Valve Wants Customer Disputes in Small Claims Court

[Falterfire]

I'm fascinated by how many people care about this in the first place. Do you expect to be suing Valve in the near future? For more than 99% of Steam users, this is utterly meaningless. If they start abusing it, I'll be annoyed, but right now? I have no grievances with Valve in the first place and I can't imagine them doing anything that would make me want to file a class action lawsuit anyways.

 

[The Random One]

I love how the first few posters gone "HATE STEAM NOW" obviously didn't read the article. At all.

I hate how we obviously did, and yet so many people are saying "Meh, who cares if they take away my rights? I wasn't using them!" and "Well Valve has historically been a less awful company, so it's absolutely certain it will never screw ME in any way shape or form, even though they can deny my access to all games I bought through their system and have done so to some people already! Now excuse me while I cross this freeway with my eyes closed, since I've crossed it twice already and nothing happened so I know this is completely safe."

 

[cerebus23]

Actually, Valve is partially right here. Video game class action lawsuits generally benefit lawyers much more than gamers, and this process will indeed be better for the individual consumer.

On the flip side, class action lawsuits are excellent for shining a flashlight onto the piles of bullshit that big publishers try to get away with. Might be a pair of sixes here.

Quote for truth.

Thread pretty much.

 

[gardian06]

So... What does this mean for the less intelligent ones here? You're not allowed to sue Valve's pants off when they delay a release date?

for the most part the difference between civil suit, class action suit, and arbitration is as follows

all of these are usually seeking financial reimbursement for damages done by the defendant. there is no actual limit to the amount on damages that can be sought by any of these means (so anyone stating that "this means Valve is just trying to pay less money" is ignorant, and needs to learn law).

civil suit, and arbitration can have any number of plaintiffs, but a class action suit has a minimum amount (that slips my mind at time of writing)

class action suits money is paid out to the group as a whole to be distributed to each (usually equally, or by percent difference of damages), but arbitration, and civil have damages paid out individually to each plaintiff, but can also have claims dismissed per plaintiff.

the bigger difference are:

that civil, and class action have an appeals process (which usually has anywhere from 3-7 levels that have to hear the full case), while arbitration is 1, and done.

civil can be heard in front of a jury of peers. while class action is a judge (typically can be a jury, but only in special circumstances), and arbitration is an agreed upon individual (usually with a law degree of some kind, but not necessarily)

civil, and class action are a matter of public record. while arbitration is considered a private agreement.

 

[Vivi22]

So what you say is Valve doesn't follow the same standard as EA...

Making things bad depending on who does it rather than what they do.

A double standard of you will...

I think you either quoted me in error or need to work on your reading comprehension because my post said no such thing.

 

[Worgen]

Basically, Valve can type whatever they want in to their terms of use, and while it is a legally binding document, it does not prevent class action lawsuits from being filed in cases of large scale financial or security issues, Valve breaching contract with the users, or Valve breaking any laws in countries that they offer their service.

When the hell is this sorta thing really gonna see a court day?

I'll try and kill two birds with one stone here, but I'm 99% sure it already did get tested in court in a case involving another company and courts upheld it which is why other companies began to follow suit. So you could try to file a class action suit in the US, but the courts will simply prevent it from ever happening because this stuff is entirely legal now. I don't know if any other countries have had this sort of clause tested in their court systems though.

It did and it stood, for now, but it puts me in the mind of sopa. Really you just need enough people to know about these kind of things for them to be challenged and changed. Consumers 'own' less and less of our stuff since we are moving more and more digital, it just takes one big company really screwing up and changes will happen and we will see new consumer protections.

Captcha: underpants (Step 3 is profit)

 

[Kargathia]

So... What does this mean for the less intelligent ones here? You're not allowed to sue Valve's pants off when they delay a release date?

It means you're not allowed to go to court with all your friends and fellow gamers and seriously claim millions in damages in a single suit over emotional damages due to them not releasing ep3.

For Valve the reasons for stipulating arbitration are twofold:
- It bars class action suits, where everyone would get paid if it won, in favour of a system where cases can be thrown out on an individual basis.
- Arbitration is statistically more likely to rule in favour of a company, while a jury tends to lean towards taking the customer's side.

Do keep in mind there is a "but" where it comes to the EU, as multiple jurisdictions might not consider these clauses legally binding, as they deny qualified legal assistance. There haven't been any cases on this so far in the EU, so we don't know for sure what'll happen when it eventually gets tested.

 

[Space Jawa]

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.

 

[Auesis]

Don't care.

/thread as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

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.

 

[scotth266]

Class action lawsuits are essentially a gigantic scheme to make lawyers money, so I give zero fucks.

 

[Jumplion]

Of course, as been pointed out before, when EA or Sony or Microsoft or any other companies does this, it is evil and they are the scum of the earth and they are horrible evil companies that want nothing more than our money. But when VALVe does the same exact thing, it's okay, even reasonable, laudable, and "I never cared in the first place, even when EA did this!" (a complete lie), and "this will never apply to me, so what does it matter?" (completely ignorant).

