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

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Im rooting for Sony, simply because the term "class action lawsuit" pisses me off...

and I would write more, but its 1:00 am here and im just not going to bother with the effort...
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
"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.

While I agree that saying your hiding it by putting it at the bottom is on somewhat thin ice since to my knowledge there are now laws stating important clauses must be first or even that the definition of "more important" can be in a case like this, saying that they made it obtrusively hard to opt out of is a fair play.


I mean, write a letter? Jesus Christ its 2011. Even an email for this sort of thing it really more than should be needed.

The question you should be asking yourself. If we had to opt IN to this scheme how would we do it? There would be 2 boxes you had to tick before you could pass from the TOS. One would be really big and read OPT IN, the other would be tiny and read opt out. You would HAVE to tick one before you could continue. That would then be it. It would automatically update online and sign you in the first time you sign in.

We both know it. I dont even know if they provided national addresses for all areas they provide the service to. So not only do I have to write to them, but I have to send it intonational postage. There is no garentee given this that my letter will arrive within 30 days, THEN I have a massive fight with Sony over whether or not because I posted it before the 30 days it should be counted. A fight I wont win without taking it to court, something Sony would then bury me under legal fees to prove.

So no. Its bull. There should be an opt out on on the SOE or PSN personal profile and it should be something you are required to chose upon logging in.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
On the one hand, that is an incredibly stupid thing to do on Sony's part and Sony quite clearly has a shit PR department, but on the other hand consumers do tend to majorly abuse their right to lawsuits.
 

DiMono

New member
Mar 18, 2010
837
0
0
See? You read the EULA, you find things like this, and you get to entertain the entire Internet. Good things happen!
 

KarlMonster

New member
Mar 10, 2009
393
0
0
Robomega said:
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.
A larger problem is that people seldom read what they are agreeing too. Much like my old Counter-Strike server where you had to click to agree to the rules before playing on the server. Rule #1; no swearing. Naturally no-one read it, and we all had quick keys for kick/ban because of it.

The lawsuit being referenced isn't all that trivial either. Or, more to the point, it has merit because much of the law is itself trivial. An uncomfortable number of things are accepted as lawful, merely because there is a legal precedent for it. Those precedents might only be interpretations of laws that did not directly affect that particular case, but once a legal precedent exists, its hard to revert to a more equitable solution.

Furthermore, I'm betting that Sony lawyers added the relevant clauses as a place-holder in the existing agreement. Right now, it looks flimsy, right? If local law makes this illegal, then this whole part here is unenforceable. Silly, right? Well, what if, right at this very moment, Sony was lobbying Congress to pass a law that would allow them to 'firm up' their lawsuit waiver? Then all the Sony legal-heads have to do is go back and remove this entire part; "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."

That way, when Sony makes the new TOS update, all they have to say is "We decided to shorten and simplify the agreement." and it would be true.

So some jerk takes them to court and sues their ass for it. He actually does have a case. Regardless of what it sounds like, Sony paid their legal team a positively stupid amount of money to come up with those clauses. And insert them into the agreement. And make sure that every player was forced to agree to it before playing. That is easily intent to restrict user rights. The fact that people don't have to play on a Sony tends to ignore the fact that people who already owned the console used to have more overt rights, not implied rights. See also Vader vs. Calrissian.

TL,DR; The policeman did it, in the parking lot, with a rusty meat tenderizer, while we were watching, but we didn't care because it was time for (your game here).
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
From my understanding, and please someone with more legal experience correct me if I am wrong, clauses making it illegal to sue someone are not, themselves, legal?
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Sony shouldn't have added that clause, causes its dumb. Still, I predict disproportionate rage as a result because the gaming community is nothing if not prone to huge overreactions.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
Lightslei said:
I still don't understand how me buying a console is just a license, so I don't understand half of this.
I will agree with you, even understanding how this law comes about doesn't mean it makes any sense. I've tried to find ways to put the law into laymen terms that I trust would carry the message across but I have failed. I am sorry to say the only answer I can give you is: Because the courts state your not purchasing an item, but renting access, when they have lenience agreements attached. As long as you obey the contract you will have access to the programs you paid money for. It is a big scam if you ask me, but one people who sell 'intellectual property' use a great deal.

