SCOTUS To Blame For Sony's Terms of Service Changes

[BabyRaptor]

The fact that such language is supposedly acceptable to use does not make the fact that Sony did it the Supreme Court's fault. Sony still has free will...They can still choose to actually value their customers over the almighty dollar.

As to the Supreme Court OKing this...No surprise at all. Citizens United, anyone? Corporations are people too, you betcha!

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Vernor v. Autodesk Inc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.] may be going to the Supreme Court. It's also not the only active case. But considering the a) length of common EULAs and TOSes, b) the sesquipedalian prose used in EULAs and TOSes, which is significantly beyond comprehension of the average computer or console user, c) the commitment one generally undergoes before seeing a EULA (say, purchasing non-returnable software retail, and taking it home), and d) the ridiculous clauses and claims that are often included in a EULA or TOS[footnote]For example, it is technically impossible to listen to music purchased from Amazon.com's download store and still adhere to the EULA. You may purchase and download a song, but the license specifically prohibits you from using (i.e. listening to) the licensed item (i.e. the song).[/footnote], I would be surprised if this ruling is sustained for very long.

238U.

 

[Enkidu88]

I was always told in law classes that it was always better to settle in arbitration than in courts because your almost always guaranteed a settlement where as being in court it would be a gamble to get anything.

Probably because law classes are teaching you what's best for you as a lawyer, with arbitration you get a nice big check in the mail from you client and a percentage of whatever the settlement is. For the client they end up paying both the lawyer and the arbitrating judge for a settlement that will probably lean heavily in the company's favor, and as the article mentions those judges don't come cheap. So yeah, great for lawyers, shitty for the client.

Limiting customers to "arbitration" is basically just legally telling them that they have the right to get fucked right up the ass. As rembrandtqeinstein put more eloquently, arbitration is just a great way for companies to continue screwing over their customers without having to suffer negative publicity.

 

[snfonseka]

I really hope that some authority in UK or any other country in European Union can act against this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Hey, we don't see SCOTUS doing anything else wrong?

Oh, wait...

 

[bit_crusherrr]

Where is the EU when we need it?

 

[Buizel91]

*Yawn* to many big words for me to understand at this time of the morning -.- (Well afternoon but meh!)

I'll just take it as "Sony is fucking people over again"

And people wonder why i haven't invested in a PS3 yet...(I plan to, but the way Sony are going it won't be any time soon)

 

[MajorDolphin]

This is bullshit. I don't care if you can call and say you don't want to be part of it within 30 days or whatever, this just isn't fair to the consumer. If they're going to pull this BS, then they should also be forced to give every single person the option to return their console for a refund. They are literally saying that we cannot sue them if they mess up, no matter how bad it is, if we want to keep using the full functionality of our systems.

And the ruling was for employees, not for customers. Employees can quit whenever they want and not lose anything (unless under contract and besides the obvious lack of job). Consumers can't really do that with products they own. If this holds up in court, I'd be incredibly surprised.

What? No. They're saying you can't bring a CLASS ACTION suit against them. You can still sue them to your heart's content. Also, in the EULA, it says you have thirty days to ***** to Sony if you don't accept the terms.

I understand why Sony is doing it though. People are so ridiculously sue-happy these days...

Well, lets say Sony is absolutely 100% negligent and every bit of personal and credit card information is stolen from Sony. In that case, we'd have a right to sue them. With this new EULA we can spend years sitting around waiting while paying our own (shitty) lawyer (depending on personal resources). Many people would likely go broke or give up before Sony had to face the music, as planned by Sony.

Arbiters are asshats.

There's a reason class action lawsuits even exist.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sweet! We're not evil, we're totally just following evil examples!

 

[GonzoGamer]

The Devil made me do it, I mean that rabbit made me do it, I mean the government made me do it.

I blame lawyers which created a society of sue happy nutbags in the first place which then forced corporations to protect themselves from class-action lawsuits.

Yea because big corporations like Sony never rip people off, put them at harm, or sue people themselves.

 

[Irridium]

I really hope that some authority in UK or any other country in European Union can act against this.

Where is the EU when we need it?

Don't worry, it's void in the European Union and Australia, since they have laws to protect against this kind of thing. So you're fine.

Only in America can bullshit like this happen.

 

[plus2exp]

I don't see eye to eye with those whose butts are clenching up painfully tight over this. Sony has every right to protect itself. I would do the same thing.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Why did I read that as "COITUS to Blame?"

 

[Kopikatsu]

Yes, but how many people can actually afford to pay for a good enough legal team to deal with Sony's? And, for that matter, the most payout they'd likely get is about $300 (the cost of the average PS3, or perhaps more if they can prove the cost being more and being purchased from a store instead of second-hand, which would likely have to be done anyways and that's more documentation that people don't normally keep track of).

-Snip-

You've got it mixed up there, Kapol. Class action suits are where you only get a few hundred dollars if you win. (Indeed, the last successful class action suit against Sony had the sue-er's (I have no idea what word to use) collect $400 each. Suing them personally is where people make the multiple million dollars, but basically this is just saying that Sony wants to pay people off before it goes to court because they don't want to deal with it.

 

[Kapol]

Yes, but how many people can actually afford to pay for a good enough legal team to deal with Sony's? And, for that matter, the most payout they'd likely get is about $300 (the cost of the average PS3, or perhaps more if they can prove the cost being more and being purchased from a store instead of second-hand, which would likely have to be done anyways and that's more documentation that people don't normally keep track of).

-Snip-

You've got it mixed up there, Kapol. Class action suits are where you only get a few hundred dollars if you win. (Indeed, the last successful class action suit against Sony had the sue-er's (I have no idea what word to use) collect $400 each. Suing them personally is where people make the multiple million dollars, but basically this is just saying that Sony wants to pay people off before it goes to court because they don't want to deal with it.

That's where they win multi-million dollar settlements if they win at all. First they have to prove that they deserve that much money, then prove that the company caused that much damage in the first place. Not to mentioning hiring a legal team that can stand up to their in-house legal department. With class-action, at least there's a chance that everyone who's been wronged gets something from it instead of just one or two people winning millions and everyone else being screwed. At least that's how I see it.

And yes, they want to pay people off. But Arbitration is much kinder to the company then the people. Instead of paying what they might have to pay if it went to court, they'll likely be able to get away with a significantly reduced amount to get it off their back, if they have to pay at all.

 

[Notsomuch]

Reminds me of a case where a woman was being sexually harassed by her company and the company wanted to stop her from going to court and to instead force her to go through Arbitration, which the company wins over 90% of Arbitration cases because the judges work for them.