Sony Attempts to Block All Future PSN Class Action Lawsuits

[AzraelSteel]

If it were that simple I think it would be in every legal contract everywhere.

Legal or not, there's a form of this in most contracts for things like cell phones. Except that one says you agree not to sue at all and use their in-house arbitration team.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Anyone else up to threatening a class-action lawsuit against this blatantly illegal change of the terms and conditions to which we, the consumers, most definitely have not agreed upon? Even if its just for the sake of irony?

I was literally[footnote]And I do mean literally![/footnote] thinking the exact same thing as I scrolled down to your post, haha!

Anyway, this move just seems like a flagrant besmirching of the rights of consumers, granted, I suppose that it's appropriate considering TOS are pretty much just that as well. This case is one of many that illustrates the obvious drawback to a world that is next to "all digital."

*sighs*

At least when there were brick-and-mortar stores abound, you could yell at someone fleshy.[footnote]Last option only to be used when necessary or in hypothetical cases like with what Sony is doing right now.[/footnote]

I hope for the consumer's sake that korporate karma kollides[footnote]I couldn't resist once I got going...[/footnote] with Sony and, hell, the industry as a whole. If this is the attitude you want to take towards your bread and butter market, then this (metaphorical middle finger) is the attitude consumers will hold, wallet-masochists aside.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Haha this is totaly illegal in the united states.

I wonder what kind of morons work in Sonys' legal department. I hope that some entity can sue Sony for this.

Anyone else up to threatening a class-action lawsuit against this blatantly illegal change of the terms and conditions to which we, the consumers, most definitely have not agreed upon? Even if its just for the sake of irony?

I was literally[footnote]And I do mean literally![/footnote] thinking the exact same thing as I scrolled down to your post, haha!

Anyway, this move just seems like a flagrant besmirching of the rights of consumers, granted, I suppose that it's appropriate considering TOS are pretty much just that as well. This case is one of many that illustrates the obvious drawback to a world that is next to "all digital."

*sighs*

At least when there were brick-and-mortar stores abound, you could yell at someone fleshy.[footnote]Last option only to be used when necessary or in hypothetical cases like with what Sony is doing right now.[/footnote]

I hope for the consumer's sake that korporate karma kollides[footnote]I couldn't resist once I got going...[/footnote] with Sony and, hell, the industry as a whole. If this is the attitude you want to take towards your bread and butter market, then this (metaphorical middle finger) is the attitude consumers will hold, wallet-masochists aside.

`-` Why is it that people have such a hard time reading? Here, I'll post it -again-.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T?and indeed, any company?could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as "unconscionable."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars

What Sony is doing is completely legal, at least in America. So get over it already. Sheesh.

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm fairly certain this wouldn't be legal in Australian law.

Not while The amazing backflipper is in charge!

Really? Does the Liberal party intend to alter/make/amend/whaever relevant legalisation, or are you just taking a pot-shot?

 

[Nikolaz72]

Haha this is totaly illegal in the united states.

I wonder what kind of morons work in Sonys' legal department. I hope that some entity can sue Sony for this.

Anyone else up to threatening a class-action lawsuit against this blatantly illegal change of the terms and conditions to which we, the consumers, most definitely have not agreed upon? Even if its just for the sake of irony?

I was literally thinking the exact same thing as I scrolled down to your post, haha!

Anyway, this move just seems like a flagrant besmirching of the rights of consumers, granted, I suppose that it's appropriate considering TOS are pretty much just that as well. This case is one of many that illustrates the obvious drawback to a world that is next to "all digital."

*sighs*

At least when there were brick-and-mortar stores abound, you could yell at someone fleshy.

I hope for the consumer's sake that korporate karma kollides with Sony and, hell, the industry as a whole. If this is the attitude you want to take towards your bread and butter market, then this (metaphorical middle finger) is the attitude consumers will hold, wallet-masochists aside.

`-` Why is it that people have such a hard time reading? Here, I'll post it -again-.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T?and indeed, any company?could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as "unconscionable."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars

What Sony is doing is completely legal, at least in America. So get over it already. Sheesh.

Not legal in EU... Which means most European countries with money. And I doubt its legal in Norway either. So that means all European countries with money. I doubt its legal in Japan even.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Good thing I'm not a stereotypical U.S. Citizen.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

+1 extra reason why I dislike Sony.

