Xbox Owner Sues Microsoft for $500 Billion (Yes, Billion)

[MartialArc]

"Accept they never agreed to anything at all, so nothing would really change."

True, at first, but this could start up a foundation for a law to be made that does limit when a company can or can't force you to accept the terms of service if you didn't read it.

Yes, here all Microsoft had to do with the altered terms of service to have them become "legal" was never even look at them, but is that so much more than when we get a new terms of service for an update and click accept without really reading it?

However, this is all dependent on what the final legal statement is. It may not even make it that far. Hell, maybe he'll even be forced (or talked) into making a deal out of court.

They continued providing the service. Xbox live is provided via the EULA agreement, one of the parties proposed a change to the agreement. When a company updates the EULA your continued use is implied consent. If you send them notice of updating the agreement them continuing the service implies consent.

Say you pay a landscaping company to mow your lawn. You pay monthly, and decide that the rate is too high. So you send them a letter saying you are only willing to pay half, so they can accept the lower rate or discontinue the service. If they go ahead mowing your lawn you would rightfully assume they accept the new terms. Its an important concept in his case... its not just that they didn't refuse the change, they continued the relationship. If the letter makes it to the front desk and some secretary loses it that's not really the homeowners fault. His responsibility was to get the letter to the company, he did that. It doesn't legally matter that Microsoft read or did not read the letter, what matters it they implicitly accepted it by continuing a relationship after having been served with the new terms. The whole thing is stupid, but these companies DO things like this, Mr. Stebbins here just took it to an extreme so it would get attention.

Take a look at the changes in ITunes EULA. Once upon a time you bought a song for 99 cents and you could burn it to a CD. Then they decided to add DRM to only let you burn it three times. You have two choices, continue to use the software and accept getting less than you expected when you initially purchased, or quit using it and lose your money altogether.... Not exactly fair. Same thing as the PS3 linux thing, removed functionality that was understood to be there at purchase. We're just a few baby steps from game publishers tossing out an EULA change after a game has been out for a year asking for you to pay the list price again. Wanna keep playing? Pay for it again, we decided the license was only good for a year after the fact. Companies can and do push people around by changing EULA's. It seems contrary to me that so many would rally against someone trying to turn an abusive business practice onto the folks who came up with it.(not accusing you of this btw)

 

[Korolev]

Well, he can try.... but we all know where this is going - and besides, he's actually made a mistake: When Microsoft changes their terms of use, they HAVE to inform you and you HAVE to agree before you can continue to use the service. At least, that's how it is in Australia. There is no "if you don't reply in 24 hours then you say yes" nonsense. So his case is invalid, because Microsoft actually do inform their customers about changes, and the customer (at least in Australia) HAS to click on an "I agree" button - and if the customers don't bother to read the contract, then legally, it's the customer's fault (morally it's the company's fault for making the contract hard to read and 20 pages long).

 

[Kopikatsu]

"Accept they never agreed to anything at all, so nothing would really change."

True, at first, but this could start up a foundation for a law to be made that does limit when a company can or can't force you to accept the terms of service if you didn't read it.

Yes, here all Microsoft had to do with the altered terms of service to have them become "legal" was never even look at them, but is that so much more than when we get a new terms of service for an update and click accept without really reading it?

However, this is all dependent on what the final legal statement is. It may not even make it that far. Hell, maybe he'll even be forced (or talked) into making a deal out of court.

They continued providing the service. Xbox live is provided via the EULA agreement, one of the parties proposed a change to the agreement. When a company updates the EULA your continued use is implied consent. If you send them notice of updating the agreement them continuing the service implies consent.

Say you pay a landscaping company to mow your lawn. You pay monthly, and decide that the rate is too high. So you send them a letter saying you are only willing to pay half, so they can accept the lower rate or discontinue the service. If they go ahead mowing your lawn you would rightfully assume they accept the new terms. Its an important concept in his case... its not just that they didn't refuse the change, they continued the relationship. If the letter makes it to the front desk and some secretary loses it that's not really the homeowners fault. His responsibility was to get the letter to the company, he did that. It doesn't legally matter that Microsoft read or did not read the letter, what matters it they implicitly accepted it by continuing a relationship after having been served with the new terms. The whole thing is stupid, but these companies DO things like this, Mr. Stebbins here just took it to an extreme so it would get attention.

