Man Sues Sony for Changing T.O.S. to Prevent Lawsuits

[Greg Tito]

Man Sues Sony for Changing T.O.S. to Prevent Lawsuits

A California resident has filed a class action lawsuit in defiance of Sony trying to prevent class action lawsuits.

Sony has had a pretty crappy year in the legal sphere. In addition to the "Then in September [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/tag/other+os], Sony changed the Terms of Service you needed to agree to in order to access the PlayStation Network on the PS3, in which one clause essentially prevented filing a class action lawsuit without Sony's written permission. Gamasutra has uncovered legal documents of a man thwarting that clause by filing just such a lawsuit.

While we don't have access to the official court documents (yet), Gama reports [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39261/Sony_Sued_Over_Changes_Tnline_Terms_of_Service.php] the suit alleges Sony is unfairly restricting its customers rights by including the ban on class action lawsuits. He also claims Sony tried to sneak the ban in by putting it at the bottom of the T.O.S. and making the form to opt out of it intentionally difficult to access.

Of course, the original clause [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113063-Sony-Attempts-to-Block-All-Future-PSN-Class-Action-Lawsuit] does say that it may all be smoke and mirrors if a legal entity decides Sony cannot restrict the right to its customers. "If the Class Action Waiver clause is found to be illegal or unenforceable, this entire Section 15 will be unenforceable, and the dispute will be decided by a court and you and the Sony Entity you have a dispute with each agree to waive in that instance."

Well, it looks like the lawsuit currently on the books in northern California is making that clause blow away for good. Way to go, man.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39261/Sony_Sued_Over_Changes_Tnline_Terms_of_Service.php]



Permalink

 

[Kopikatsu]

"We put the newest section added to the TOS at the bottom of the TOS. 'Cause fifteen comes after fourteen."

"YOU'RE TRYING TO HIDE IT? LAWSUUUUUUUUIT!"

Whether or not you agree that the anti-class action lawsuit thing in the TOS is okay or not, you have to admit the guy is being a bit ridiculous with that claim.

 

[wooty]

Well, I look forward to this getting laughed out of court and all the unwashed dreadlocked freedom fighters against corporate greed start forming a religion arond.this guy.

See? I can be extreme too!

 

[theultimateend]

I would think that making games you've purchased impossible to play without giving up your rights is very odd.

It seems to me that that should be a separate TOS that you can opt-in to. Doing so would get you cheaper PSN + or something of that nature.

Otherwise they should have warnings on all new PS3 games whenever they want to make large sweeping changes (and protecting themselves from legal repercussions is fairly large).

 

[Kross]

"If this clause is illegal, please do not use it."

HEY LETS MAKE SHIT UP AND HOPE SOME OF IT STICKS! Oh! We'll have the added bonus of making the other stuff directly inspired from Cowboys and Indians style rules lawyering harder to read as we bury it in even more irrelevant text - in a hard to read font with shitty pagination.

 

[Robomega]

The mind-blowing irony of this whole thing is that frivolous, pointless class-action lawsuits like this one here is the very reason Sony created the clause in the first place.

If people don't like Sony's policies, stop using their products. Has the world really gotten to the point where brand-loyalty is so intense that people would rather file lawsuits against their preferred brand than switch to their competitor's product? Buy a damn Xbox or gaming PC and move on. Sheesh.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I would think that making games you've purchased impossible to play without giving up your rights is very odd.

It seems to me that that should be a separate TOS that you can opt-in to. Doing so would get you cheaper PSN + or something of that nature.

Otherwise they should have warnings on all new PS3 games whenever they want to make large sweeping changes (and protecting themselves from legal repercussions is fairly large).

I imagine it's because according to the EULA, when you buy a console you're only buying a license to use the software. If you don't accept their updated EULA, then they don't have to grant you access to that software, 'cause it's just a license.

 

[Dastardly]

Man Sues Sony for Changing T.O.S. to Prevent Lawsuits

If the clause is ultimately shot down, it's going to be embarrassing not only for Sony, but for certain other companies that tried to play copycat as soon as they saw it looked plausible.

The bigger problem that needs to be addressed is that EULAs can't be read and agreed/disagreed with until after the purchase of a non-refundable product. Fixing this would allow people to make an informed decision not to buy a game or service based on bogus EULA clauses.

 

[Lightslei]

Man Sues Sony for Changing T.O.S. to Prevent Lawsuits

If the clause is ultimately shot down, it's going to be embarrassing not only for Sony, but for certain other companies that tried to play copycat as soon as they saw it looked plausible.

The bigger problem that needs to be addressed is that EULAs can't be read and agreed/disagreed with until after the purchase of a non-refundable product. Fixing this would allow people to make an informed decision not to buy a game or service based on bogus EULA clauses.