 

[GonzoGamer]

This is incredibly stupid. So in other words, unless we agree to never sue Sony again in class-action lawsuits no matter what they do (which could go far as bricking every console ever due to one of their incredibly frequent patches), we cannot use our systems that we puchased legally anymore. That's not fair at all. Here I was about to break down and start saving up for a Vita too. Balls to that if Sony is going to keep showing much just how much idiotic their company can be sometimes.

That was the first worry that popped into my head: What the hell are they going to screw up now so much that they?re expecting us to sue them?
Perhaps they?re going to start selling ps2 games on psn and they want to ?accidentally? brick all the consoles that still have the BC function. One thing?s for sure, they?re expecting us to get royally pissed off about something they?re planning.
I just don?t know how many more features they can take away from the damn thing.

I thought this was going to be one of the stipulations of signing back onto PSN when it went back online.

Exactly. It seems a bit weird to wait till this long after the whole incident to add in this little loop-hole. So either they want to cover their asses in case something else happens in the near-future (which likely means something is/has happened that we don't know about), or they just really don't care about their customers at all and want them to waive all rights without even knowing it. Of course, this is really a dick-move anyways because I'm sure they realize (and are counting on the fact) that the vast majority of people don't read the agreement anyways. So basically they're trying to take away their customer's rights without them realizing it.

Good point.
Most people aren?t likely to scan through the agreement or visit sites like this. On the other hand these are probably the same people who wouldn?t know or care about whatever class action lawsuit that comes up...that is unless they did something really beyond their usual douchbaggery and took away the ability to play BR movies or bricked all BC models in preparation for ps2 games being sold on PSN.

A friend of mine was actually about to get a ps3 this weekend but has decided better of it since I told him about this. It's a bad sign of things to come.

Funny thing is they are not actually stopping you from suing them in fact they are setting up a system of arbitration before full suit for individuals which does sound kind of fishy since I did not see in the terms where they specify which entity would arbitrate the proceedings. After the 60 day period of arbitration if that has not resolved the issue it is set to go to a court if you would still like to continue with the proceedings. The only thing they are trying to stop is the class action suits which even then inside the TOS changes it specifically says if this section holds up to court of law. So technically if someone or some people fought it and it did not hold up it basically becomes a null and void section.

Now don't get me wrong it still sounds shady and does not sound legal but. The normal class action does nothing but fill the pockets of the lawyers and give the actual consumers filing the suit a small chunk of change or some other really small compensation. So other then costing the company money it could be using to fix the problem they are paying their lawyers and the class action lawyers.

I can see both sides of this argument. I can see what sony is trying to accomplish and can also see why users will be mad about it.

If you want to read the TOS.
http://www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/SEN-legal-docs/TERMS_OF_SERVICE_AGREEMENT-EN.pdf

Don't get me wong...I'm not mad...not about this...not yet at least. Right now this mostly just worries me.
I'm not usually the kind of guy who jumps on a class action lawsuit. As you pointed out: they aren't usually very lucrative.
It's like the old childrens tale from the sea: if the chef burns down the outhouse, you don't eat his chili.

 

[Aeshi]

Can't really say I blame them what with all the legal bullshit about Piracy/Modding being "freedom of speech" that they've had to put up with.

 

[Aureliano]

And once again a big company tries putting something stupid in their EULA to see if it sticks.

I'm still waiting for the "...and all first-born children of users of the PSN Network shall, upon the Sony Entity's requesting them, be legal property of the Sony Corporation. Child support payments will of course be mandatory by any and all PSN users affected by this service change and users will be subject to debt collection services or legal action if payment is not received on time. If users wish to opt out of this service, please send one (1) severed toe with medical evidence proving it is yours within 30 days to the Sony Corporation and forfeit your right to use the online service in perpetuity," clause. Clearly the supreme court's gonna roll over for that one too eventually.

 

[LastDarkness]

Haha this is totaly illegal in the united states.

I wonder what kind of morons work in Sonys' legal department. I hope that some entity can sue Sony for this.

Anyone else up to threatening a class-action lawsuit against this blatantly illegal change of the terms and conditions to which we, the consumers, most definitely have not agreed upon? Even if its just for the sake of irony?

I was literally[footnote]And I do mean literally![/footnote] thinking the exact same thing as I scrolled down to your post, haha!

