EA Changes Origin Terms of Services, Forbids Class Action Lawsuits

[The Atomic Irishman]

In case anyone missed it. A Class action lawsuit is a lawsuit used to represent a group of people apart from an individual, therefore, this means EA cannot be subject to a class action lawsuit by an individual claiming to represent other individuals effected in the same way. THIS HOWEVER does not mean you cannot sue them as an individual. Either somewhere along the line we all forgot to read or just didn't give a fuck and saw 'cannot sue' and flipped a shit about it.

YOU CAN STILL SUE EA as an individual case. Also, they CANNOT SUE YOU in a class action lawsuit either. So before you say. "MY RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK" Remember that our founding fathers weren't idiots and made a number of ways to ram sticks up the butts of the sticks up ours. Now before you decide to fling the poop my way, I dont like the fact That EA is setting a bad legal precedent and its likely there will be even greater stinks to come over far more than just EA's legal practice. And YES EA has been a ***** for a long time but lets get down to brass tacks, WHAT ON THIS GREEN EARTH would a "class" want to sue EA for? You haven't signed away your 7th amendment by the way if you can still sue individually. jus' sayin'

 

[JasonKaotic]

Everything about Origin disgusts me. I'll be astounded to find out anyone actually uses this thing.

 

[themerrygambit]

I personally think that's a great idea. People get up in arms about companies not allowing you to sue them but you know what? frivolous bullS@#t lawsuits are things that every business owner fears.

Why? Because we're not Nostradamus, we can't predict all the possible customer interactions someone could have with the company. Most companies are very happy to compensate customers for their legitimate screw ups. However when some lady sues McDonalds for 2 million bucks because her coffee was too hot and she burned herself. Well that's just plain ridiculous! Or another one is when people sign up for high risk activities and then get injured and sue the outfitter or company that runs the activity.

Businesses are constantly in fear of being sued into bankruptcy by some legal loophole in a frivolous lawsuit. People wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive, well that's one of the reasons! Hospitals and Doctors are constantly being sued for supposed Malpractice. While some cases are legitimate. Many are simply honest mistakes or negative outcomes from high risk operations. There is no reason why disagreements can't be resolved more directly via arbitration.

Anyway I say good for EA for putting that in there. We live in a sue happy society and I for one am glad that there is more protection for businesses against frivolous lawsuits.

 

[mcattack92]

Isnt this illegal? Removing peoples right to sue them via a class action lawsuit? Because it will allow EA games and Sony to COMPLETELY FUCK UP and still get away with it with little or no repercussions in terms of punishment.

 

[The Atomic Irishman]

Isnt this illegal? Removing peoples right to sue them via a class action lawsuit? Because it will allow EA games and Sony to COMPLETELY FUCK UP and still get away with it with little or no repercussions in terms of punishment.

In case you forgot, YOU can still sue them. Theres actually nothing to stop an actual lawsuit.

 

[octafish]

Australia's (newish) Consumer Laws don't allow you to sign over your rights, so Sony, EA, and Blizzard's new Terms of Service don't hold water here.

If you are already an Origin User you can write a letter to EA opting out of their new Terms of Service but it must be recieved by EA 30 days after the Terms of Service are changed. This states that you agreed to their old terms but won't accept their new terms. You could have done it with Sony too but the time has expired I think.

I hope all the people complaining about EA don't have PS3s.

snip
That's even in spite of the rest of the Origin EULA which basically states "EA reserves the right to know every past, present and future facet of your existence and sell said information to the highest bidder to do with whatever the fuck they like."
snip

Actually they have changed that clause, they still gather information about your system specs and sofware usage, but the new clause forbids them sharing or selling the information with/to a third party. So the revised clause is almost the same as Steam's, only Steam restricts itself a bit more in what it looks at.

 

[robert01]

These form of clauses aren't legal in Ontario either, I checked when Kotaku reported this little bit last week, I also filed a complaint with the Ministry of Consumer Relations.

EA is trying to push the limit a little bit further and further. Lucky for me I am not that vested in EA products. I won't be purchasing any more of them. Glad Bioware stopped making good games.

I am sure if a lot of you looked in to Consumer laws in your states you will find that you have the same protections.

 

[nothingspringstomind]

More and more, every day, you keep hearing stories about big business firms like EA and how they're Evil.

You take it with a pinch of salt, but then you actually look at what they're doing to their own customers and it hits you;

They're all idiots. Every last boardroom member in all these big multinational corporations are morons who seemingly intentionally shaft the people who pay their fucking bills.

Back to my hole, so i can calm down, eh?

[/rant]

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

you and EA are foregoing the right to sue in court and have a trial by jury."

So... does the seventh amendment of the US constitution just not count anymore or something?

Because the Constitution guarantees a right to trial by jury, and I don't think EA is above the constitution.

That part I found especially shocking. Pretty good indicator on who controls the "law" of the land when a flimsy ToS can undermine the U.S. Constitution! The overarching principal of the matter is quite unsettling, given the recent "trend" of this legal ass-covering.

