Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Sues Sony over PSN Ban

[Valiance]

I wish I could get paid 55,000 dollars to act like a dick online and get banned for it.

 

[Disembodied_Dave]

Agoraphobics are the worst type of people.

 

[Hulyen]

Your conclusion is faulty. You can't take someone's money and not give them a product. It's not legal. Sony can waste as much paper as they want in saying it's non-refundable, but if they took his money and gave him nothing, he has every right to get it back. That particular part of the lawsuit he can actually win.

It depends on how smart Sony was in setting up their system - Microsoft and Nintendo use proprietary points for presumably this very reason. You are buying points from them to use on other products. By buying points from them, you HAVE received a product. A digital product, but a product nonetheless. If Sony was smart, they've legally differentiated between USD and the 'dollars' you use on PSN. If they haven't, then yes, there MAY be a case here for a refund under your given logic.

 

[RikSharp]

Your conclusion is faulty. You can't take someone's money and not give them a product. It's not legal. Sony can waste as much paper as they want in saying it's non-refundable, but if they took his money and gave him nothing, he has every right to get it back. That particular part of the lawsuit he can actually win.

The rest of his claims about violating his first ammendment rights is a bunch of non-sense, it's a free service and he violated their conduct policies (that part they can win easily).

the section i should have referenced clearer was in the termination/cancellation section:

Upon termination for any reason, you will not receive a refund for items, value accumulated on in-game items or any unused balance in your wallet

that seems very black and white for me...


EDIT: my spelling sucks

 

[MSG_Klemer]

If you notice his representation is ACLU...

The ACLU can really push some wieght around. Man, what crap we wouldn't have to deal with or hear about if the ACLU wasn't around. They need to just disappear.

 

[FallenRainbows]

I hate it when people use illnesses against you

Spoiler: EXAMPLE:

Person A: Oh, that Jack is a twat.

Person B: Hey, he's also got ADHD! Therefore everything bad he does is automatically fine, however if you step one toe over the line you get nailed down by everyone! I'm telling on you!

Ah if only my Parkinsons got me that treatment Actually I'd be annoyed if it did.

 

[GonzoGamer]

*Fanboy mode on*
Just buy an Xbox
*Fanboy mode off*

But what if he got banned for something ridiculous like telling people he's also gay. You can get banned from XBL for that too.

If it's something like that situation, he deserves his thousands of dollars. If he was intentionally being a prick and hiding behind his disabilities, he deserves a swift kick in the ass.

Can anyone tell me what exactly he was banned for? What did he do, we can't exactly pass judgement without that info.
That's what we're supposed to be doing here right?

I see nothing ridiculous about identifying yourself as gay. Except if you meant that it's silly to do so in a room filled with faux-macho 13 year-old boys even I, a skinny shut-in, could most likely take out with a nice mallet and a head start. But I digress, as interesting as such a confrontation would be.

I meant that it would've been ridiculous if that was the reason he was banned.

What if he did get banned for that reason? Does that excuse him from the rules if the rules clearly state that saying your sexual orientation could incur the wrath of the banhammer?

Wouldn't it be ironic if he was banned for running around telling everyone he is straight.

And she wasn't banned for telling anyone. She was banned for putting it in her profile. If she had just simply told everyone in every game she ever played she would still be playing.

I would suggest reading this before going off on XBL treatment of her

http://www.xbox.com/zh-SG/live/legal/codeofconduct.htm

It is laid out quite clearly in more than 1 point.

I think they would have an excuse if they were braking a rule that's bigoted and discriminatory to begin with, yes. If someone is really being discriminated against, they have every right to sue. I just want to know if this guy is really being discriminated against or if it's like Cartman saying he has Tourettes.

And thanks for the link. Their practices are worse than I thought. It's hard to believe this is an American company. It's amazing anyone is left on XBL considering the 3rd rule is Don't scream, yell, or threaten. Has anyone here ever put on a headset on XBL and NOT heard any of these things?

I take it you didn't read the "What to do" part. It would be one thing if there was nothing you could do and were forced with either listening to it or just not playing. MS isn't your mommy or daddy. MS has provided you with everything you need to enjoy your experience on XBL. They just expect you to have the common sense to use it. it isn't thier job to protect you from anything you might find offensive that another might say over thier headset. They have simply said you are a big boy or girl if someone is screaming, threatening or doing whatever you might not like you can do something about it. And at the same time for the good of the whole community (not in the best interest of any special interest group or demographic the whole community) lets not put certain things in your profile. If you cannot abide by this simple rule you risk being banned. It is no different here at The Escapist. The "no trolling" rule is there not because they are dicks. It is there for the good of the community as a whole. If you insist on trolling you will be banned. You don't get to troll since you belong to a minority or a special interest group or a specific demographic. the law doesn't see race, gender or anything else. It is thier for one and all. The only way a troll skates scott free is when you and I don't report it. Then we can't then blame the mods for letting the troll skate when we didn't do our part to stop it. Which is exactly what is happening when the excuse:

"Well I have seen other profiles in violation of the Code of Conduct."