As for these contacts, they always have a clause that states they have all right to adjust and change the terms within at will. Having to click the I agree button after such changes is a formality, as the law won't allow them to make the changes without you 'resigning' the contract no matter what they say. Each company that uses such contracts will always hinder on the fact you will want to keep using the product you purchased fairly, and hence will agree to the upgraded terms. Or, of course, never read said contract and click blindly anyway.

It is surprising that more stories about these contacts being changed to do disgusting things don't come to light more often.

The biggest problem with these contracts, they can change the terms of condition to include something ridiculous and if the people refuse to obey... take away the product they paid for, with no refunds. If you do not agree to the changes they have made you will not be able to progress past that window. Effectively, you will agree to hand over your rights to their product and allow them to keep all money paid up to that point. So get used to them trying to sneak pull shit clauses into the contract, you have no real choice but to accept them or fight them in a court of law.

As for this clause itself.... They know very well it will not survive challenge in a court of law, no court allows a contact that states one party can not seek legal jurisdiction if they believe the other side has breached said contract in some way. Such a clause, if it was enforced even once, would set the president that eliminates contract law from the justice system completely. Literally making it so the only party that can sue is the one that wrote the contract.

Think about that.

For those who can't see it as a bad thing, allow me to highlight it in such a way that might enlighten you: Lets say you signed one of these agreements that stated they where to provide you with access to 'game A' that is the best and must have game to come out in 2012. After signing the contract they take your money and do NOT give you access to 'game A.' They would be found in breach of contract to say the very least, however because of the 'you can't sue us' clause you will NEVER get game A or your money back. The only group with the legal justification to force them to give you game A, or compensate you for this breach of contract, is the court systems you signed away your rights to.

Now you see why such clauses are never considered legal?

PS: the accusation of hiding this clause stems from the fact it was injected into the middle of the contract and no mention was made to it. It would take someone with a dedication to review both old and new contracts and locate where the different parts are. They would then need to review these parts, decipher it from the legalize you bet they are using, and realize just what this would mean.

With the majority not even reviewing the changes before clicking agree, even if you point out where the changed lines are, it can easily be considered 'hidden' should you put it into the agreement in such a way that the few whom do read through the agreement may overlooking it. The very least they could of done was bring attention to where the changes in the contract are, but there is nothing legally requiring them to do so as you are expected to put the time into reading ALL contracts before agreeing to them.

In this case they will drop the clause quickly as they know they have no chance in hell of winning a lawsuit banning customers from filing lawsuits.
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
OutrageousEmu said:
Talshere said:
Kopikatsu said:
"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.

While I agree that saying your hiding it by putting it at the bottom is on somewhat thin ice since to my knowledge there are now laws stating important clauses must be first or even that the definition of "more important" can be in a case like this, saying that they made it obtrusively hard to opt out of is a fair play.


I mean, write a letter? Jesus Christ its 2011. Even an email for this sort of thing it really more than should be needed.

The question you should be asking yourself. If we had to opt IN to this scheme how would we do it? There would be 2 boxes you had to tick before you could pass from the TOS. One would be really big and read OPT IN, the other would be tiny and read opt out. You would HAVE to tick one before you could continue. That would then be it. It would automatically update online and sign you in the first time you sign in.
There is a button like that. It is called the cancel button. You don't wanna agree, then when prompted, say you don't agree, and don't go on - simple as that.

As for the letter, there needs to be physical evidence - digital can be altered.

Can I have a full retail refund on all my games that were bought at the staggering console retail price of £45 on the promise of online play which I now ant use because they change the TOS one me? No I thought not. Come to think about it, given Sonys obsession with DRM and DLC to actually be able to play, which I would suppose requires them to be logged in and so be on PSN thereby needing to accept the TOS, can people get full retail refund on their PS3?

