New Steam TOS Agreement Prevents Class Action Suits

[psicat]

New Steam Agreement Prevents Subscribers From Filing Class Action Suits [http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/23882/new-steam-agreement-prevents-subscribers-from-filing-class-action-claims]

Considering how many people bitched about 'evil' corporations that don't care about individual rights when Sony, Microsoft, and EA Origin did this I wonder if the many Valve fanboys will quietly accept this now. Especially when some users claimed they would stop using any service that followed this change in TOS [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.314954.12785755].

 

[TheCommanders]

While some of what they say about class action suits only benefiting the lawyers is true, placing a blanket ban on them strikes me as a lazy solution. I also look forward to see how the valve fanboys who decried the other corporations implementing this will defend valve's use of it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I have to wonder if this will hold any water in real life. It certainly won't in the EU, but American courts have always been more friendly to contracts of adhesion, more willing to allow contracts that deprive people of their legal rights. And I live in America.

 

[crazyrabbits]

From what I understood during the Origin discussion on this same topic, most ToS documents aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're simply a stopgap to discourage the 98% of customers who want to start something without serious legal assistance. Anyone with enough money/legal help/persistence would likely be able to broach this clause, especially since there are several U.S. states and EU countries that don't consider a ToS as a binding document.

Besides, the legal language is fairly vague anyway. Just a collective "you agree by using our service", indicating that there could be many users out there who either haven't read the updated version or never knew about it in the first place.

I doubt the agreement would be enforceable in a court of law, especially if enough people got together. Then again, the circumstances behind a class action would have to be quite extraordinary anyway.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Besides, the legal language is fairly vague anyway. Just a collective "you agree by using our service", indicating that there could be many users out there who either haven't read the updated version or never knew about it in the first place.

When Steam updates its EULA it causes the client itself to update making it impossible not to see that they changed it.

You have to accept the notice of the EULA change on the update before you can even get back on Steam.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Besides, the legal language is fairly vague anyway. Just a collective "you agree by using our service", indicating that there could be many users out there who either haven't read the updated version or never knew about it in the first place.

When Steam updates its EULA it causes the client itself to update making it impossible not to see that they changed it.

You have to accept the notice of the EULA change on the update before you can even get back on Steam.

You're right - I forgot about that.

 

[mateushac]

I'm kind of confused with the "forfeit trial and use arbitration instead" part. Does it mean what it looks like it means?
Of course I live outside the US and this would probably be against our constitution, but I'd like to know if they acually could enforce that in the USA.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm kind of confused with the "forfeit trial and use arbitration instead" part. Does it mean what it looks like it means?
Of course I live outside the US and this would probably be against our constitution, but I'd like to know if they acually could enforce that in the USA.

Its been done, yes. This is an area of law that's still undecided for the country at large, because the Supreme Court routinely refuses to hear cases that touch on it. The courts of appeal (second highest level) keep getting cases, but there's multiple circuits, each with their own way of ruling on these things, which basically means the law is enforced differently in different parts of the country. Point being, it's a mess. Other point: more often than not, what the law /says/ is pretty damned clear. What the judges interpret it as meaning, on the other hand...

Captcha: Emperor's Clothes.

Yes, Captcha, our court system is naked, and nobody is willing to stand up and say "hey judge, you're naked. Put on some clothes and stop 'interpreting' the law in a way that doesn't match either what it says or what it was meant to do. And for God's sake, stop treating what other judges have said about the law as more important than what's actually on the books."

 

[mateushac]

Snip

Thanks for the information! It certainly helped me understand how messy Common Law can get.
It's still weird that the Supreme Court would refuse to have a say on it. Don't you guys have constitutional laws - or at least reference previous cases - that prevent people from giving up their (contitutional, probably) rights such as being able to take their disputes to court?

*Maybe that's what you meant when you said that the books are very clear on that matter, in which case I apologize for my ignorance

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip

Thanks for the information! It certainly helped me understand how messy Common Law can get.
It's still weird that the Supreme Court would refuse to have a say on it. Don't you guys have constitutional laws - or at least reference previous cases - that prevent people from giving up their (contitutional, probably) rights such as being able to take their disputes to court?