"Did you report it"

"No"

So you didn't do your part out of sheer laziness and then expect MS to do thiers?

Not laziness, apathy; read what I typed up there. What part of my statement made you think I agree with their code of conduct, want to help them enforce it, or want ms to ban anybody? I think gamers should be able to state what kind of people they like to have sex with and really don't care what these kids yell out on xbl because I usually don't care when I wear the headset and when I do get annoyed, I'll put any jerks in their place myself: I wasn't that d-bag who always told the teacher when she forgot to assign homework. And besides, they pay for it, they can say whatever they want on it as far as I'm concerned. If MS want to be nazis, they can regulate everything themselves: I don't work for them and I'm not going to turn people in because they don't want to live by those rules.

What I find very illuminating is that the dbags who do go to MS saying that the lesbian scares them don't also "cry to mommy" about all of these screamers, yellers, and threateners.

I feel the same way you do on alot of this. The simple fact of the matter is if there is a rule and a consequence you break one you risk the other. The only people I myself have ever muted are the people whose tea is done (that damn whistle). It doesn't change the fact that these things are put there for a reason and agree or disagree with said rules it is not MS's fault that the world is the way it is and a controversial issue is controversial. ?

And can you blame me (given developments) for questioning ms' or sony's reasons for punishing certain things. Their motivations are questionable is what I'm saying and we still don't know exactly why the agoraphobic was banned from psn.
They also have to be realistic, which they obviously arn't.

 

[bridgerbot]

Also, EVERY time you add money to your wallet, you are reminded that you will NOT got that money back.

the section i should have referenced clearer was in the termination/cancellation section:

Upon termination for any reason, you will not receive a refund for items, value accumulated on in-game items or any unused balance in your wallet

that seems very black and white for me...

My response to both of you is this:

You can't take someone's money, put it in an account, deny that person access to the funds, and not give it back to them .... it's not legal .... Anything in a ToS/Contract that's not legal immediately gets thrown out if it goes to court.

Also to address Hulyen

It depends on how smart Sony was in setting up their system - Microsoft and Nintendo use proprietary points for presumably this very reason. You are buying points from them to use on other products. By buying points from them, you HAVE received a product. A digital product, but a product nonetheless. If Sony was smart, they've legally differentiated between USD and the 'dollars' you use on PSN. If they haven't, then yes, there MAY be a case here for a refund under your given logic.

Yep, you're right, for the same reason they can throw someone out of a concert who has unused beer tickets and not refund them,. As it turns out, Sony's Wallet balance is in the amount of US dollars (at least in the US), there is no point system, thank you Hulyen for acknowledging this.

 

[RikSharp]

stuff

the person in question has to abide by the rules given.
one of those rules is (to paraphrase):

"if you give us your money to hold and subsequently get ejected from the premeses, we are under no obligation to give said money back. you must agree to this term before we allow you access"

again, seems like theres no leeway with this one. the person in question did choose to give his money over after agreeing to that term.

 

[bridgerbot]

stuff

"if you give us your money to hold and subsequently get ejected from the premeses, we are under no obligation to give said money back. you must agree to this term before we allow you access"

So the real question is, is that legal?

You can not bind someone to something that is not legal. It doesn't matter if they agree to it or not.

It doesn't matter if Sony had put a clause in such as "by putting funds in your wallet, you agree to sell us your first born child for $100" and someone agrees to it.

That person can agree to it, if it goes to court, it gets thrown the hell out, because it's crap that's not legal.

 

[Jumplion]

So the real question is, is that legal?

You can not bind someone to something that is not legal. It doesn't matter if they agree to it or not.

It doesn't matter if Sony had put a clause in such as "by putting funds in your wallet, you agree to sell us your first born child for $100" and someone agrees to it.

That person can agree to it, if it goes to court, it gets thrown the hell out, because it's crap that's not legal.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was, there are tons of things that are "nonrefundable". Concert Tickets, Movie tickets, Best Buy didn't let me return a game I bought from them thus that is "nonrefundable", Gamestop has a 7 day return and after that it's "nonrefundable", if you don't like a subscription half-way through it it's still nonrefundable and they aren't going to suddenly give you your "unused" portion of your money back, ect...I would assume that this would be the equivalent of a movie ticket, you payed them but you broke the rules, so you're out of here regardless of what you payed.

If you put money in there but you didn't spend it on anything, you can't just suddenly get it back because you put it there under the impression that you would spend it. Not to mention after every purchase a pop up appears and says over and over again that it is "NON-REFUNDABLE".

 

[Deathsong17]

Would you guys do the same if you were in his position ?

