Newest Xbox 360 Update Prevents Class Actions Suits Against Microsoft

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Newest Xbox 360 Update Prevents Class Actions Suits Against Microsoft


Users who agree to the latest Xbox 360 update's terms of services forfeit their right to sue Microsoft.

After a bit of a shaky start, the most recent Xbox 360 update has finally gone live, introducing a wide variety of massive collection [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114524-Heres-The-Skinny-On-Microsofts-New-360-Update] of film and TV content. However, the new update does come with a somewhat devious catch.

A segment written in big, bold letters in the update's terms of service essentially state that Xbox 360 owners are forbidden from participating in any class action suits against Microsoft. Specific details can be found in console itself [http://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/livetou] will no longer be able to involve a judge or jury.

Previous class action suits against Microsoft caused the electronics giant to own up to major problems with Xbox Live and the Xbox 360, such as extending its warranties to cover console failures caused by the infamous E74 error, AKA "Red Ring of Death." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/90933-Microsoft-Extends-Xbox-Warranty-to-E74-Error] By requiring future disputes be handled behind closed doors, it's entirely possible that Microsoft could use this new clause to brush any problems under the rug or offer little payout to consumers who dispute any issues with its services. Most often cases involving private arbitration aren't open to the public, and there's also very little in the way of reviewing an arbitrator's decision.

billions of dollars. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113063-Sony-Attempts-to-Block-All-Future-PSN-Class-Action-Lawsuits]

The new Xbox 360 terms of service only affect residents of the United States, so if you happen to live elsewhere in the world, you don't have anything to worry about right now. Those inside the US can file a dispute by filling out this form [www.xbox.com/notice] and mailing it in.

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/5865797/now-microsoft-wants-to-stop-you-taking-them-to-court]

Permalink
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Honestly, we need to see this sort of thing smacked down.

MysticToast said:
As a Sony customer, this fills me with giddiness
It fills you with giddiness that Microsoft has done the same douchey thing Sony did?
 

Absolutionis

New member
Sep 18, 2008
420
0
0
People need to realize this isn't a bad thing. If something terrible happens, you can still sue. The issue is that you simply can't jump on a class-action lawsuit bandwagon where in the end you'll get $0.10 and the lawyer gets millions.
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,520
0
0
MysticToast said:
As a Sony customer, this fills me with giddiness
Why? It establishes a precident. Won't be long for every other company to follow suit, including Sony.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,024
3,892
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I cant wait till this shit is really challanged in court, I doubt it will really stand up but it if does, then.... bad things.
 

ZeZZZZevy

New member
Apr 3, 2011
618
0
0
I actually read through the whole thing, and it said later in section 18 that if this practice is found to be illegal most of the section is rescinded. Wasn't this already ruled legal or is this just some random legal thing they have to throw in?
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
Seems to be new standard for ToS these days. Makes me actually wonder what enabled it, was there such change in law in US recently that might have been the case or did some lucky lawyer got a stroke of genius that made him head of lawyers department at one of the companies?
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
EU law means it will not stand in any EU country anyway so not too worried.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
I can see the report on their next EULA now:

"After their recent XBL update, Microsoft has made amends to their EULA in bold, which now states that if you agree to their new terms, you will forfeit your children (current or forthcoming). Should users wish to avoid this, they are free to saw off their own leg, tattoo it with the words "FUCK OFF" (capitalisation and relevant punctuation optional), and send it in to them at Only Communists Like Consumer Rights Street, PO BOX G0 5UX A D1K."
 

uppitycracker

New member
Oct 9, 2008
864
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
MysticToast said:
As a Sony customer, this fills me with giddiness
Why? It establishes a precident. Won't be long for every other company to follow suit, including Sony.
Sony already did, months ago.

ZeZZZZevy said:
I actually read through the whole thing, and it said later in section 18 that if this practice is found to be illegal most of the section is rescinded. Wasn't this already ruled legal or is this just some random legal thing they have to throw in?
I think it's just a random legal thing thrown in. I can't really see this as being legal practice. EULA's often times throw in things that will never hold up in court. Pretty sure this is one of those things.







And on to the bigger picture. The thing I see here is, a really horrible turn in the wrong direction. Those lawsuits have practically forced companies to maintain fair business practices and make drastic improvements on their services that otherwise they would not have had the motivation to do. This is precisely what is wrong with our country and why shit is rolling downhill so damn fast: nobody wants to be accountable for their actions anymore.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
I'm kinda ambivalent about this. Is Microsoft wrong for taking something I've legally paid for and saying "If you don't agree to -insert draconian rule here- then you can't use what you own"? Yes. Is Microsoft the only company out there doing this? No. So my general feeling is one of "Meh, thing are rough all over". I don't like it, but I can live with it.
 

evenest

New member
Dec 5, 2009
167
0
0
ZeZZZZevy said:
I actually read through the whole thing, and it said later in section 18 that if this practice is found to be illegal most of the section is rescinded. Wasn't this already ruled legal or is this just some random legal thing they have to throw in?
It is a way of covering microsoft's agreement legally. This way if any one part is found to be illegal/invalid, it doesn't invalidate the remainder of the agreement. I believe that most laws/acts have the same language--I remember it coming up in the recent health care act.
 

Absolutionis

New member
Sep 18, 2008
420
0
0
I guess you people really enjoy your ignorant knee-jerk reactions.

Note that you can still sue. You just can't make it class-action.
 

MysticToast

New member
Jul 28, 2010
628
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
MysticToast said:
As a Sony customer, this fills me with giddiness
Why? It establishes a precident. Won't be long for every other company to follow suit, including Sony.
Umm.... Sony has already done this. That was the point of my post
 

Drenaje1

New member
Aug 6, 2011
171
0
0
Meh. I don't much care for the little system we have going on here:

"Sorry, we're not liable for your Xbox releasing a deadly neurotoxin into your household."
"Why?"
"Because you signed a paper that said we aren't."

Problem? But then again, how else are you going to set a formal agreement in stone? And besides, 90% of their customers don't care. Just skip right on through their EULA, and on to the shiny new dashboard. For that matter, I really don't much care about this, because I don't own a console.
 

Gammayun

New member
Aug 23, 2011
234
0
0
hmm i really should start to read the terms and conditions, i mean they could put "we want your first born son" and i dont think i totally agree with that.
 

evenest

New member
Dec 5, 2009
167
0
0
Absolutionis said:
I guess you people really enjoy your ignorant knee-jerk reactions.

Note that you can still sue. You just can't make it class-action.
We could do without the inflammatory language of calling people's responses "ignorant." Knee-jerk reaction aside, it puts more of a financial burden on the individual to have to fight for his/her rights than it does for a group--not to mention that a group will have a louder/stronger voice than an individual would.