Court Rules Sony Can Change PlayStation Terms of Service

[Andy Chalk]

Court Rules Sony Can Change PlayStation Terms of Service

A lawsuit filed against Sony over changes to the PlayStation Network terms of service has been dismissed.

In September of 2011, Sony made some pretty big changes [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113063-Sony-Attempts-to-Block-All-Future-PSN-Class-Action-Lawsuits] to the PlayStation Network terms of service that effectively eliminated the right of users to bring class action lawsuits against it. The updated TOS declared that all disputes between PSN and its users would be settled through arbitration unless the company agreed to let it happen. Users can opt out of the amended terms by contacting Sony in writing within 30 days of agreeing to them, but choosing to hold on to the right to file a class action suit means giving up the option of out-of-court settlements.

The TOS amendments, not to mention the fact that arbitrators would be hired by Sony, stacked the deck pretty heavily in the company's favor. This didn't sit too well with an awful lot of people, in particular a California man who sought to bring a class action lawsuit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114861-Man-Sues-Sony-for-Changing-T-O-S-to-Prevent-Lawsuits] against Sony over its efforts to block class action lawsuits. He claimed that the TOS amendments amounted to unfair business practices under the terms of California's "Unfair Competition Law" and a "tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

The courts disagreed, however, and have dismissed the case, saying it fails to show either a valid UCL claim or a breach of any particular agreement. The crux of the decision is that the plaintiff chose to agree to the amended terms of service and then did not opt out, meaning that the only "economic harm" he can claim to have suffered is the loss of the right to file a class action lawsuit.

"This 'harm,' however, is too conjectural to support a finding of economic injury here and now," Judge Susan Illston wrote in her decision. "Plaintiff himself explains that 'if' defendants engage in 'wrongdoing' in the future, he will only be able to seek relief in an individual arbitration which is 'unlikely' to be cost effective. However, plaintiff cannot allege that defendants will engage in wrongdoing in the future, that he would pursue a remedy for that unknown wrongdoing, or that the type of harm he suffered would not be cost effective to resolve through an individual arbitration. By his own argument, plaintiff demonstrates that he has not, as of this date, suffered a concrete and particularized economic injury."

There's quite a bit more to it, with plenty of phrases like "sua sponte" and "res judicata doctrine," but the bottom line is that the lawsuit has been given the boot. The plaintiff was given ten days to amend his filing to "state a claim for declaratory relief" but the UCL and tortious breach claims were both dismissed without leave to amend. As far as further action against Sony goes, in other words, that's pretty much that.

Source: Techdirt [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/02412418363/court-says-sony-is-free-to-change-its-terms-service-because-accessing-psn-is-choice.shtml]


Permalink

 

[RaikuFA]

Wow Sony, you're just asking for another security breach aren't you?

 

[Lunar Templar]

you know, the more i hear, the more i think they just don't wanna be in video games anymore

 

[Sis]

Company wins? OMG! NO WAI!

 

[Qitz]

A court gives a company more rights than a person? Color me fuckin' surprised.

Makes you wish that ToS and EULA's weren't legally binding in any way, shape or form.

 

[Epona]

A court gives a company more rights than a person? Color me fuckin' surprised.

Makes you wish that ToS and EULA's weren't legally binding in any way, shape or form.

They aren't. They are rules/wish lists. If you violate the TOS of this site you can be banned, but that is not a legal issue. If you violate the terms of an EULA, well, nothing happens lest they take you to court and win. As a general rule, EULA's are just wish lists. They cannot call the police and have you arrested because you installed Windows on more than one PC, for example.

 

[w00tage]

Well, at least it didn't hurt the chances of future lawsuits over changing the EULA for a product that's already purchased.

Moral 1 of this story is: the people at Sony view customers as sheep to be sheared, and will force you into the pen and down the chute by whatever means they can legally get away with.

Moral 2: Don't file lawsuits unless you actually know how.

 

[viranimus]

Just another brick in the wall that is the oncoming State Corporatisim. Because capitalism simply was not sufficient enough to only be a economic structure, it now has to be a system of government too. It saddens me to see people still have not stopped this sort of nonsense. When exactly was it that branches of the government forgot that the only reason they exist is to do what is in the best interest of the people.

 

[Epona]

Just another brick in the wall that is the oncoming State Corporatisim. Because capitalism simply was not sufficient enough to only be a economic structure, it now has to be a system of government too. It saddens me to see people still have not stopped this sort of nonsense. When exactly was it that branches of the government forgot that the only reason they exist is to do what is in the best interest of the people.

I believe, and I stress believe, that this is the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism needs a reboot.

 

[viranimus]

I believe, and I stress believe, that this is the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism needs a reboot.

Quite possibly. Or is it that capitalism is already being rebooted. This is just the first steps of the dark and gritty reboot that we have seen so much of as of late?

 

[HobbesMkii]

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about this. There's no definitive statement on whether or not EULAs are binding (at least in the United States) because they constitute a shrink-wrap contract. So you could still have a lot of legal actions you can take, even if they try to hold you to the terms stipulated in the TOS agreement.

 

[Epona]

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about this. There's no definitive statement on whether or not EULAs are binding (at least in the United States) because they constitute a shrink-wrap contract. So you could still have a lot of legal actions you can take, even if they try to hold you to the terms stipulated in the TOS agreement.