Take a look at the changes in ITunes EULA. Once upon a time you bought a song for 99 cents and you could burn it to a CD. Then they decided to add DRM to only let you burn it three times. You have two choices, continue to use the software and accept getting less than you expected when you initially purchased, or quit using it and lose your money altogether.... Not exactly fair. Same thing as the PS3 linux thing, removed functionality that was understood to be there at purchase. We're just a few baby steps from game publishers tossing out an EULA change after a game has been out for a year asking for you to pay the list price again. Wanna keep playing? Pay for it again, we decided the license was only good for a year after the fact. Companies can and do push people around by changing EULA's. It seems contrary to me that so many would rally against someone trying to turn an abusive business practice onto the folks who came up with it.(not accusing you of this btw)

There are laws against exorbitant charges though.

Unless he can somehow prove that Microsoft caused him 500 billion dollars in damages due to not accepting his alterations, then the case will fail. The fact that it said 'Failure to act will result in a 500 billlion dollar fine' isn't enough for there to actually be such a thing. Considering the fact that Microsoft the company doesn't even have a net worth of anywhere near 500 billion...it's obviously an extremely unreasonable request. He has a negative chance of winning this case. I say negative because if it does to go court for some reason, he'll lose and be forced to pay Microsoft's legal fees. Then Microsoft can counter-sue.

So...yeah. Negative chance of winning.


Edit: Alright, someone explain this to me. Half the people in this thread are saying 'Even if he loses, at least it will show companies that they can't mess with us!'

The fuck, people? How is him going to court, being humiliated, then having to pay Microsoft's legal fees, and possibly being counter sued 'showing companies'?

 

[Xero Scythe]

I understand the guy is trying to make a point, but 500 billion dollars seems a little much. I doubt the guy will win.

And why go to court if you're not willing to print out your evidence for the judge? That just seems stupid to me.

I think that might be his whole point. If he's as smart as I think he is (though he probably isn't), he Wants to lose this case. Doing so would set the legal precedent of not being able to change the Terms of Agreement willy-nilly, as so many companies do.

...I-I'm actually in awe of this case. This, if anything else, proves the Infinite Monkeys (is that the correct spelling?) Idea.

 

[Xero Scythe]

"Accept they never agreed to anything at all, so nothing would really change."

True, at first, but this could start up a foundation for a law to be made that does limit when a company can or can't force you to accept the terms of service if you didn't read it.

Yes, here all Microsoft had to do with the altered terms of service to have them become "legal" was never even look at them, but is that so much more than when we get a new terms of service for an update and click accept without really reading it?

However, this is all dependent on what the final legal statement is. It may not even make it that far. Hell, maybe he'll even be forced (or talked) into making a deal out of court.

They continued providing the service. Xbox live is provided via the EULA agreement, one of the parties proposed a change to the agreement. When a company updates the EULA your continued use is implied consent. If you send them notice of updating the agreement them continuing the service implies consent.

Say you pay a landscaping company to mow your lawn. You pay monthly, and decide that the rate is too high. So you send them a letter saying you are only willing to pay half, so they can accept the lower rate or discontinue the service. If they go ahead mowing your lawn you would rightfully assume they accept the new terms. Its an important concept in his case... its not just that they didn't refuse the change, they continued the relationship. If the letter makes it to the front desk and some secretary loses it that's not really the homeowners fault. His responsibility was to get the letter to the company, he did that. It doesn't legally matter that Microsoft read or did not read the letter, what matters it they implicitly accepted it by continuing a relationship after having been served with the new terms. The whole thing is stupid, but these companies DO things like this, Mr. Stebbins here just took it to an extreme so it would get attention.

Take a look at the changes in ITunes EULA. Once upon a time you bought a song for 99 cents and you could burn it to a CD. Then they decided to add DRM to only let you burn it three times. You have two choices, continue to use the software and accept getting less than you expected when you initially purchased, or quit using it and lose your money altogether.... Not exactly fair. Same thing as the PS3 linux thing, removed functionality that was understood to be there at purchase. We're just a few baby steps from game publishers tossing out an EULA change after a game has been out for a year asking for you to pay the list price again. Wanna keep playing? Pay for it again, we decided the license was only good for a year after the fact. Companies can and do push people around by changing EULA's. It seems contrary to me that so many would rally against someone trying to turn an abusive business practice onto the folks who came up with it.(not accusing you of this btw)

There are laws against exorbitant charges though.

