Law Firm Considers Class Action Suit Over Xbox Live Bans

[antipunt]

From the research that I have garnered here, I imagine something around the lines of.... Microsoft getting annoyed

 

[squid5580]

It's against the terms of Xbox Live. They signed up, they agreed, they got banned. They have the right to ban people at any time for violations.

It's like shooting someone in broad daylight then suing the police for arresting you on Christmas. Yeah the timing sucks but you still broke the law and deserve punishment.

Modding a console is like shooting someone in broad daylight? Hyperbole much?

I'm all for punishing cheaters, but I'm kind of surprised by the number of people rushing to Microsoft's defense. There are implications here beyond simply people pirating games, and I think mokes310's point about not refunding the remainder of their subscription fees is the salient one here.

Okay, robbing a convenience store, that better for you?

And why should they refund the subscription? They willfully and knowingly broke the user agreement. And if they didn't read it, tough shit, at the end of the day you still said "I Agree".

Oh, and you comparing $70/mo. and $50/yr. isn't a form of hyperbole, how?

The amount of money doesn't matter. The question you should ask yourself is, after a company bans a user from its service for violating the terms of a EULA, is the company legally entitled to keep charging said user for a service that he/she can no longer access? I honestly don't know the answer, but I *hope* it's "hell no."

And it should be HELL NO. Also it would be HELL NO except for 1 small problem. They clearly state over and over that it is non refundable except under very specific conditions (like your C.C. was charged when you forgot to cancel you automatic subscription). To use your phone analogy you sign a 2 year contract and then cancel it. You get dinged 400 bucks. They get 400 bucks from you even though you aren't using their service. It hardly seems fair or right except for that nasty little contract you signed. Although we aren't financially invested here on The Escapist we still face similiar consequences for breaking the rules. We can't tie your hands from protecting your livelyhood by being jerks and costing you ad revenue by scaring away people. Then once the banhammer flies try to claim that the user agreement we all agreed to is unfair so we shouldn't have to follow it.

I do sympathize with our Aussie brethren I really do. Although breaking the rules to get a copy of region locked L4D2 isn't the right way to get things changed. That is just selfishness.

 

[squid5580]

It's against the terms of Xbox Live. They signed up, they agreed, they got banned. They have the right to ban people at any time for violations.

It's like shooting someone in broad daylight then suing the police for arresting you on Christmas. Yeah the timing sucks but you still broke the law and deserve punishment.

Modding a console is like shooting someone in broad daylight? Hyperbole much?

I'm all for punishing cheaters, but I'm kind of surprised by the number of people rushing to Microsoft's defense. There are implications here beyond simply people pirating games, and I think mokes310's point about not refunding the remainder of their subscription fees is the salient one here.

Okay, robbing a convenience store, that better for you?

And why should they refund the subscription? They willfully and knowingly broke the user agreement. And if they didn't read it, tough shit, at the end of the day you still said "I Agree".

Oh, and you comparing $70/mo. and $50/yr. isn't a form of hyperbole, how?

The amount of money doesn't matter. The question you should ask yourself is, after a company bans a user from its service for violating the terms of a EULA, is the company legally entitled to keep charging said user for a service that he/she can no longer access? I honestly don't know the answer, but I *hope* it's "hell no."

Again, a monthly bill is different than how Xbox Live works. If a company like AT&T drops your service in January, you get a bill for that month in February because you still had the service during that month. If you get a bill for February and onward, that not right and you should take measures to stop the bills.

However, if you pay $50 to use Xbox for 12 months, and you get banned for a modded console, then no, you do not deserve a refund. You already paid the money, they've already provided you with the service, and you broke the contract. There's nothing to be refunded.

I was banned from Live for a week because my Bio had language in it. Should I request a refund for that week? I don't know the answer, but I *hope* it's "hell no".

How about this: you contract with someone to build you a house. You buy them enough material--the lumber, tile, bricks, etc.--to build the whole. They build you half the house, and then you break the contract. Naturally they don't have to build you the rest of the house, and maybe you owe them some money for damages.

