a wild stab, and i'll explain my reasons shortly, and say that in most cases it WOULD hold up in a court of law.

And now i'll explain why. Before I do I just want to get it out of the way that i'm no fan of EA.

Companies like EA have teams of lawyers that work for them. It's the job of that team of lawyers to keep EA out of as much shit as possible. Terms like those in the EULA would have been revised by that very team of laywers and the laws of various countries reviewed before it was released to the general public.

Now colour me an arsehole but i'd likely think a team of lawyers knows more about what will hold up in court than a bunch of folks on a gaming website.

 

[Michael Logan]

Here is what you can do, send a mail to EA telling them that you agree to all other ToS except for that one, and its fine.

Alternatively you can refuse to accept the ToS and they are forced to reimburse all money you have spent on their products because since you bought it they have made it impossible for you to use it. Rememeber to go directly to EA and not to the store you bought it from since you have another contract with the store.

 

[Altorin]

I'm going to take a wild stab, and i'll explain my reasons shortly, and say that in most cases it WOULD hold up in a court of law.

And now i'll explain why. Before I do I just want to get it out of the way that i'm no fan of EA.

Companies like EA have teams of lawyers that work for them. It's the job of that team of lawyers to keep EA out of as much shit as possible. Terms like those in the EULA would have been revised by that very team of laywers and the laws of various countries reviewed before it was released to the general public.

Now colour me an arsehole but i'd likely think a team of lawyers knows more about what will hold up in court than a bunch of folks on a gaming website.

lawyers take longshots all the time with this sort of stuff. And it WILL work, until a judge decides it doesn't - they'll use it to strongarm people out of suing them, and it will work in that regard. I just can't imagine it would hold up if they did something a judge found sue worthy to begin with.

 

[No_Remainders]

Shrug.

You can still sue them by yourself, if it really matters that much to you.

 

[Sjakie]

I know that it wont hold up in a Dutch court of law. Those strange Dutch lawmakers have this weird idea you should protect your people from big, greedy and unreasanoble companies that are out to screw you out of your national rights.
Also: we dont have juries over here.

Btw: you do not have any rights!

 

[Saris Kai]

If this works retroactively how far back does it go? I have not agreed to an EA ToS in a while and want to sue them for being dicks.

 

[Rawne1980]

lawyers take longshots all the time with this sort of stuff. And it WILL work, until a judge decides it doesn't - they'll use it to strongarm people out of suing them, and it will work in that regard. I just can't imagine it would hold up if they did something a judge found sue worthy to begin with.

Of course if they do something incredibly stupid then a judge will most definitely rule against them. It doesn't give EA the right to do what the hell they like and screw the consumer.

And then you'll get that judge that just wants to poke his middle finger up at a big company after his washing machine broke down 6 years ago and he was ripped off, he's still pissed and EA will feel his wrath. You get my point anyway.

The main point of my first post was aimed at all these armchair lawyers that think they know better than a team of actual lawyers while the only thing they know about actual law is "if I shoot him in the face, thats bad".

 

[Sonicron]

Meh. We don't have juries in our country anyway, and something as retarded as this class action suit prohibition would be shredded by any of our judges within two seconds.

 

[Vivi22]

I know for a fact that the justice system would bypass this in a heart beat.

Many companies in the US have been adding similar clauses to their contracts for years and not only getting away with it, but screwing over customers with it. And for the most part it has been upheld. I believe there are at least some exceptions now where businesses in some industries can't ask you to waive your right to a trial, but I can't recall which ones.

Here's the thing about waiving your right to a sue them: if you ever do have a legitimate grievance with them, you either have to work it out with them directly, or if you're really lucky, resort to third party arbitration. Except they're the ones paying the arbitrator, and if they come down the wrong way (ie: against the company paying them) then they'll be black balled and never work as an arbitrator again. You'll basically never have a chance to take your case to a court where you can at least have some guarantee of being on a level playing field with the company and letting a presumably neutral jury decide the case.

It amazes me that the government and courts would ever let companies get away with asking people to sign away such a fundamental right. A court is the closest thing to a level playing field that your average citizens have against large corporations and the wealthy when they're legitimately wronged.

Shrug.

You can still sue them by yourself, if it really matters that much to you.

Re-read the first post. They are outright saying you can't sue at all in a court of law. All you can do is bring whatever grievance you have to them and hope they actually do something about it.

 

[Staskala]

I have no idea about American law, and I'm also not a lawyer in the Netherlands, but I have a very strong suspicion that shit like this doesn't fly here. Another party cannot legally hold you to illegal parts of a contract, and waiving your right to sue seems like it would not exactly be legal. I'm even skeptical that the courts here would view these ToSs and EULAs as valid contracts to begin with, because everybody knows nobody reads them and they are often forced on you after you already bought a product.

I'm curious how this is in other countries (and my own if anyone wants to correct me).

Of course, all this doesn't stop people/EA from putting bullshit like this into their "contracts" to scare customers of.

ToS are almost entirely worthless by EU standards, hence the

Like Sony's terms of service, EA's don't apply to everyone; in this case, if you live in "Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union", you're exempt. We're checking with EA to see if that includes Australia and New Zealand as well.

part. In Germany you can even scratch the "almost" - ToS aren't recognized as a binding contract because contracts have to be made pre-purchase. I don't know about the specifics in the Netherlands though.

 

[galdon2004]

It does not matter what the ToS or otherwise says, there are certain rights you cannot be made to forfeit, such as right to trial. It's much like those trucks carrying gravel that say 'not responsible for damages' they are totally responsible they just hope you won't hold them up to it under the assumption that they are telling you the truth.

 

[Mark Lambert]

I don't see why people are getting mad at this. It's not like it's just you that can't sue. It says you and EA can't sue. It's a double edge sword the way I see it. If someone accepts these TOS, and wants to pirate a few games from EA, EA can't sue. I'm not saying do it; I'm just saying they're just setting them self up for failure.