Valve Wants Customer Disputes in Small Claims Court

[Xanadu84]

It sounds to me like Steam is clarifying how to handle disputes in a way that is most beneficial to them as a company AND most effective for the consumer. And they are effectively offering to pay to settle those disputes out of their own pockets. It seems to me that EA eliminates class action lawsuits because that is the only method by which consumers could fight back against them. Does EA offer to pay court costs, win or lose? That alone seems to indicate that Valve wants a system that will ultimately favor there customers, while EA wants to screw them over while keeping plausible deniability.

If this characterization of the respective companies is wrong, then Valve is merely much better at PR and communicating with it's customers. If it's right, it's further evidence that Valve has earned the trust that is has received, while EA has earned it bad reputation.

 

[IamQ]

I must've missed something. Why do I have to hate this again?

 

[mateushac]

And THIS is probably the greatest part of being a Brazilian citizen. Unfair ToS like this will never reach me!

 

[Twilight_guy]

Valve is going to pay for your dispute, no matter the outcome? That's awfully generous. I wouldn't wouldn't be surprised if they get sued over people not being able to have class action lawsuit though. Luckily, I trust most gamers are lazy/incompetent so i can see where that would be going:

Spoiler

Read it again. They will pay IF they find the claim legitimate and IF it is under 10,000 dollars. If it is OVER 10,000 dollars then you the plaintiff will have to play for yourself, the arbiter and VALVE. Gotta read that fine print. Valve is not playing nice here as much as people think or how the Escapist and a lot of game websites are posting.

Still better then your average company which will always pay 0.

 

[lacktheknack]

I get the feeling that Richard Stallman entered this thread when we weren't looking...

So they've reduced use of my freedom to take them to court, a freedom I won't use for many, many reasons. I also didn't realy care when EA did it, or when Sony did it. Why should I feel obligated to flip out because a company wishes to not lose a huge amount of money?

 

[Sansha]

Wait... why are we angry at this again?

i have said it already and ill say it again, fuck you valve, for taking away consumer rights, i will not be buying anymore games from you.

I'm curious, why this reaction? Can you explain your stance?

 

[Space Jawa]

I mean, sure, all three cases is basically the companies covering their asses, but whereas Sony had to use it's hands in a hurry, Valve did it with a sheet of cloth, while EA did it by shoving it's ass in our faces, so we get a better smell of their shit.

Which, in spite of the reason they're 'covering their butts', makes me wonder where the logic is in giving Valve a pass while Sony and EA (EA especially) are all but declared the unholy spawn of evil companies when all three are supposedly doing the exact same thing.

 

[CD-R]

Meh.

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

Not sure if trolling or just Valve Fanboy mental gymnastics.

 

[chadachada123]

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

One's Evil and one isn't for doing the same thing?

Please explain this logic to me.

Valve will pay for the cost of arbitration even if Valve wins, as long as you aren't being 'frivolous' or 'excessive.'

EA makes you pay for arbitration (unless you claim that the fees are excessive or claim that you're unable to pay).

Barring this, EA EXPECTS class-action lawsuits and wants to limit them. Valve doesn't expect class action lawsuits and appears to be preferring arbitration to make it easier for customers, not harder. EA expects people to give up if they can't use class-action and have to use arbitration. Valve doesn't appear to have the same motives, and appears to actually want to satisfy customers.

Edit: To clarify, the last paragraph describe what appears to be true. The first two paragraphs are factual and not based on opinion, only the last one is.

 

[Aeonknight]

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

One's Evil and one isn't for doing the same thing?

Please explain this logic to me.

Valve will pay for the cost of arbitration even if Valve wins, as long as you aren't being 'frivolous' or 'excessive.'

EA makes you pay for arbitration (unless you claim that the fees are excessive or claim that you're unable to pay).

Barring this, EA EXPECTS class-action lawsuits and wants to limit them. Valve doesn't expect class action lawsuits and appears to be preferring arbitration to make it easier for customers, not harder. EA expects people to give up if they can't use class-action and have to use arbitration. Valve doesn't appear to have the same motives, and appears to actually want to satisfy customers.

Edit: To clarify, the last paragraph describe what appears to be true. The first two paragraphs are factual and not based on opinion, only the last one is.

