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

[O maestre]

lost all reason to support EA in anyway. why is it we gamers are the only consumer who are treated like garbage on a regular basis, and then come back begging for more?

this is just ridiculous! i cannot find it within myself to give a single dime to EA, it would be too much of a compromise... . ill have to find some other way to purchase mass effect 3 that will circumvent EA. id honestly rather pirate than put up with such a vile disrespectful publisher

 

[O maestre]

No, they said YOU can't sue THEM. They can still sue you're ass though. And have to, since everyone in the US has a right to a trial-by-jury.

No no no. The EULA says you can't bring a class action suit against them. That doesn't mean you cannot sue them. You can still sue EA, this EULA does not prevent that, but you just can't sue them with a whole bunch of your buddies.

It's really kind of underhanded that the internet is manipulating "no class action lawsuits" into "no lawsuits whatsoever".

I miss the days when companies didn't try to nickel and dime customers or treat paying consumers like a bunch of criminals while letting hypocritical and awful CEOs run them.

Take off the rose tinted glasses: those days never existed.

Also, the first thing you learn in business school is to never, EVER trust your customer. As soon as you give your customer a little trust, they will take that trust and screw you over with it. Not trusting your customer is good business practice. I'm really sick of people expecting companies to treat them like kings.

google seems to be doing pretty well without treating people like filth.

but can you honestly say this kind of public prevention measures are present in any other industry? i do not think so, class action law suits are useful to actual ensure that companies change their practices or at least get humiliated enough to do so.

it may be naive but do we really deserve to be treated like this? i am not talking so much about trust, i am talking more about respect.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

From what I can tell most people are neglecting to notice that is says:

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

Are people failing to realize that EA is essentially agreeing to the same thing you are?

 

[Stall]

google seems to be doing pretty well without treating people like filth.

but can you honestly say this kind of public prevention measures are present in any other industry? i do not think so, class action law suits are useful to actual ensure that companies change their practices or at least get humiliated enough to do so.

it may be naive but do we really deserve to be treated like this? i am not talking so much about trust, i am talking more about respect.

Yes, but I cannot help to speculate that Google is intent on world domination... so quid pro quo I suppose.

Anyways, the video games industry isn't really "any other industry," now is it? There are certain practices and such that are exclusive to various industries, and trying to expect this industry to be like other industries really isn't a very helpful thought process.

And on the whole thing on respect, it goes back to the whole "never trust a customer" thing. EA can't hire a wizard to place an enchantment on their games to magically alter their state if they detect you are a pirate or "thief". It's not so much that they don't want to respect you, but they have no possible way to know how to extend that respect to JUST you and not the other guy who might very well go home and crack and upload the game to a torrent site. They're taking the safest option for their profits and investors.

The same thing that goes for trust also goes for respect as well: you do start respecting a customer, then there will be customers who inevitably abuse that respect, which will cost them money. YOU might not abuse that respect, but there will be people who find a way to do so. And if enough customers abuse this respect, then they won't get money. This is something people always seem to forget: money makes the world go 'round. Video games are no exception. You need money to make video games. If you don't have money, then no video games.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I hate to say it, but I see why they're doing this. People--especially in the United States--throw lawsuits around like crazy. It's gotten to the point where if you don't like something from the company, or they didn't do it the way you wanted them to, someone will sue. Remember the lady who spilled coffee on herself while driving, sued McDonald's because the coffee wasn't marked "Caution: HOT" and ended up winning the case? How about the man who lost a pair of pants at a dry cleaner's and sued the owners for 54 million dollars?
So yeah, I can see why EA is doing this. Do I think that protecting themselves from frivolous, stupid lawsuits is the only reason they're doing this? No. Trying to make sure they don't get caught like Sony is probably the main reason. Will it hold up in court? Unlikely...but then that lady did win her case against McDonald's, so who can say.

Actually, they won because the coffee was 2 degrees F above the 'correct temperature'. Still incredibly ridiculous, though. Also, see below.

Wasn't that a myth? Those suing escapades flies around like crazy.

Nope, it actually happened. However, it's slightly incorrect. The woman didn't sue- Her husband did. And the reason he sued was 'loss of services.'