A violation of consumer rights is a violation of consumer rights no matter who does it. It is not VALVe's decision to restrict our rights to a class action lawsuit if we so choose. If I want a class action lawsuit, I should be able to bring a class action lawsuit to them whether they like it or not. They are restricting this ability because it is convenient for them, not because they want an easier time for the consumer. I am not aware of any previous class action case, or indeed any court case, that would cause this sort of precedent.

 

[Eruanno]

SNIP (Lots of text, no need to clog up the forums. Just scroll up if you want to read it back, friends!)

DOUBLE-SNIP (Same deal here, fellows.)

Two serious answers in one thread? On the internet? Gentlemen, I believe you both are entitled to some fancy top hats, a tray of cookies and a nice backrub.

(For the record, I'm still not 100% sure what it means, but it is a little clearer. I think. Uh, maybe.)

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

Well I think the best way to avoid this is to not be a dumbass.

 

[gardian06]

realistically its things like this that make me wonder why no one has requested an antitrust suit be set against them, or like EA (if the anger is so great against them) for that matter. if the US government files the case then no TOS/EULA can stop it, and then every user of the service is a viable plaintiff/witness, and corporations go down in flames in antitrust suits.

I mean right at the line of "you forfeit all right to refund at point of transaction" is an antitrust claim right away. not to mention that it could even destroy the ability for publishers to set forth things like EULAs in there entirety.

so to those people who just want to complain on the internet: stop it, or contact the BBB, or FTC, and submit this SHIT to them with the note "think if this was attached to purchasing a car" to get the case filed which would freeze the requirement to sign a potentially illegal document, and might even make it illegal for them, EA, Microsoft, Sony, or any other to do anything similar.

 

[unstabLized]

So.. Why should I care? It's not like I have a fight going with Valve. They haven't screwed me over, which is rare. We're best buds. Doesn't concern me in the slightest. I needed customer support before after I was trying to gift a game to a friend and the gift didn't show up, and they handled the situation and worked it out. Every other company's done this and I haven't cared. Don't care here either.

 

[MysticToast]

I'm genuinely surprised so many people are upset about this.

I didn't care when Sony did it and I care just as much now as Valve does it.

 

[shintakie10]

I'm genuinely surprised so many people are upset about this.

I didn't care when Sony did it and I care just as much now as Valve does it.

My biggest gripe at the moment, outside of the normal this is a blatant violation of consumers rights schtick, is that if you do not agree with it you are completely locked out of playin your legally bought and owned games. This has always been the biggest stickin point against digital distribution vs retail. If the service you use suddenly disappears you lose access to the games you have legally bought and obtained. The argument against this was always that Valve (and possibly others?) have a system set-up so that if they inevitably fall you'll still be able to get your games for x amount of time so that you can never permanently lose your owned games.

However now they've gone completely against the spirit of that and made it as easy as not agreein with their policies.

Not only that, but they updated it with language that is completely and utterly illegal in the EU. Language that wasn't in there before was added in after a court rulin that made the act of blockin used games sales for digital content illegal. Seriously...they updated a EULA to literally do what was just made to be illegal. That's not smart. That's fuckin stupid. They then also updated it so you can't join in a class action lawsuit against them in order to protect themselves from the (rightful) lawsuits that would follow from their very much illegal act.

Fuck Valve and fuck this anti-consumerist bullshit.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm lost why people are getting upset at the 'loss' of class action law suits, how many have you been involved in that this becomes a deal breaker?

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm lost why people are getting upset at the 'loss' of class action law suits, how many have you been involved in that this becomes a deal breaker?

Pretty much every job I've worked at involved a class action lawsuit due to management manipulating employees hours that prevented them overtime, lack of raises despite in a contract and many other details that would honestly take too much time to list.

So yeah there is actually an importance for class action lawsuits to exist. Also I know people do hate them because they think of the money that goes to the lawyer and very little goes to the individuals involved but I also don't think they understand how expensive the legal process actually is. Something as simple as requesting a copy of a transcript for a day in court can cost thousands of dollars because one is not allowed a digital record thus making the value of said copy extremely expensive. We aren't talking about kinko's either but actually having to go through the city or state to actually get them to create those copies and then and only then can said documents be created in a digital format.

Class action lawsuits get a bad rap because people are always thinking about the money and who gets it instead of actually understanding the rights and legal precedence that is set so said companies can't repeat the same atrocity against the consumers or employees.

A thought out answer, I was hoping for one of these rather than "cause it is stoopid". I guess I can see where you're coming from but I can't imagine this sorta thing holding up really considering it literally just says you can't sue us. Then again I'm no lawyer, I just don't see how something like that could even stick.

Either way thanks for the decent answer so I can stroke my beard and nod, get a decent idea why someone would be upset, yadda, yadda.

Yeah I guess those kinds of lawsuits do have a bit of a bad rap given they always seem to be tied to someone who stubbed their toe and because the company didn't have a "Warning don't stub your toe on the stairs" they get hundreds of people with stubbed toes who can't work anymore. ...I hope that came across the way I was trying to.