*Maybe that's what you meant when you said that the books are very clear on that matter, in which case I apologize for my ignorance

Like I said, it's a mess XD

The supreme court can choose whether or not to take any case that is coming before them in a given year, and they in fact have to turn down most of them in order to get any work done at all. It's a really big country, and we only have the one Supreme Court, so they have to be choosy. As for laws that prevent you from giving up your rights in a contract, we have them, but again, the whole thing is a mess. There's all sorts of little exceptions, and the high paid lawyers that these software companies can afford to hire are great at exploiting them -- which then creates bad case law, which reinforces their position in future cases.

 

[Arcane_squirrel]

Normally i could see how that will anger people, but hey Class actions barely help the people in most cases. and the simple fact that steam almost makes DRM look nice so i think most people wouldnt care, and that steam has great customer service.

 

[xPrometheusx]

The original terms of service stopped players from taking any legal action against Valve or Steam AT ALL. The solution to any problem that could result in a lawsuit that Valve wanted to avoid was a termination of the steam account and a "have a nice day". So in reality, this is a step up. I'm not saying I agree with it and it certainly won't stop serious lawsuits, but it's still better than the original.

 

[Windcaler]

Any kind of contract, signed or otherwise, can not take away the freedoms given by the constitution of the united states. This includes the freedom to sue someone. Although it is very evil empire like and if valve seriously wants to take that route then people really should stop using steam

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I don't care. It doesn't affect me anymore. I moved to Europe a few years ago. That shit isn't allowed here. The ability to sue is a constitutional right that you can't forfeit with a contract. It means nothing.

 

[Rack]

While I object to this my position is still largely the same as with Sony. Scummy move but for practicalities sake I can't just give up Steam. Fortunately EU law makes this clause legally worthless, maybe the US should do something similar.

 

[Stainlesssteele4]

While I'm not openly defending Valve, I'll defend those that say class action lawsuits only benefit lawyers. You get the satisfaction of sticking it to whoever or whatever you wanted to sue, but monetarily, you and the thousands of others get an arbitrary amount of money; whereas the lawyer gets a large sum.
Valve is a software company, nothing they could or would ever do should warrant anyone suing them. If there is a major problem, Valve go far and beyond what the competition will to fix or mitigate the problem. If they actually do something that makes you angry, why go after them for money beyond a simple refund?
If people didn't feel so entitled, Valve wouldn't have to declare anything like that. If you disagree with their terms, don't use the service, simple as that! They're not asking to monitor your hard drives, they're not asking for a social security number or form of ID, they're just asking not to screw them over because you felt the software distributor owes you something more than the excellent service they provide!
Scratch that, I'm defending Valve! This change makes sense to me.

 

[Rednog]

I really hate companies that pull this bullshit, oh great we threw a new TOS at you, you can't touch any of your game until you agree. Oh what's that if you don't agree you lose all your stuff because you don't own it, because it's a "subscription". How about I can't further register or buy games on steam until I agree to the new TOS and let me play what I purchased already under the old TOS, it is absolutely not fair to hold my games hostage.

Edit: Before agreeing I strongly recommend that if you're really against this, to write a support ticket that you're only agreeing to it because you're being forced to (coerced).

 

[Ganath]

Unless I hit my head really hard, I don't see why I would ever sue a company that makes games. So this change doesn't really affect me. If I feel I should get a refund for something, I'm sure they'd help me if it was justified enough. Eitherway, I live in Europe, and apparently it wouldn't work here. Or something. *Shuffles his lack of knowledge right under the bed*

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

When Steam updates its EULA it causes the client itself to update making it impossible not to see that they changed it.

You have to accept the notice of the EULA change on the update before you can even get back on Steam.

um... no?

I'd had no such notice, and my steam is up to date and auto-starts every time my computer does.