However, do they get to keep the unused half of the material? Do they get to keep the lumber and tile and bricks?

It gets really interesting extending the laws that govern the real world into the virtual world. In the real word, it's pretty easy to tell where a 'good' ends and a 'service' begins--no one is going to confuse a carpenter with a two-by-four. However, when we're talking about paying for future service, it gets much trickier.

If there is a clause in the contract that says if you (the owner) break the contract then the builder gets to keep any unused materials then yes.

 

[ReZerO]

And why should they refund the subscription? They willfully and knowingly broke the user agreement.

Did they? What will be interesting is to see if there's a sub-class of plaintiffs with second-hand Xboxes who are banned because it was modded by someone else.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10395644-52.html

but the blame there lies with the person who they bought the 360 from for not disclosing that it was modded/locked. not with Microsoft for banning them.

Maybe, maybe not. But then the person suffering from the ban did not "willfully and knowingly" break the user agreement, which changes the equation you were talking about.

maybe not, but then the person who sold the 360 did willfully and knowingly break the eula, and that person is therefore responsible for any damages caused to the person who bought the 360 off of him/her. trust me you'd have a better chance of bringing the person to court who sould you the 360 to get a refund than you would trying to blame microsoft in this way.

 

[Canid117]

Seeing as how everyone who got banned for modding agreed to a legal document saying "I will not mod this Xbox" I don't think they have much of a case

 

[Pendragon9]

I feel bad for the people who just modded to play import games or to play other games, but I have no remorse for the jerkoffs who mod consoles so they can hack in-game and cheat their way to victory.

Then again, Microsoft does support all kinds of garbage that restrict freedoms in your personal computers, like spyware and Malware. So I hope this lawsuit does cost them something. Damn money hungry PC ruiners.

 

[squid5580]

Again, a monthly bill is different than how Xbox Live works. If a company like AT&T drops your service in January, you get a bill for that month in February because you still had the service during that month. If you get a bill for February and onward, that not right and you should take measures to stop the bills.

However, if you pay $50 to use Xbox for 12 months, and you get banned for a modded console, then no, you do not deserve a refund. You already paid the money, they've already provided you with the service, and you broke the contract. There's nothing to be refunded.

I was banned from Live for a week because my Bio had language in it. Should I request a refund for that week? I don't know the answer, but I *hope* it's "hell no".

How about this: you contract with someone to build you a house. You buy them enough material--the lumber, tile, bricks, etc.--to build the whole. They build you half the house, and then you break the contract. Naturally they don't have to build you the rest of the house, and maybe you owe them some money for damages.

However, do they get to keep the unused half of the material? Do they get to keep the lumber and tile and bricks?

It gets really interesting extending the laws that govern the real world into the virtual world. In the real word, it's pretty easy to tell where a 'good' ends and a 'service' begins--no one is going to confuse a carpenter with a two-by-four. However, when we're talking about paying for future service, it gets much trickier.

If there is a clause in the contract that says if you (the owner) break the contract then the builder gets to keep any unused materials then yes.

You really think a court would enforce that kind of clause? I mean, that's pretty much a license for one party to abuse the other: "oh, you don't like the work we're doing? well, try not paying us for it--we'll keep all the materials if you're wrong."

Yes unless you signed it under diress. Why should the court reward stupidity? You signed which means you read it. If you don't agree to it, don't sign it and don't use the service. That is the entire point of having a contract. You can't renegotiate a contract after the fact.

 

[squid5580]

If there is a clause in the contract that says if you (the owner) break the contract then the builder gets to keep any unused materials then yes.

You really think a court would enforce that kind of clause? I mean, that's pretty much a license for one party to abuse the other: "oh, you don't like the work we're doing? well, try not paying us for it--we'll keep all the materials if you're wrong."

Yes unless you signed it under diress.