(Ill point out here I dont have a PS3, so I dont know exactly what you have to log in for, but if their chage of TOS drastically changes how the machine functions, which the TOS is, because its basically saying accept or never go online again, then surely you are entitled to a refund if you are not willing to accept their new TOS.
 

davisjones1287

New member
Dec 25, 2009
14
0
0
Talshere said:
OutrageousEmu said:
Talshere said:
Kopikatsu said:
"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.

While I agree that saying your hiding it by putting it at the bottom is on somewhat thin ice since to my knowledge there are now laws stating important clauses must be first or even that the definition of "more important" can be in a case like this, saying that they made it obtrusively hard to opt out of is a fair play.


I mean, write a letter? Jesus Christ its 2011. Even an email for this sort of thing it really more than should be needed.

The question you should be asking yourself. If we had to opt IN to this scheme how would we do it? There would be 2 boxes you had to tick before you could pass from the TOS. One would be really big and read OPT IN, the other would be tiny and read opt out. You would HAVE to tick one before you could continue. That would then be it. It would automatically update online and sign you in the first time you sign in.
There is a button like that. It is called the cancel button. You don't wanna agree, then when prompted, say you don't agree, and don't go on - simple as that.

As for the letter, there needs to be physical evidence - digital can be altered.

Can I have a full retail refund on all my games that were bought at the staggering console retail price of £45 on the promise of online play which I now ant use because they change the TOS one me? No I thought not. Come to think about it, given Sonys obsession with DRM and DLC to actually be able to play, which I would suppose requires them to be logged in and so be on PSN thereby needing to accept the TOS, can people get full retail refund on their PS3?

(Ill point out here I dont have a PS3, so I dont know exactly what you have to log in for, but if their chage of TOS drastically changes how the machine functions, which the TOS is, because its basically saying accept or never go online again, then surely you are entitled to a refund if you are not willing to accept their new TOS.
No. It's no one's fault you were an idiot, OTHER than yours.
 

davisjones1287

New member
Dec 25, 2009
14
0
0
TestECull said:
Robomega said:
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?

So you think Sony should be allowed to get away with blatantly breaking the law just because we can choose not to use their stuff?


God I'm glad you don't rule the world.
What law are they blatantly breaking?
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,003
587
118
TestECull said:
Robomega said:
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?

So you think Sony should be allowed to get away with blatantly breaking the law just because we can choose not to use their stuff?


God I'm glad you don't rule the world.
Microsoft also has that clause in their new EULA if I am not mistaken and so have other companies, but thats besides the point.

If I do remember correctly, they have a sentence in there saying something along the lines of:
"Oh yeah, if this clause isn't actually legal in your country, then just forget that its in here".
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
davisjones1287 said:
No. It's no one's fault you were an idiot, OTHER than yours.
What? They changed the TOS. How is that "my" fault? They are unilaterally changing the mandate on my contract with them and making it overly difficult to opt out. Tbh the only reason I even know that this is an issue is because I troll internet forums. I imagine the vast majority of PS3 owns dont know about this since we all know "I have read and agree" is the biggest collective lie in modern law.

It should be as easy to opt out as it is to opt in. To opt in I press 1 button. There should be a function to remove this the same way. I should not have to send international mail which may or may not arrive in the 30 day time limit.
 

krellen

Unrepentant Obsidian Fanboy
Jan 23, 2009
224
0
0
Tubez said:
Isnt US the pretty much only place where EULA is legally binding?
They're not even legally binding here. US courts almost never uphold an EULA, and have only done so when the EULA was the only legal way to smack down someone being an arsehat (in one case, someone copied directory software and sold it as his own. Since you can't copyright a directory, violation of the EULA was the only way to charge him.)

There exists a large number of Americans that do not know their legal rights, however, so they are challenged almost as rarely as they are upheld. As far as the courts are concerned, however, software on a disc is a product, and is treated legally as a product, not a service.