Unless he can somehow prove that Microsoft caused him 500 billion dollars in damages due to not accepting his alterations, then the case will fail. The fact that it said 'Failure to act will result in a 500 billlion dollar fine' isn't enough for there to actually be such a thing. Considering the fact that Microsoft the company doesn't even have a net worth of anywhere near 500 billion...it's obviously an extremely unreasonable request. He has a negative chance of winning this case. I say negative because if it does to go court for some reason, he'll lose and be forced to pay Microsoft's legal fees. Then Microsoft can counter-sue.

So...yeah. Negative chance of winning.


Edit: Alright, someone explain this to me. Half the people in this thread are saying 'Even if he loses, at least it will show companies that they can't mess with us!'

The fuck, people? How is him going to court, being humiliated, then having to pay Microsoft's legal fees, and possibly being counter sued 'showing companies'?

No, this guy is well 'n truly screwed, and so are any idiots who try and act how you said. However, through the Reductio Ad Absurbum (Sorry if I spelled it wrong) this guy could set an interesting legal precedent. Read my above post- it has a little bit more meat.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I'll be disappointed by Microsoft if that guy even gets 1$. He may have a point but I doubt that he'll win in the end. Just another idiotic attempt at easily becoming rich.

I'd be more disappointed in Microsoft's lawyers...

If this guy even partially wins, the world will go sue crazy against any company with an EULA-like agreement.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

Who cares if it's a crazy amount? This guy is a legend.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

He opening statement should be: "I did it for the lulz".

 

[duchaked]

no matter what he truly is going for here or trying to stand for...ehh forget it my head hurts enough already I'm going to bed lol

some people sure have a lot of free time

 

[boyvirgo666]

This guy is going to get crushed, if it even makes it that far.

*EDIT*
Also, his attempt at this is completely useless. In the laws of court he cannot just default him to winning like that, and if anything Microsoft are liable to sue back.

actually he can. people do it in divorce cases all the time, its called no contest.

 

[ServebotFrank]

500 billion dollars? I reckon that's slightly more money than any company in the world has to spend. If he's hoping for that much he might as well just sue the government because they didn't accept his change to the constitution...Wait I might just try that.

 

[Kuroneko97]

Something tells me he watched that HUMAN CENTiPAD episode of South Park...

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

His case is actually sorta air tight. I think the guy is a total douchebag and should really stop making an ass of himself, but it isn't like you can say he is in error.

Go for 1 million, not everything the company owns.

How is it airtight?

He said that if they don't respond, Microsoft owes him 500 billion. Not much to argue about with that. I don't approve of his actions but it isn't like you can find a fault with his logic there if you think about it from his prospective.

Read my post above. it kinda destroys his entire case. He admits that he made it specifically difficult for Microsoft to respond to him in time, is saying he doesn't want to stress his printer in order to print a few pages, and he gave then ridiculous time frames. His case simply wouldn't fly from the very basic knowledge I have of law. Also, the court WILL consider that he tried to pull a bunch of these cheap stunts in the future.

My post is on page 5, much more detailed. I don't mean for this e-mail to seem snobby, just to show my opinion of how his case doesn't work. As I say, you can't write someone a letter and say "Answer in 24 hours or else" there must be a reasonable time frame. His 24 hours had probably expired before they even got the letter, so they couldn't even do a victory whatever if thy wanted to.

Also, the terms of the agreement are ridiculous. This wouldn't fly

 

[Alar]

I didn't even read this article. All I know is, no idiot (yes, this guy is a complete and utter imbecilic moron) will EVER get NEARLY that much money out of ANY COMPANY. EVER.

Microsoft doesn't even HAVE that much money! Okay, maybe they would if they sold all their assets, but NO COMPANY is going to completely melt themselves down to EVER satisfy the needs of some single fucking twat.

I'm sorry, this guy needs to be kicked in the nuts and have his Xbox taken from him, as well as the ability to sue for unreasonably large amounts, or his ability to sue at all.