If they aren't legally binding, then they aren't. It's not up in the air. If there is no law that says you can't throw your PSP at the wall, then by default, you can.

 

[HobbesMkii]

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about this. There's no definitive statement on whether or not EULAs are binding (at least in the United States) because they constitute a shrink-wrap contract. So you could still have a lot of legal actions you can take, even if they try to hold you to the terms stipulated in the TOS agreement.

If they aren't legally binding, then they aren't. It's not up in the air. If there is no law that says you can't throw your PSP at the wall, then by default, you can.

That's a nice thought, but that's not the case. See, laws aren't exhaustive or thorough on all things. Some laws are written intended for one thing but end up getting applied to another. Thus, shrink wrap contracts fall under the concept of a contract, which is a legally binding document, but doesn't make provisions for shrink wrap contracts. Adding to this is the fact that each state and federal appeals circuit essentially defines its own jurisdiction, meaning you have a plethora of laws with varying degrees of constitutionality.

The trouble with shrink wrap contracts is that in order to enter into a legally binding contract, both parties must consent to do so. But in the case of software, in order to obtain the contract you need to consent to in order to use a product, you have to buy that product. Generally, you're not legally bound to consent to or even read such contracts, because they can basically put anything in there, and you'd have to agree (which would be an undue burden, because the EULA could claim anything, like that you had to give up your first born son to Sony). However, because no case has ever reached the US Supreme Court, the actual constitutional legality of EULAs and TOSs has never been firmly established, and the Appeals Circuits have varied in their decisions about EULAs' and TOSs' legal status.

So, in theory, you have the ability to appeal your case to the SCOTUS if you should ever be attacked by Sony for violating TOS.

Edited: removed a bit about Sony's TOS updates being murkier, which was false, see Foolproof's correction below

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

When exactly was it that branches of the government forgot that the only reason they exist is to do what is in the best interest of the people.

When they placed the economy on a higher pedestal than the people's will? And how do you keep the economy happy? Keep the big businesses happy. I was kind of hoping we wouldn't hear more about these kind of cases but whatever. I can still dream of a world where corporations aren't people.

 

[Epona]

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about this. There's no definitive statement on whether or not EULAs are binding (at least in the United States) because they constitute a shrink-wrap contract. So you could still have a lot of legal actions you can take, even if they try to hold you to the terms stipulated in the TOS agreement.

If they aren't legally binding, then they aren't. It's not up in the air. If there is no law that says you can't throw your PSP at the wall, then by default, you can.

That's a nice thought, but that's not the case. See, laws aren't exhaustive or thorough on all things. Some laws are written intended for one thing but end up getting applied to another. Thus, shrink wrap contracts fall under the concept of a contract, which is a legally binding document, but doesn't make provisions for shrink wrap contracts. Adding to this is the fact that each state and federal appeals circuit essentially defines its own jurisdiction, meaning you have a plethora of laws with varying degrees of constitutionality.

The trouble with shrink wrap contracts is that in order to enter into a legally binding contract, both parties must consent to do so. But in the case of software, in order to obtain the contract you need to consent to in order to use a product, you have to buy that product. Generally, you're not legally bound to consent to or even read such contracts, because they can basically put anything in there, and you'd have to agree (which would be an undue burden, because the EULA could claim anything, like that you had to give up your first born son to Sony). However, because no case has ever reached the US Supreme Court, the actual constitutional legality of EULAs and TOSs has never been firmly established, and the Appeals Circuits have varied in their decisions about EULAs' and TOSs' legal status. Sony's TOS update is in even murkier waters, because it's actually a contract they're foisting upon you, the consumer, after you've purchased the product in order to keep using the product you've already purchased. Software and consoles are, to my knowledge, the only such products in the history of selling things that have been able to do this. You sign a contract to purchase or lease a car, but that contract never changes at the whim of the dealer--it'd be unfathomable.

So, in theory, you have the ability to appeal your case to the SCOTUS if you should ever be attacked by Sony for violating TOS.

An EULA or TOS has exactly as much power as you give it or as they can enforce per person. They aren't going to take everyone to court and as of now there is no blanket law stating that a EULA is legally binding. It's a wish list.

Example: You can't install Windows 7 on more than one computer because Microsoft has an activation system that prevents it. No legal action is being taken there, it's just that the DRM is preventing honest customers from doing it. If you choose to circumvent the activation system, you can install it on as many computers as you want and there will still be no laws broken. You broke the EULA, a wish list, nothing more. If Microsoft chooses to take you to court then the court will decide if you were in the wrong but ONLY you, not everyone who installs Windows on multiple PC's.

They can put anything they want in an EULA which is just evidence that EULA's can't be legally binding without some sort of oversight for every EULA written.

If people want to go on believing that EULA's are legally binding, then eventually they will be. That's what happens when no one questions ridiculous things.

 

[VonKlaw]

So basically you won't be able to sue Sony because you can't prove now that Sony will do anything that will make them liable to lawsuit? Makes perfect sense yo. >.>

Now im gunna file a lawsuit that says I can't ever be arrested for bank robbery because banks can't prove I might rob a bank in the future.