Duress is not the only reason courts refuse to enforce contract clauses:

Damages can be liquidated in a contract only if (1) the injury is either "uncertain" or "difficult to quantify"; (2) the amount is reasonable and considers the actual or anticipated harm caused by the contract breach, the difficulty of proving the loss, and the difficulty of finding another, adequate remedy; and (3) the damages are structured to function as damages, not as a penalty. If these criteria are not met, a liquidated damages clause will be void.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8310/Liquidated-Damages.html

I mean, how ridiculous would that be:

"oh--you used a modded Xbox for six months on a twelve-month subscription, so you lose six months; the person who only used a month of their twelve-month subscription loses five more months than you"

the person who has done more damage...forfeits less in damages? That makes no sense.

Once again do the words NON REFUNDABLE mean nothing? Or are they only for when it suits your arguement? And how do you know how much damage they have cost MS? How much in licensing fees did MS lose out on because of piracy? Can they prove that they didn't cost MS anything with thier modded xboxes? Or how much they saved by burning games they downloaded for free and slapped them on a 0.99 cent disc? Oh boo hoo the big bad company is going after the little guy. They have tons of money they don't need it. Bull!!!

Oh and DURESS:
1. compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2. Law. such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3. forcible restraint, esp. imprisonment.

 

[Flunk]

Circumventing DRM is illegal as per the DMCA so they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[squid5580]

Circumventing DRM is illegal as per the DMCA so they don't have a leg to stand on.

What is DMCA? And they really have no proof that they copied any copyrighted materials. Some could have easily bought a modded 360 and just not realized it. Some might be trying to get around region locking. Unfortunately they can't prove that is the case either and MS doesn't and shouldn't discriminate when it comes to something like this.

 

[Daggermonkie]

Wait one second! A person cheats,lies,steals,and breaks the law and gets punished for it? Well dont you think they deserve it because its only a ban from Xbox live? They could just have easily sued all of them for infringment of code of agreement....sooooo......why does this orginization exist again? To get money for cheater and liers? I thought that was called politics but what do i know?

 

[CustomMagnum]

I love how no one is pointing out that the account isn't banned from XBOX Live, just the console. Yeah, the complaints in the suit are that they need to buy a new 360 to use the rest of their subscription, but they still violated thier contract.

 

[Radelaide]

Lolwut?

So these guys get punished for doing the wrong thing (by Microsoft's user conditions, which is a legal agreement) and this law firm is going to sue?

*facepalm*

 

[WarKirby]

Why is everyone rushing to defend the big evilmegacorporation ?

Some interesting things to note. In at least one case in the past, a corporate TOS has been overturned: http://www.3pointd.com/20070531/court-rules-against-linden-lab-terms-of-service/

Described as a contract of adhesion, and unenforcable. In the above case, the plaintiff clearly broke the Terms of Service, but linden lab's motion to dismiss the case on those grounds was overruled. Eventually, LL settled out of court for an undisclosed sum and reverted their ban, which is pretty much a loss on their part.

Now, secondly, only you guys have jumped to the conclusion that these people are all cheaters. It's pointed out in the article that modded consoles are used for homebrew apps, and anti-censorship. Using modded hardware for cheating is definitely not a nice thing to do, but there's no way all of these people were doing just that.

Thirdly, the article cites approx 1 million users banned. Seriously, that's a lot of people. You don't just ban a million people out of hand, from a paid service, and laugh about it.

Fourth, the most salient point here. The users were not compensated for remaining time on their subscription. Allowing companies to just terminate accounts without refund for ToS violations, is pretty much allowing daylight robbery. Consider that most TOS contain a clause to allow the company to ban your account for any reason at any time. If MS is allowed to get away with this, what's stopping them simply banning people as soon as they sign up for arbitrary offences, and keeping their money? Of course, a company who practices bad business like that would quickly get a lot of negative PR... right?

*Looks at all the pro-microsoft responses*

Or maybe their entire community just wears rose tinted glasses.

It's not like microsoft has an otherwise spotless history. They've had various court problems in the past because of anticompetitive behaviour.

 

[flaregon]

I think it was timed to incress x-box 360 x-mas sales ?
modder lose online play then buy or get gifted a new one on x-mas its that simple.

P.s: Also why does the U.S have a culture of stupid law suite, theres never a day when you don't find a new report about it.