Elementlmage said:
JDKJ said:
Elementlmage said:
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
michaelknives52 said:
binnsyboy said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.
But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.
Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...
don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it
nope.jpg
Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.
Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.
What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!
The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.
Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.
Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.
See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).
See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).
See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).
See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).
See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).
See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).
See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).
See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).
See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").
See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).
See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).
See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).