I still don't understand how me buying a console is just a license, so I don't understand half of this.


My question is, why is there 3 copies of this story on the front page?

 

[samsonguy920]

Much as the arbitration clause is a cheap way for companies to weasel out of court costs, I find this effort to try to sue it to oblivion completely stupid.
Whoever this guy's lawyer is, they need to be smacked upside the head with every single book of civil law. The case has very little to stand on, and if it is ruled against them in full court, it will actually serve to justify the clause and how EULA's and TOS's are handled.
What a moron.

 

[Albino Boo]

Much as the arbitration clause is a cheap way for companies to weasel out of court costs, I find this effort to try to sue it to oblivion completely stupid.
Whoever this guy's lawyer is, they need to be smacked upside the head with every single book of civil law. The case has very little to stand on, and if it is ruled against them in full court, it will actually serve to justify the clause and how EULA's and TOS's are handled.
What a moron.

Well the reason Sony changed it was because the supreme court says its legal http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113229-SCOTUS-To-Blame-For-Sonys-Terms-of-Service-Changes . The whole reason why companies hate class action law suits is because of stupid speculative law suits that have no chance of wining but cost ex number of billable hours to defend. As much as some people don't like Eula and tos that isn't a legal reason to throw them out. You have to have real legal grounds and after 25 years they are still around no one has found them yet.

 

[MrTub]

Much as the arbitration clause is a cheap way for companies to weasel out of court costs, I find this effort to try to sue it to oblivion completely stupid.
Whoever this guy's lawyer is, they need to be smacked upside the head with every single book of civil law. The case has very little to stand on, and if it is ruled against them in full court, it will actually serve to justify the clause and how EULA's and TOS's are handled.
What a moron.

Well the reason Sony changed it was because the supreme court says its legal http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113229-SCOTUS-To-Blame-For-Sonys-Terms-of-Service-Changes . The whole reason why companies hate class action law suits is because of stupid speculative law suits that have no chance of wining but cost ex number of billable hours to defend. As much as some people don't like Eula and tos that isn't a legal reason to throw them out. You have to have real legal grounds and after 25 years they are still around no one has found them yet.

Isnt US the pretty much only place where EULA is legally binding?

 

[theultimateend]

I would think that making games you've purchased impossible to play without giving up your rights is very odd.

Hardly. The games can be played, just not online. LAN is still available. You have full access to the hardware and the game, but not to the onlin e infrastructure. You don't own the PsN, you have a liscence to it.

And if you try to claim you do own the PsN, well, Sony have a fat stack of legal bills from the hacking thing that you're now legally responsible for.

What PS3 are you playing?

Mine forces me to update before I can play my games.

Or are we counting online mode as a bonus?

As for the rest of your sass, not really interested, target someone else I really don't care enough.

I would think that making games you've purchased impossible to play without giving up your rights is very odd.

It seems to me that that should be a separate TOS that you can opt-in to. Doing so would get you cheaper PSN + or something of that nature.

Otherwise they should have warnings on all new PS3 games whenever they want to make large sweeping changes (and protecting themselves from legal repercussions is fairly large).

I imagine it's because according to the EULA, when you buy a console you're only buying a license to use the software. If you don't accept their updated EULA, then they don't have to grant you access to that software, 'cause it's just a license.

I'm pretty sure that falls apart since you get the EULA long after the product is non-refundable.

If they gave it to you in writing before you bought the console or the game I could see this being legally acceptable.

There is no other product I'm aware of that gives you a contract you must agree to AFTER the product cannot be returned.

 

[theultimateend]

I would think that making games you've purchased impossible to play without giving up your rights is very odd.

Hardly. The games can be played, just not online. LAN is still available. You have full access to the hardware and the game, but not to the onlin e infrastructure. You don't own the PsN, you have a liscence to it.

And if you try to claim you do own the PsN, well, Sony have a fat stack of legal bills from the hacking thing that you're now legally responsible for.

What PS3 are you playing?

Mine forces me to update before I can play my games.

Or are we counting online mode as a bonus?

As for the rest of your sass, not really interested, target someone else I really don't care enough.

Yes, we are counting the online ya don't pay for as a bonus. Single player has never once asked me to update.

Well then I don't know what to say.

I can only guess you are living in a weird psuedo world where the vast majority of content in new games isn't multiplayer centric or emphasized.

Be like buying a book and not getting half or more of the story until you sign a contract. Or a car that doesn't have power steering, power windows, CD player, AC, or any major features unless you sign away your rights.

Paying extra? Sure. I get that.