Evade the ban. It may be expensive with PSN (I don't know what you'd have to buy to set up a new account) but I guarantee it's cheaper than losing a frivolous law suit, not to mention quicker and easier.

I think its about... £0.00($o.oo).

 

[Erzengel]

You are correct, a Japanese company does not fall under american law, but an america company, such as SCEA inc (Sony Computer Entertainment America inc) does.

Finally, someone who realizes that SCEA is an American company. Good lord. Only took 6 pages!

Warning: Wall of text follows explaining several legal misunderstanding I've seen in this thread.

Sony Corporation is an all encompassing International Corporation that falls under international law. Their headquarters is in Tokyo, Japan, but they have offices in numerous countries.

Sony Computer Entertainment is a subsidiary of Sony Corporation and is also an Internation Corporation that falls under international law. Their headquarters is in Tokyo, Japan, but they have offices in numerous countries.

SCEJ, SCEA, and SCEE (Japan, America, and Europe, respectively) are subsidiaries of Sony Computer Entertainment. Each is a regional corporation.

Sony Computer Entertainment America is the specific corporation being sued. Their headquarters is in Foster City, California, United States. They have offices in several states.

Ignoring what follows, the fact that SCEA is based in the states means they fall under United States law.

Even if their headquarters were in Tokyo, Japan, though, they would still fall under United States Law. Why? Because they have offices in the United States. Every international corporation is subject to the local laws wherever they have a presence, such as an office, factory, or distribution point. A Japanese Company with an office in San Diego may be sued by San Diegans for violating a San Diego City Ordinance in San Diego.
Further, all companies must abide by local import and sale laws wherever their product is sold.
When someone wants to sue a corporation, they have to take them to a court where the corporation has an office. Sometimes they'll sue in a different state than would "make sense" because different state laws provide different penalties that can be claimed.

Also, to someone else, the Internet is not a lawless wasteland where no country has jurisdiction. There are exactly 3 places along the internet where countries have jurisdiction: The server, the ISP, and the user. In this case, SCEA is the server, Mr. Phobic are the user, and whoever gives him internet access is the ISP. If the user is in the United States, they are under US jurisdiction. If the server is in Sweden, it's under Swedish jurisdiction. The Swedes can't go directly for the user (he's in the USA), but they can go for the server. Similarly, the Americans can't go after the server directly (that's why the Pirate Bay still exists...) but they can go after the users, or more commonly today, their ISP.

Oh, also, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. Thanks to Amendment 14, it also limits state powers. In no way does the Constitution limit individuals or non-governmental entities, except in their interactions with the government, such as taxes, voting, and how they can serve. At least, since the 21st amendment. OK, the 13th also has an effect on individuals in that we can't keep slaves, but that's the only currently applicable amendment that affects non-government entities. (The government can still keep slaves, though. But only if they are duly convicted of a crime.)
The freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights are intended to limit the government from oppressing their citizens. "Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Press" merely means that the government cannot suppress protests, cannot prevent the media from running stories (so you can have the media report about, say, Watergate. I'm sure if it weren't for the constitution Nixen would have LOVED to have repressed that story), and cannot suppress any religion (Any religious practice, such as virgin sacrifices, are fair game for the government to suppress, however).
There are specific laws by various states and the federal government that limit entities similarly to how the government is limited by the constitution. Most states have privacy laws, which is akin to Amendment 4. For example, in many states (California, for example), you do not have to show your receipt nor the product in your bags when you leave a store. They can ask, but you are legally entitled to say "no".

People make so many assumptions about the law, and most are wrong. When the law comes down and bites you, you're in trouble because you were ignorant of the law. And that won't be a defense.

In this case, the lawyer is probably banking on SCEA not wanting to get into a legal battle. Often times, it's cheaper to just say "Here's a couple grand, now go away." than to win a legal battle. I wonder if there's a term for such lawyers... If not, we need one. Any suggestions?

 

[Bat Vader]

I really hope Sony wins this case. This guy broke the rules and most likely deserved to get banned.

 

[squid5580]

*Fanboy mode on*
Just buy an Xbox
*Fanboy mode off*

But what if he got banned for something ridiculous like telling people he's also gay. You can get banned from XBL for that too.

If it's something like that situation, he deserves his thousands of dollars. If he was intentionally being a prick and hiding behind his disabilities, he deserves a swift kick in the ass.

Can anyone tell me what exactly he was banned for? What did he do, we can't exactly pass judgement without that info.
That's what we're supposed to be doing here right?

I see nothing ridiculous about identifying yourself as gay. Except if you meant that it's silly to do so in a room filled with faux-macho 13 year-old boys even I, a skinny shut-in, could most likely take out with a nice mallet and a head start. But I digress, as interesting as such a confrontation would be.

