New Steam TOS Agreement Prevents Class Action Suits

[BENZOOKA]

I wondered what the new TOS that came with a Steam update was. Can't remember the last time I had to 'Agree' on something.

Then again, a drop of spilled milk is considerably more of a problem for me than this.

 

[FallenTraveler]

wow... it's like they're trying to give me reasons to stop buying games! Can't say I actually will, and I don't know how much money they could weasel me out of that I would actually file a suit. I'm sure someone will find a reason, and they're the ones who should stop using the service.

Not saying people shouldn't fight for freedom, just that I don't have any reason to believe that I'll need to.

 

[targren]

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...

Unfortunately, no longer true. Last May, the US Supreme Court decided that it was A-OK. [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/us-supreme-court-okays-binding-arbitration-clauses-prohibiting-consumers-from-joining-class-actions.html] So now the only way for us to stop it would be actual legislation. Good luck with that, though, since our legislators are even more bent than our SC Judges[footnote]I can't bring myself to call them "Justices" after the past few years[/footnote]

 

[Zaik]

I'm pretty torn on this as a whole.

On one hand, I've been "represented" in at least two class action lawsuits that I neither knew or cared about. One was with Bank of America, i think, and the other recently with Netflix.

In both cases, the actual complaint seemed to be pretty trivial and didn't affect me in the slightest. I don't remember what Bank of America did, but Netflix was simply keeping track of what movies and TV shows I was watching.

Anyway, both were settled out of court, the Bank of America settlement would've netted me an estimated payout of $5.00 if I'd cared to fill out the paperwork involved, and the Netflix settlement was all donated to charity. If I had actually suffered some damages from either of these situations, $5.00 would have been competely useless and charity would have been worse.

Of course in both cases the lawyers seem to have made out alright. I don't remember the BoA one all that well but in the Netflix one they got like $200k.

On the other hand though, it seems like it was at least INTENDED to be a means for customers to band together to attack corporations that could easily single out and destroy legal issues brought up individually through the usual lawyer bullshittery.

I can't really decide whether I'm ok with it or not. There's no real right answer here :/

 

[regalphantom]

I'm not sure about the states, but in Canada the official ruling is that these types of clauses do not prevent a company from being sued in cases where a problem arises either due to the companies negligence or dishonesty (legal and otherwise). An example would be an agreement that if you run in a marathon hosted by a city, it prevents you from suing the city over certain things (you trip over your shoe laces and as a result break your leg, you can't sue the city. Another competitor pushes you and injures you, you can't sue the city, but you might be able to sue your competitor) yet still allows you to sue the city for things that are undoubtedly their fault (they route the marathon through a street filled with 2 foot potholes, or the tent the runners are hosted in collapses). All I know is that effectively speaking, in Canada these types of clauses invalidate many trivial claims (like the famous "hot coffee" case, although truth be told the cause had significantly more merit than most people give it credit for) but against more serious claims any generic 'can not sue' agreement has about as much weight as the paper it's printed on.

 

[Hagi]

With the EU actively trying to tear, say, Microsoft a new one, you really shouldn't be surprised stuff costs (much) more in your fantasy currency that's been on the brink of blowing up Reichsmark style for almost half of its existence already.

Meh, the euro is still stronger than the dollar for now (1 euro = 1,23 dollar) and game prices haven't changed in forever and I don't see that getting any different in the near future.

I'm not worried yet. We may be in a bad spot with Greece, Spain and other countries but luckily most of the western world isn't doing all that great either so it'll balance out somewhat.

 

[viranimus]

Wow...

Well I guess between Sony, Microsoft, Origin and now steam... Im no longer a gamer.

People you need to resist this. It does not matter if it doesnt hold water. It does not matter if they would never utilize it. It does not matter if you dont see how this effects you. The simple fact is this is a corporation that is asking you to waive your legal rights that it has no place to ask you to do so. By bowing to this your only hurting every other gamer by telling this corporation that your OK with them doing this.