Gamers are fucking pussies. And god damn retarded.

We see a company trying to make us forfeit rights and get a little miffed, then go bend over and buy all the company's crap.
We see hats for sale and we FLIP A SHIT.
We petition for the stupidest shit, then do nothing when companies actually try to attack us.

No one is standing up for themselves and it's creating an industry where it's ok to lock people out of their products, and refuse refunds for broken, buggy games.

Indeed. You won't find me supporting companies that pull this crap; I've got plenty to do that doesn't involve dealing with some company's 4 1/2 hour training demo/multiplayer deathmatch that just so happens to entail their not-giving-a-shit-about-the-people-who-keep-them-around behavior.

When companies do try to justify this sort of action, then I ask why should we give a damn about whether or not the second-hand games market is "destroying the industry!"? Tough luck, then.

Corporations want to make a buck, yeah, well the average consumer wants to save a buck. And last time I checked, the average consumer issn't a multi-billion dollar global corporation. People should keep that in mind, especially if "individually suing" such corporations sounds realistic.

I suppose that the only real positive is that Origin sounds like garbage anyway...

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

You know what? I've had enough of the bitching about this. A Terms of Service is a contract, and a contract should never be signed unless both sides are happy with what they get out of it. If you are not happy with EA or Sony or whoever else doing this, don't sign the contract. The phrase on the boxes is 'I have read and agree to the Terms of Service.' If you have read them, and don't agree with them, don't tick the box. If you have not read them, but tick the box anyway, then you are in the wrong, not EA, and if you have read them and agree with them, go for it.

Seriously, that's all there is to it. You wouldn't sign yourself up to a job without reading your work contract first, you wouldn't sign a warranty on an insurance claim without reading the terms first. Contracts. Read them, if you agree to them, sign them, if you don't, don't ***** about how it's unfair.

This is not difficult.

 

[Rensenhito]

Binding arbitration is, in my opinion, one of the more bullshitty corporation-favoring loopholes in the law. I don't know if you guys remember the case of the woman working for Halliburton in Iraq who was gang-raped by her fellow employees, but the reason she never got A DIME from Halliburton was because there was a binding arbitration sub-clause in her contract.
So yeah. That's the VERY EXTREME extreme of this so-called "law." It basically makes it so that corporations can do whatever the hell they want to you as long as you sign the dotted line.
'Merica.

 

[Nurb]

TOS and EULA stipulations like this never hold up in court because judges wont recognize the broad powers the publishers keep trying to take.

Don't worry folks. It doesn't mean anything.

I just wish piracy had an actual effect on the big publishers because I'm really hoping they go bankrupt.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Seriously, that's all there is to it. You wouldn't sign yourself up to a job without reading your work contract first, you wouldn't sign a warranty on an insurance claim without reading the terms first. Contracts. Read them, if you agree to them, sign them, if you don't, don't ***** about how it's unfair.

This is not difficult.

But that's the thing; most ToSs and EULAs you CAN'T read until you buy the product itself. In effect, the ToS/EULA IS the equivalent of taking a job before getting to read the contract, or signing a warranty on an insurance claim before getting to read the T&C first. The legality of software ToSs/EULAs (in the US) is actually unknown because, as far as I know, there isn't a court that has ruled against or for it.

 

[The Random One]

Damn, EA. I had some hope for you.

The moment someone decides to challenge this it'll be brought down. The SCOTUS decision was regarding too different a matter.

 

[Versuvius]

You know what happens when a publisher pushes the fans too far? Spore happens. I think it's the most pirated piece of software to date, mostly pirated out of protest for equal parts undue hype and its DRM (3 installs per disc). I can see this kind of backlash happening again when we get pushed that bit too far. Want to whinge about used sales costing money? Lets see what a million pirated copies gets you. If only gamers had the balls to strike back in this manner again these days.

(Note to the mods, i am not condoning piracy, i am however condoning viable protest these money grubbers will understand)

Edit: When anyone says SCOTUS i read SCROTUM

 

[Nickompoop]

Dear EA,

I hate you with a burning passion. Not because you do shit like this, but because I can't boycott you for shit like this. You publish Bioware's games, you clever bastards.

Sincerely, An Angry, Powerless Customer

 

[masterbazza]

don't worry
this is just part of there plan for world domination
i for one welcome our new overlords*wink*

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

Why is this legal?

No, seriously. Why is this legal?

Because the corporations have their hands on the controls of most government agencies and most consumer's don't care if the companies take away their every right as long as thing stay accessible to them? That seems to be the main reason to me.

I'm just waiting for EA to put something in the ToS for Origin saying that, if you use it, you are legally not allowed to use Steam.

I honestly would not be surprised if they tried to do this. EA's just beating a zombie horse now.

 

[Stormz]

And once again the future of the gaming industry gets even worse. Why did I choose gaming to be my main hobby? online only DRM, Day one DLC and now this. I wonder what next the industry will do to push me away from my favourite hobby.