It doesn't matter if Valve's gonna pay your lawyer fees to sue them. What matters is that you weren't given a choice in the matter of giving up class action lawsuits (which are a bigger threat to the company, even if the lawyers are the only ones who walk away with any type of victory at the end of the day.)

And what's better, they held your Steam library hostage to do it. Does that sound like a company acting in the interest of it's customers?

 

[viranimus]

Ok because people keep asking "Why should I care again"

Ill simplify this.

A: They are taking away your rights. Doesnt matter which ones, the fact they are taking anything away should have you up in arms. They are taking them away and holding your purchases hostage unless you give them up in voluntary compliance.

B: Because allowing them to do this, hurts ALL gamers (and technically all consumers) because this will not be the end of it. By doing nothing, your giving them permission to take more.

Edit: Why do the want to do this? divide et impera.

 

[creamy5000]

I don't plan on or want to sue Valve, but I resent being forced to sign a contract or lose all my digital games. By that way of thinking, Valve can constantly decide to change the agreement I originally accepted and hold my games hostage if I refuse to agree.

This is why I hate corporations, they own the US, US law, and can constantly remove rights from their customers with impunity.

P.s. I plagiarized most of this post because I agree with it.

 

[gardian06]

I think I should just do this for all future "Company X did something that is anti-consumer"

well don't just ***** about it on a forum. in the US there is a government entity whose sole purpose is to take down complaints, forward them to jurisdictions, and then have those jurisdictions file a case on the behalf of the consumer(s) who filed the complaint. they are called the FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ just to be clear the more complaints they receive about a company performing an anti-consumer action the more likely they will pressure those jurisdictions to act.

here is the really fun fact: its the jurisdiction that covers the cost of the trial. granted you don't get your money back, but when all is said and done, and the company loses (which happens often for quality claims, and can set precedences better then any civil/class action suit) then that company is given a fixed time frame to change their practices, or be forced to close and/of pay massive penalties/sanctions.

and these claims can be levied against any company that does business in the US.

SO QUIT YOUR BITCHING, AND DO SOMETHING

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

For all you people who have decided to no longer use Steam because of this I have to wonder... what are you doing that the TOS and EULA actually makes you care, are you planning to sue Valve or something? If so then don't use their service in the first place.

 

[frizzlebyte]

The only thing that I don't like is that, unlike Sony's Arbitration Clause, I can't opt out of it.

Still, I'll be a Steam customer for a long, long time to come.

 

[viranimus]

what are you doing that the TOS and EULA actually makes you care,

Being free citizens who legally purchased licenses and had them held hostage until voluntary compliance?

Trying to stop a business practice that will hurt every gamer as well as the industry?

Trying to stop a massive overreach in power?

The question I must ask is.. why is defending what you have purchased in an industry you love, indicative of motivations for profit?

And

Why is it people are not more upset over multiple companies attempting to negate consumer rights?

Seriously.. We have people all across the country up in arms about the mere perception of denial of rights related to a chicken sandwich... but even with it coming from steam it is still barely registering a blip.

This isnt just steam. This sort of corporate overreach is a symptom of the current economic crisis. We keep allowing these corporations to have more and more power and allow them to use it unchecked, and we wonder why they end up doing bad things with that power. All because too many people thought "Y U mad bro? this doesnt effect me."

At some point you have to draw a line.

 

[Meight08]

Judging from the fact that they explicitly brought up the EU in their message, I can't help but assume this is specifically to stave off a class-action suit over the fact that users can't resell their games. A class-action suit is pretty much the only way anyone could ever take them to task for what is now a blatant violation of EU law, and they want to stop it before it can happen.

Very clever. And stupid.

Nah they WILL have to do it but the laws concerning digital resale still need to be written, I give it a few years.

 

[felbot]

I mean, sure, all three cases is basically the companies covering their asses, but whereas Sony had to use it's hands in a hurry, Valve did it with a sheet of cloth, while EA did it by shoving it's ass in our faces, so we get a better smell of their shit.

Which, in spite of the reason they're 'covering their butts', makes me wonder where the logic is in giving Valve a pass while Sony and EA (EA especially) are all but declared the unholy spawn of evil companies when all three are supposedly doing the exact same thing.

i fail to see why you wouldn't get it, valve wants to take away your right to a class action lawsuits, and then they go and say that this is somehow better for us.
this is he kinda shit that ea pulls, not valve.

 

[Pinkamena]

So, uh. How is this a problem?