You know, future generations will look back at this generation with dismay and ask "how could you be so lazy and apathetic to let all this happen"

This goes out to all the "slippery slope" people who said people were over reacting when Sony did this, then Origin, then Microsoft, and now that great and glorious benevolent gaming benefactor has demanded you waive your rights too.... because erbawdy else requires it.

Gamers... take some responsibility for your hobby. Quit allowing these people to do this. This is way too out of hand now.

 

[Signa]

It's frustrating to say the least. It somewhat is a betrayal of my trust in Valve, so I'm not happy. There are mitigating circumstances though. Valve is over a year late to the party. Sony did it initially because they fucked up bad, and didn't want people to call them on it. Other companies followed suit because they saw Sony get away with it. Now I feel Valve is doing it just to cover their ass, because they are a target now. It's wiser for them to have the clause than to not have it. Just because I don't want to sue them doesn't mean that some other dick-bag won't try to find some little issue to turn into a class-action suit. Besides, if something does go catastrophically wrong, I'm sure a class action suit can be filed anyway. A EULA isn't going to keep a court from hearing a case. It might get dismissed, but they still will hear it.

What I find completely unreasonable is the holding hostage of my games to agree to the new terms. I bought those games under the old EULA, so if anything goes wrong with those games, THAT agreement should still hold true.

 

[GAunderrated]

I think you can send a letter to Steam within thirty days saying that you refuse to acknowledge the changes and you get to keep the original term of service. I certainly remember that happening with Sony.

Technically this doesn't hold water in Australia, but guess what? All suits against US companies have to be fought in the US and usually California.

Oh well, I did sign up to Origin...

Again, I don't blame companies for taking advantage of legal protections. I blame the US Supreme Court for allowing this nonsense.

Captcha: Public Good

Really? Cause while you may blame the Supreme Court you are overlooking the actual family and lawyer and how much money they were suing for are the root of the problem. People ***** about class actions lawsuits as dumb cases but I see this as probably the worst one because here is the facts.

The Concepcion family sued AT&T for 30 dollars. Appealed their loss enough times to get up to the Supreme court. Resulting in 300 million people losing their right to actually utilize our justice system in favor of a private corporation of arbiters with their own rules and laws and compensation methods that could easily be put upon the individual.

Honestly if they stopped at the local level it wouldn't of been a big deal and while there would of been legal precedence no company lawyer in other states would of found it and honestly lost to time. But the dumbass family and lawyer kept appealing for that 30 dollars cause that money was certainly more important to the right to justice using our justice system. Which is honestly sad because what the courts often do before you actually even get to a jury is that both parties will most of the time settle OUT OF COURT. Meaning that the entire point of the arbiters is meaningless as our justice system already has a way of enabling parties to negotiate utilizing the justice system that our country supports.

People like you disturb me. You have it in your head that the people suing AT&T for their shady practices are the bad guys because they lost. I could understand if they were being really greedy and messed everything up but they were suing for the principle of the matter. Unfortunately for those people, the american system is bought and paid for by corporations so they loss. However, instead of people like you seeing the broken system and trying to change it, you blame the victim and go about your day. No need to actually try and change anything as long as you have someone to blame right?

captcha: run away. Yeah I think i'll be taking my leave captcha.

 

[wooty]

The only question I have is; can I still just play my games?

Thats all I use steam for really, a necessary evil.

 

[Denamic]

No it doesn't.
A TOS doesn't hold the power to deprive people of such rights.
Especially when people already have vast libraries of games, and you're forced to agree to have access to them.
It's a pointless dick move.

 

[dnazeri]

This is absurd. Companies which essentially force you into ridiculous contracts by holding your content hostage (ie by not letting you play your games until you agree) should themselves be forced into giving a refund of all purchases to anyone who disagrees. No one wants to make a big deal out of this because its admittedly hard to dislike and criticize Valve, but this is a shitty business practice that deserves no defending from apologist fanboys.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Interesting, this is actually the first mischievous thing I've seen Valve do in a while.

The only logical thing to think when someone says "I want to be exempt from the consequences criminals must face" is they are either planning on being a criminal one day, or they just think they will become one over time.

Neither is encouraging, and yes I thought the exact same thing when those other companies did it. No one asks for immunity from something unless they think they are going to need it.