I meant that it would've been ridiculous if that was the reason he was banned.

What if he did get banned for that reason? Does that excuse him from the rules if the rules clearly state that saying your sexual orientation could incur the wrath of the banhammer?

Wouldn't it be ironic if he was banned for running around telling everyone he is straight.

And she wasn't banned for telling anyone. She was banned for putting it in her profile. If she had just simply told everyone in every game she ever played she would still be playing.

I would suggest reading this before going off on XBL treatment of her

http://www.xbox.com/zh-SG/live/legal/codeofconduct.htm

It is laid out quite clearly in more than 1 point.

I think they would have an excuse if they were braking a rule that's bigoted and discriminatory to begin with, yes. If someone is really being discriminated against, they have every right to sue. I just want to know if this guy is really being discriminated against or if it's like Cartman saying he has Tourettes.

And thanks for the link. Their practices are worse than I thought. It's hard to believe this is an American company. It's amazing anyone is left on XBL considering the 3rd rule is Don't scream, yell, or threaten. Has anyone here ever put on a headset on XBL and NOT heard any of these things?

I take it you didn't read the "What to do" part. It would be one thing if there was nothing you could do and were forced with either listening to it or just not playing. MS isn't your mommy or daddy. MS has provided you with everything you need to enjoy your experience on XBL. They just expect you to have the common sense to use it. it isn't thier job to protect you from anything you might find offensive that another might say over thier headset. They have simply said you are a big boy or girl if someone is screaming, threatening or doing whatever you might not like you can do something about it. And at the same time for the good of the whole community (not in the best interest of any special interest group or demographic the whole community) lets not put certain things in your profile. If you cannot abide by this simple rule you risk being banned. It is no different here at The Escapist. The "no trolling" rule is there not because they are dicks. It is there for the good of the community as a whole. If you insist on trolling you will be banned. You don't get to troll since you belong to a minority or a special interest group or a specific demographic. the law doesn't see race, gender or anything else. It is thier for one and all. The only way a troll skates scott free is when you and I don't report it. Then we can't then blame the mods for letting the troll skate when we didn't do our part to stop it. Which is exactly what is happening when the excuse:

"Well I have seen other profiles in violation of the Code of Conduct."

"Did you report it"

"No"

So you didn't do your part out of sheer laziness and then expect MS to do thiers?

Not laziness, apathy; read what I typed up there. What part of my statement made you think I agree with their code of conduct, want to help them enforce it, or want ms to ban anybody? I think gamers should be able to state what kind of people they like to have sex with and really don't care what these kids yell out on xbl because I usually don't care when I wear the headset and when I do get annoyed, I'll put any jerks in their place myself: I wasn't that d-bag who always told the teacher when she forgot to assign homework. And besides, they pay for it, they can say whatever they want on it as far as I'm concerned. If MS want to be nazis, they can regulate everything themselves: I don't work for them and I'm not going to turn people in because they don't want to live by those rules.

What I find very illuminating is that the dbags who do go to MS saying that the lesbian scares them don't also "cry to mommy" about all of these screamers, yellers, and threateners.

I feel the same way you do on alot of this. The simple fact of the matter is if there is a rule and a consequence you break one you risk the other. The only people I myself have ever muted are the people whose tea is done (that damn whistle). It doesn't change the fact that these things are put there for a reason and agree or disagree with said rules it is not MS's fault that the world is the way it is and a controversial issue is controversial. ?

And can you blame me (given developments) for questioning ms' or sony's reasons for punishing certain things. Their motivations are questionable is what I'm saying and we still don't know exactly why the agoraphobic was banned from psn.
They also have to be realistic, which they obviously arn't.

Nope as long as it questioning the whys and seeking the answer. And it isn't "this is the way I think it should be and that is it. I don't have to try and see it from your POV or try and understand why a rule may be in place."

 

[Natsu_Blaze]

If you notice his representation is ACLU...

The ACLU can really push some wieght around. Man, what crap we wouldn't have to deal with or hear about if the ACLU wasn't around. They need to just disappear.

... Bwuh. And here I actually liked them. Seriously, supporting this guy? How effing stupid can you get?

 

[devildog1170]

Hmmm, Agrophobia is a fear of crowds you say? LIke any phobia shoulsn't he be able to get over it somehow, locking him in a room with 50 people ?
Doesn't sound like a disability regardless of the subject.

No, it's a very real issue.
Though I was under the impression that is specifically related to a fear of wide open spaces, or the outdoors.

But it can cause panic attacks and other such things.

Still, this is just ridiculous.

The kid should be banned from life.

irl banhammar GOOOOOOOO

Yeah I was watching that obsessed show on AETV, and it seems like that any place unfamiliar puts them into a very agitated and upset state, same with lots of people. I at least hope he gets his PSN back, it's gotta suck to have a phobia of going somewhere.