EDIT: Alright, I read the article, and while this was mildly clever of him, the guy is still a complete jackass. He doesn't deserve to get a cent of money. We shouldn't be dropping to the level of companies that use this tactic, we should be finding ways to keep them from doing it to other people.

 

[Toriver]

Making a point is fine, but there's no need to be a dick about it.

Something I think the gamer community seriously needs to work on...

NOTE: This thread and most comments in it are fine: I'm mostly referring to other issues.

But more to the OP, I'm thinking this guy fully expects to lose. He just has to talk like he's hoping to win in order to keep up appearances. Because as others have explained, in this case, for the sake of legal precedent, losing would be the more desirable outcome. By using the same tactics that companies use in EULAs, he is setting the precedent for those tactics to be thrown out in later lawsuits against the legal tactics used in EULAs. However, I think he did make a rather egregious error in this, in his "forfeit victory" clause. He needed that clause in there to claim that the company owed him something and to take the agreement to court, but companies do not use such clauses in their EULAs: you have to give either a "yes" or "no" answer to the EULA in order to proceed. There is no "forfeit victory" in an EULA. Unfortunately, that clause could, and likely will, be used to simply toss out the case or rule against Stebbins without any change to the current precedent regarding EULAs. So although he was looking for a loss on his terms, I don't think it's going to happen.

If he had only found another way to bring it to court aside from that "forfeit victory" clause...

 

[Synyster]

Wow that's really unbelievable

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Wish people would stop claiming "Trolololol" without thinking about it for a damn second. He's gone for an amount 6x bigger than the total assets of Microsoft. He's refusing to hand over evidence. Is it not clear he's trying to throw the case?

It'll set legal precedent. Stopping major companies from doing the exact same thing back to him is what he's aiming to do, but apparently some people are too blind to see that. Hopefully the Judge will see what he's doing, but I can't see that happening either.

Oh it seems like a damned worthy endeavor, however, a lot of people won't see that, and if this sets legal precedent for SONY or Microsoft or gaming companies, they'll have to amend it everywhere. I have worked at jobs considered "essential services" that do the same thing.

This is also going to be overshadowed by Microsoft saying "Fine, sue us" and then making him pay TONS for the lawyers.

The sad difference here is that there is no precedent. If he had sent their legal team an e-mail, and they had never looked at it, that's one thing. Microsoft and SONY send e-mails to inform you the terms are changing. You get them right away. you delete the e-mail or don't check it? You had it 5 seconds after they sent it out. He sent them letters tat he made sure they would get in a convoluted manner, that he was hoping they would NOT be able to respond to in time. This, unfortunately, makes the case VERY different, cause Microsoft can now stand up and say "He sent us a letter to our shipping department, we send them instant e-mails directly to the client, not their relatives. He gave us an intolerable time frame"

I can see what his intentions are, but his execution shot himself in the foot. He should have sent this legit, tried it, and if it didn't work, say "Okay, I failed" but he didn't. It's hard to say Microsoft tries to ensure you don't read the amendments when they send you an e-mail to your inbox labeled "NEW TERMS OF SERVICE!!!"

So yeah, I can see what he was trying to do, but the way he did it fucked him over

 

[Delsana]

To be honest, Celtic, many companies will send letters at inopportune times and do what they can to obfuscate the matter.

I don't believe though that Microsoft is some cruel company and so in that regard they may see this as somewhat humorous.

As for what will happen... a precedent to some degree, but likely a settlement to be honest.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

If this guy sees even 0.001% of that money, I will eat my own face.

0.001% of 500,000,000,000 is 500,000,000. or in other words, 500 million, rather than billion.

5 million actually... 0.001% becomes 0.00001 X 500,000,000,000 = 5,000,000

Still a huge sum for the shit he's pulling

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

This guy is going to get crushed, if it even makes it that far.

*EDIT*
Also, his attempt at this is completely useless. In the laws of court he cannot just default him to winning like that, and if anything Microsoft are liable to sue back.

actually he can. people do it in divorce cases all the time, its called no contest.

Nolo contendere is a plea entered in criminal cases by the defendant. This is not a criminal case, nor is this man a defendant. The plantiff does not enter a plea in civil cases. If he drops his suit, or settles out of court, no precident is established.