Newest Xbox 360 Update Prevents Class Actions Suits Against Microsoft
- Thread starter WMDogma
- Start date
I have a quick couple of questions if it wouldn't be too much to ask. One, who here has or was planning to file a class action law suit against the Xbox 360 in the United States? And the follow up question, who gives a shit? Even if you were to take Microsoft, one of the LARGEST companies in the world, to court, what are the chances of you winning? It might not be fair but that's just the way it is.
If people are offended by this then just don't buy a damn Xbox in the first place, no one's holding a gun to head forcing you to buy it.
If people are offended by this then just don't buy a damn Xbox in the first place, no one's holding a gun to head forcing you to buy it.
A little history:
[link]http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/tech/gaming-gadgets/sony-psn-terms/index.html[/link]
Most important segment, for those who profess an inability to follow links and/or read more than two sentences at a time:
But just off hand, I would have to say, and not for the first time: @#$% you, SCOTUS. @#$% you very much.
[link]http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/tech/gaming-gadgets/sony-psn-terms/index.html[/link]
Most important segment, for those who profess an inability to follow links and/or read more than two sentences at a time:
Now I will note that there's some differences between AT&T's employment contract and the contract that MS and Sony are asking to be enforced on their customers based on hardware they've purchased before the EULA was changed, and we might not see how this rides out until it actually comes up.
But just off hand, I would have to say, and not for the first time: @#$% you, SCOTUS. @#$% you very much.
So, if there is a community of gamers out there that has the old Xbox and never connected to live and gotten the new updates, can they file for a class action suit?
Because then wouldn't microsoft be discriminating against them?
Because then wouldn't microsoft be discriminating against them?
it isn't about the winning. It's about the settlement. People in America love lawsuits. Heck, people sued KFC because the food there is delicious.TheTurtleMan said:
No seriously, that was an actual case. Someone ate KFC so much so often that they became overweight and disabled. Yeah, this person's lack of self-control caused them to become overweight so they sued KFC. They didn't go to court over this; they settled out of court. companies do not like to be tied up in lawsuits and will pay the person to not take them to court. And this is just a guess, that person probably took that settlement money and went out to KFC.
So your saying we should go to KFC and sue fat people? Forgive my poor interpretation skills.orangeapples said:
Actually you do have a good point, people especially nowadays have gotten the idea that companies will give out hush hush money if you complain a lot. While it is probably true, it doesn't make it right.
The matter of law discussed here is a basic tennant of contract law that has become more and more common with the onset of the computer era with EULA's on the boxes of software. No, you did not sign the contract, but the contract specifically states that if you continue to use Live (and this means just turning on your xbox while it is connected to the internet) you are agreeing to the tenants of the contract. Essentially, it laid out the consideration needed for the contract to become binding, and by using Live you live up to said consideration.Kwil said:
That being said, EULA's are, in fact, quite legal (sadly) as most jurisdictions allow for them to be binding on the user of the software or electronic device due to a very simple fact: either shrink-wrap EULAs (those on the outside of the box) and so-called "click-wrapped" EULAs permit the user a chance to change their minds before using the software. Microsoft's is something of a "click-wrap" EULA.
However, from my class on Contracts, it appeared that changing an EULA with such a consideration as simple continued use was less of a slam dunk case. I'd love to see it litigated, but not while the Court has Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all on the Bench. They are incredibly in favor of the lasseiz-faire form of capitalism (almost to the point of being Lochner-era-esque)and all of the Conservative majority on the Bench has a deep-seated dislike for Class Action lawsuits (for much the same reason).
A note to the facebook commenters:
Hipster who called Microsoft a "big bourgeois" company", please take a moment to realize that the word "bourgeois" refers to a landed middle class with tangible assets. You're wearing a hat in you picture (showing you have property) and you do not appear to be a vagabond as you're posting online. Please, don't bandy around words from the French revolution just because you think it makes you sound cool. You're not a member of the proletariat simply because you don't like big businesses and think that makes you cool. The prolitariat got angry because they wanted to become the bourgeious.
Dumbass who blamed Dodd-Frank for this sort of EULA change. The Dodd-Frank bill did not affect the consumers and their ability to sue. Part of the thrust of the Dodd-Frank bill - which focused on bankign institutions more than anything else - was to create a consumer protection bureau. It was not regulation that caused this, but rather a lack of regulation due to a conception of capitalism that favors deregulation which, I can only assume from your blamign of Democrats, you likely ascribe to. So please go crawl back into your libertarian hole rather than posting moronic political bltherings about an XBox live EULA change. Seriously, you're a dumbass.
Oh, and someone mentioned the severability clause and stated that they interpreted it as meaning that if one part were found illegal, then all would. In fact, it's quite the opposite, meaning that Microsoft so structured their contract that for someone to find all of section 18 to be illegal, they would have to contend each section as an individual issue. Which, of course, means more money spent.
This is why we need tighter business regulation. (Well, one of hundreds of reasons.) We need a law that tells them what they can and can't make their terms. And in a decent legal system, a business wouldn't be able to add "you can't sue us" clauses to their contracts.
Seems you forgot to put'/sarcasm' at the end of the sentence to signify that you are using the subtle and most intelligent of the comedic forms...MysticToast said:
Unfortunatly most of the internet seem to be too bright to comprehend this form of humour. /Sarcasm