Anyway, this move just seems like a flagrant besmirching of the rights of consumers, granted, I suppose that it's appropriate considering TOS are pretty much just that as well. This case is one of many that illustrates the obvious drawback to a world that is next to "all digital."

*sighs*

At least when there were brick-and-mortar stores abound, you could yell at someone fleshy.[footnote]Last option only to be used when necessary or in hypothetical cases like with what Sony is doing right now.[/footnote]

I hope for the consumer's sake that korporate karma kollides[footnote]I couldn't resist once I got going...[/footnote] with Sony and, hell, the industry as a whole. If this is the attitude you want to take towards your bread and butter market, then this (metaphorical middle finger) is the attitude consumers will hold, wallet-masochists aside.

`-` Why is it that people have such a hard time reading? Here, I'll post it -again-.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T?and indeed, any company?could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as "unconscionable."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars

What Sony is doing is completely legal, at least in America. So get over it already. Sheesh.

This warrents further investigation as I was corrected last night, some states have laws that prevent a person from willingly or unwillingly waving their legal rights.

 

[GeorgW]

This will lead me to simply avoid using my PS3 until they change this policy. Will that happen btw, any time soon?

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Haha this is totaly illegal in the united states.

I wonder what kind of morons work in Sonys' legal department. I hope that some entity can sue Sony for this.

Anyone else up to threatening a class-action lawsuit against this blatantly illegal change of the terms and conditions to which we, the consumers, most definitely have not agreed upon? Even if its just for the sake of irony

I was literally thinking the exact same thing as I scrolled down to your post, haha!

Anyway, this move just seems like a flagrant besmirching of the rights of consumers, granted, I suppose that it's appropriate considering TOS are pretty much just that as well. This case is one of many that illustrates the obvious drawback to a world that is next to "all digital."

*sighs*

At least when there were brick-and-mortar stores abound, you could yell at someone fleshy.

I hope for the consumer's sake that korporate karma kollides with Sony and, hell, the industry as a whole. If this is the attitude you want to take towards your bread and butter market, then this (metaphorical middle finger) is the attitude consumers will hold, wallet-masochists aside.

`-` Why is it that people have such a hard time reading? Here, I'll post it -again-.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T?and indeed, any company?could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as "unconscionable."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars

What Sony is doing is completely legal, at least in America. So get over it already. Sheesh.

While I cannot speak for others, I have already seen your post multiple times within the two pages of this thread. I was writing with levity specifically in regards to Simalacrum's second sentence about the irony of such an action that was tinged with hyperbole.

Sony's actions might be completely legal, but that doesn't mean squat to me if I don't like the principle behind their choice on how to treat customers. If Sony wants to act that way, it is 100% no skin off of my back to simply stop supporting the company and vote with my dollar. The Supreme Court cannot do anything about that.

 

[BilboB2]

Well, I'm not sure if anyone brought this up, but it is somewhat important. In the TOS, Sony states that if you do not wish to waive your rights (If you'd rather take your argument to court than use arbitration), you simply need to notify them in writing within 30 days of accepting the terms. It's not that hard to get around this. Unfortunately, people are too busy jumping to conclusions to read the new TOS.

...it's still keeping you from having class-action lawsuits, though. But hey, as midpipps already said, class-action lawsuits are shady in and of themselves. So think of this as you feel like thinking. Just keep this in mind.

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm fairly certain this wouldn't be legal in Australian law.

Well this is mildly embarrassing. I was wrong.
Spoke to my friend who works in a major law firm and deals a lot with this kind of stuff, and it seems this is perfectly legal in Australia.
It has never been brought to court and challenged, so it is possible if unlikely it won't fly. But it is in no way illegal.

 

[-Dragmire-]

This will lead me to simply avoid using my PS3 until they change this policy. Will that happen btw, any time soon?

How's that working out for you?

_______________________________________________________________

How many more companies are going to do this? Blizzard's doing it too now.

 

[GeorgW]

This will lead me to simply avoid using my PS3 until they change this policy. Will that happen btw, any time soon?

How's that working out for you?

_______________________________________________________________

How many more companies are going to do this? Blizzard's doing it too now.

I actually just gave in yesterday, thankyouverymuch... Apparently it doesn't apply to Sweden, so I finally gave in. Oh, and aren't EA doing it as well?