Yes, he sued McDonalds because he claimed that he couldn't have sex with his wife anymore.

Edit: I'm reminded of a time when a lawyer got out of his pool, picked up a long metal rod (Used to clean the pool), and then started smacking some power lines (Which were damaged) to get a palm frond off of it. He was electrocuted and died. His family sued the power company because they didn't warn people against the dangers of hitting damaged power lines with a metal pole while wet.

And they won.

Fuck America.

Americans seem to have this sick obsession with hating anything bigger then them. Especially Government and Companies. Then again, America was founded because they rejected their current Government, so I suppose it's only natural...

 

[Irridium]

No, they said YOU can't sue THEM. They can still sue you're ass though. And have to, since everyone in the US has a right to a trial-by-jury.

No no no. The EULA says you can't bring a class action suit against them. That doesn't mean you cannot sue them. You can still sue EA, this EULA does not prevent that, but you just can't sue them with a whole bunch of your buddies.

It's really kind of underhanded that the internet is manipulating "no class action lawsuits" into "no lawsuits whatsoever".

It pretty much is "no lawsuits whatsoever" though. How many people have the funds to sue a giant like EA all on their own? Very, very few. A class-action with people splits those costs, allowing more people who got screwed over to try and get some retribution.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Don't know about America but in Britain this certainly won't stand up in court. I'm no expert on law but in Britain a contract can be considered void if it requires one party to go against the law or if one party deceives the other party in regards to the contents of a contract. I think stealthily adding clauses that require the user to forego theirs rights to sue into the EULA could certainly fall under one, if not both of those criteria here.

I'm starting to run out of room on my list reasons never buy an EA product.

 

[Harb]

In the Czech Republic I'm given my constitutional right to bring any matter that in my honest belief breaks the law to the court (unless taken away by the court itself). And I'm positive that signing (or agreeing to) a document like this cannot strip me from my right.

So yeah, while it may look good in EA's office, it should make no difference whatsoever.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

From what I can tell most people are neglecting to notice that is says:

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

Are people failing to realize that EA is essentially agreeing to the same thing you are?

That doesn't mean they can't sue our asses into oblivion. One EA exec (with a few lawyers) can represent EA in court, and one person a class-action does not make. And of course, (s)he would no doubt would have more resources than all of the escapist combined a hundred times over, vs. measly us. No chance in hell for us in any case.

 

[robert01]

I won't bother opting out in writting from this clearly shitty agreement because I know my letter wont make it in time. Instead I will just refuse to use any more EA products. Luckily enough for me the only game I had on EA was Alice: Madness, which wasn't an overly enthralling game anyways.

Congrats EA, anyone that was on the fence with you, you just fucking bulldozed over into the "FUCK YOU, EA" Side of the field. I guess I have to start looking into Canadian consumer laws to see what legal merit this has in the rest of Canada besides Quebec, this is the one time they didn't get the shit end of the deal.

To update it appears that Ontario residents are not bound by these terms either:
source: Ministry of Consumer Servivces [http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Your_Consumer_Rights.aspx]

You have the right to seek help:
Some companies add arbitration clauses to contracts that require you to use a private arbitration process to resolve complaints instead of going to court or seeking assistance from the Ministry of Consumer Services. You are not bound by these clauses, even if you have accepted the agreement.

Spoiler

20. Dispute Resolution By Binding Arbitration

The purpose of this Section is to provide a streamlined method for resolution of disputes between us if they arise. As discussed below in Section 20.e, if we cannot resolve our disputes informally and you are awarded a sum at arbitration greater than EA?s last settlement offer to you (if any), EA will pay you 150% of your arbitration award, up to $5000 over and above your arbitration award.

 

[Bob_Dobb]

And yet Bethesda will still try.

Bethesda sent one letter to Mojang. Ever.

Basing an entire company's integrity on one thing... lol. EA on the other hand...

WHY THE HELL haven't they given up. Their PR is through the floor already - I really can't imagine what compelled them to do something for which the ONLY possible outcome is to make their situation worse.

I was talking more about Interplay so I'm basing that on the time they sued Interplay for calling their collection of Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics the Fallout trilogy, the time they sued Interplay for the Fallout MMO and so forth.

But I can't hate the company that made TES so they're even.