Paying the full price for an inferior product unless I sign over rights AFTER I OWN THE PRODUCT, absolutely ridiculous and anyone supporting it is doing themselves an incredible disservice.

 

[samsonguy920]

Much as the arbitration clause is a cheap way for companies to weasel out of court costs, I find this effort to try to sue it to oblivion completely stupid.
Whoever this guy's lawyer is, they need to be smacked upside the head with every single book of civil law. The case has very little to stand on, and if it is ruled against them in full court, it will actually serve to justify the clause and how EULA's and TOS's are handled.
What a moron.

Well the reason Sony changed it was because the supreme court says its legal http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113229-SCOTUS-To-Blame-For-Sonys-Terms-of-Service-Changes . The whole reason why companies hate class action law suits is because of stupid speculative law suits that have no chance of wining but cost ex number of billable hours to defend. As much as some people don't like Eula and tos that isn't a legal reason to throw them out. You have to have real legal grounds and after 25 years they are still around no one has found them yet.

The only people who like class action lawsuits are the lawyers who administer them, because they are the ones who see the real payoff. I've gotten two checks so far because I happened to be a "victim" of some corporations muckup. One I put in my savings account because those few pennies do help to savings. The other I think got me a candy bar.
Taking Sony, EA, Activision, Nintendo, or any other gaming business to court because of some flaw in the game is just fallacious. You know the lawyer will want to make it class action, will sell you on it with some quickspeak, and then you end up with enough money for the subway while they get another condo in South Beach.
It is better to just try your best to get the issue fixed, and when that fails, give up and don't give business to that company again because they don't deserve it. Getting worked up because Sony doesn't want you to get yourself screwed is just plain silly. Corporations step on the little guy. Usually because the little guy would rather go through the hassle and money to call a lawyer than to make the same effort to get their issue fixed. Sony wants you to buy more Playstations and games for the Playstation. Tying them up in class action suits doesn't let them make more Playstations and games for said Playstation, and then that pisses off more people. Arbitration actually takes lawyers out of the equation as well in a lot of cases, as those same retired judges chosen to arbitrate the case want to hear from those involved directly. The plaintiff may not walk away with bundles of cash like their inner greed expects to happen, but there is actually a better chance where you get the issue that brought up the affair gets fixed.
I have to wonder when more people say enough is enough with the lawsuit option. It hurts consumers more than it does the companies in the long run.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Much as the arbitration clause is a cheap way for companies to weasel out of court costs, I find this effort to try to sue it to oblivion completely stupid.
Whoever this guy's lawyer is, they need to be smacked upside the head with every single book of civil law. The case has very little to stand on, and if it is ruled against them in full court, it will actually serve to justify the clause and how EULA's and TOS's are handled.
What a moron.

Well the reason Sony changed it was because the supreme court says its legal http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113229-SCOTUS-To-Blame-For-Sonys-Terms-of-Service-Changes . The whole reason why companies hate class action law suits is because of stupid speculative law suits that have no chance of wining but cost ex number of billable hours to defend. As much as some people don't like Eula and tos that isn't a legal reason to throw them out. You have to have real legal grounds and after 25 years they are still around no one has found them yet.

The only people who like class action lawsuits are the lawyers who administer them, because they are the ones who see the real payoff. I've gotten two checks so far because I happened to be a "victim" of some corporations muckup. One I put in my savings account because those few pennies do help to savings. The other I think got me a candy bar.
Taking Sony, EA, Activision, Nintendo, or any other gaming business to court because of some flaw in the game is just fallacious. You know the lawyer will want to make it class action, will sell you on it with some quickspeak, and then you end up with enough money for the subway while they get another condo in South Beach.
It is better to just try your best to get the issue fixed, and when that fails, give up and don't give business to that company again because they don't deserve it. Getting worked up because Sony doesn't want you to get yourself screwed is just plain silly. Corporations step on the little guy. Usually because the little guy would rather go through the hassle and money to call a lawyer than to make the same effort to get their issue fixed. Sony wants you to buy more Playstations and games for the Playstation. Tying them up in class action suits doesn't let them make more Playstations and games for said Playstation, and then that pisses off more people. Arbitration actually takes lawyers out of the equation as well in a lot of cases, as those same retired judges chosen to arbitrate the case want to hear from those involved directly. The plaintiff may not walk away with bundles of cash like their inner greed expects to happen, but there is actually a better chance where you get the issue that brought up the affair gets fixed.
I have to wonder when more people say enough is enough with the lawsuit option. It hurts consumers more than it does the companies in the long run.

When people stop seeing 'McDonalds pays out $60 million in class action lawsuit' as 'Winning the lotto'. But that will never happen.