 

[O maestre]

.

Yes, but I cannot help to speculate that Google is intent on world domination... so quid pro quo I suppose.

Anyways, the video games industry isn't really "any other industry," now is it? There are certain practices and such that are exclusive to various industries, and trying to expect this industry to be like other industries really isn't a very helpful thought process.


The same thing that goes for trust also goes for respect as well: you do start respecting a customer, then there will be customers who inevitably abuse that respect, which will cost them money. YOU might not abuse that respect, but there will be people who find a way to do so. And if enough customers abuse this respect, then they won't get money. This is something people always seem to forget: money makes the world go 'round. Video games are no exception. You need money to make video games. If you don't have money, then no video games.

in regards to google, if they are planning world domination i cannot see the problem, they would be the first example of a benevolent dictator... i mean most of their released material is open source, that is something no other corporation can claim.

i think we have gotten a bit side tracked, i was not talking about piracy... how is curtailing a customers legal capabilities a way of combating piracy? this about them removing accountability and the potential bad publicity that comes with a class action suit. any legal problems they have from now on can be dealt with behind closed doors.

and finally, why oh why cant we compare industries? why is it that we cannot hold them to the same standards? you will have to explain this to because i cannot fathom it. maybe it is because i live in the EU, here there are at least some regulations that make it impossible for corporations to pull of the same crazy legal stunts, as they do in america. i seriously cannot understand why you are so accommodating, like i stated this has nothing to with piracy at all.

 

[galdon2004]

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.

Those signs are put on the back of dump trucks because of these very real reasons.


1: I don't care how meticulous your maintenance and loading skills are, some of that gravel is going to bounce out of the truck.

2: This gravel can chip the paint of a car following too closely.

3: Some people are too stupid or too pig-headed to realize 1 and 2 on their own

4: Those same morons are quite suehappy.


So, to cover their own asses from suehappy dipshits that think they can tuck up ten feet behind a dump truck and get a free car out of the inevitable paint chip, they put that sign up on the back of the truck. Then, when Retard McSpackypants decides to do so anyways, they can just point to that sign and say "Hey, we gave this guy ample warning not to tailgate our truck, it's his fault his car has paint chips". The courts will agree, rule in favor of the defendant, and justice is served for once.

And yet these trucks drive 10 miles over the speed limit, with no cover to even try to stop the rocks, and PASS cars spraying rocks on the car while it's 'too close'...

..and it's still not the company's fault.


1: The company should never be held responsible for drivers breaking the law. These companies are already lawsuit magnets, so they're not going to be sending memos to their drivers telling them to drive like asshats. Matter of fact, and I know this first-hand as my dad has been driving 18 wheelers for a few years now, it's industry standard to strongly emphasize safe driving.

2: A fully loaded dump truck weighs between 70,000 and 90,000 pounds. It only has about 600HP AT THE MOST, average of about 400. This means a dump truck carrying enough gravel to spew over the side is going to struggle to make 65MPH, let alone do 10 over.

3: Most large trucks are capped between 60 and 65 anyway, only the independents have uncapped trucks these days. Even empty dump trucks can't really break the speed limit that often.

4: Most of the gravel falls behind the truck, not to the side, so the driver would have to cut you off in order to put you too close, and this brings you back to point 1: The company should never be held responsible for asshat drivers that ignore authority.

5: 10 over often means it's simply matching the flow of the cars around it. I run 75MPH when I hit the freeway and I'm still getting passed left and right, speed limit of 70. So if he's just going 10 over he's not going to be passing all that many cars, but he will be avoiding being passed.

Funny story; Companies are actually legally responsible for the actions of their hired employees during work hours.

now, guess where the car is, after being passed? (behind the truck) also, where I live there is reasonably heavy flow of these trucks through residential areas where the speed limit ranges between 45(middle of town) to 65 (leaving/entering town). all the truck drivers including those gravel trucks speed and pass wherever possible. I once even saw a tanker with a hazardous materials tag run a red light. So it's not an isolated event exagerated in my head from getting passed by one jerk 3 years ago or something.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Isn't this basically a form of diplomatic immunity? I'm pretty sure this is illegal EA... If it isn't it must be made illegal.