Valve pulls a Sony

[Tiny]

You can just totaly ignore it.

Do you want to sue steam, if you do you can test this, or you could just not give a fuck.

[dpidcoe]

and pay all their legal costs no matter if they win or lose.

Please explain how I'm responsible for paying their legal fees if I win.

I assumed that we're still talking about valves EULA, which states that they'll cover your costs in claims less than 10k. Or has this shifted now into general ranting about the legality of waving your rights to a class action suit?

[Nordstern]

and pay all their legal costs no matter if they win or lose.

Please explain how I'm responsible for paying their legal fees if I win.

I assumed that we're still talking about valves EULA, which states that they'll cover your costs in claims less than 10k. Or has this shifted now into general ranting about the legality of waving your rights to a class action suit?

I...honestly did not see that paragraph. This alleviates my fears somewhat. Yes, I had shifted my ranting. My bad. Sorry.

[Celedris]

Does anyone seriously believe that class action lawsuits benefit anyone other than the lawyers involved in the class action lawsuit?

[Nordstern]

The lead plaintiffs, I'm sure.

[Steph]

Does anyone seriously believe that class action lawsuits benefit anyone other than the lawyers involved in the class action lawsuit?

Someone's been reading a few too many John Grisham novels.

[erichkknaar]

TBH, I'm pretty sure Valve offering to pay legal fees, etc. is not really required of them by law (IANAL). I actually see this as a pretty benign offer by them. They (as a massively profitable company) would be pretty dumb not to take a protection offered to them by the law. The fact they added language saying "Hey, if your beef is genuine, we even pay your legal costs" is actually a hugely classy move. My opinion.

[dpidcoe]

I...honestly did not see that paragraph. This alleviates my fears somewhat. Yes, I had shifted my ranting. My bad. Sorry.

I didn't really notice it either until lall posted about it. Coupled with the clause about that section not applying to theft, piracy, etc. I'm inclined to agree with erichkknaar. It looks like valve is grabbing the protection they're now entitled to under law while not being anywhere near as evil as sony.

The only sort of thing I could really think of that might be class action worthy while still being legal and non-frivolous would be some sort of mass VAC banning based on a false positive that valve would refuse to undo. But at that point I'd rather take them to small claims or arbitration myself (along with the hoards of other people taking the same individual cases also on valves dime) over my $2k worth of games I could no longer multiplayer than wait for a class action and watch the lawyers take most of it.

[Lallante]

The way I see it, if I were a landlord, I would force all my tenants to sign a clause like this. That way, if I overlook safety standards or fail to renovate certain things, and multiple units were exposed to fire/mold/whatever, I wouldn't have to face a class-action lawsuit.

I don't see a huge problem with doing this to new customers, because they have the option of saying no, walking away, and going to the competition. But doing it to existing customers constitutes a bait-and-switch. It's especially heinous with AT&T because of early termination fees.

"We're adding a new monthly fee with little or no justification. You're okay with that? Good, we'll soak the customer. Don't like it? You can leave, but pay the $200 early cancellation fee."

Who's next, utilities? ISPs? Your local supermarket? "Yeah, we sold you tainted food, but you can't sue us!"

That's not how the law works, and besides, in most cases arbitration is better for BOTH sides (not to mention the contractual guarantee of meeting your costs if your claim is reasonable!!).

So much shit being talked

[Lallante]

and pay all their legal costs no matter if they win or lose.

Please explain how I'm responsible for paying their legal fees if I win.

The idea of the clause is supposed to have a chilling effect on hiring representation. Instead of having a bunch of people hire 2-3 lawyers to represent as a group (and split the cost), now each party has to pay individually. Most people won't bother or have the money, so the defendant wins.

You realise most of the free world doesn't allow class-action suits and survives just fine somehow? There are many other legal structures to support the cost of litigation besides class-action, which has many moral hazards associated with it.

Seriously almost everything you've said in this thread is alarmist nonsense.

[Lallante]

That's just it: you can't dispute it since SCOTUS and Pope Scalia have issued their papal bull. Once Scalia and Thomas are gone, you would be free to challenge it.

Bollocks

[Lallante]

If anything this move should make you like Valve more. I've literally never seen a clause where one party contractually agrees to pay the costs of any non-frivilous (which is a very well understood, very low bar) claim against them up to 10k.

Its a great deal.

People seem to think this means "can't sue", which in a way it does but if you understand arbitration you'd realise you get almost every benefit of suing from going to arbitration (the exceptions - no class-actions (which are terrible anyway) and no publicity (arbitrations tend to be confidential)) in a much less contentious atmosphere (i.e. less stress).

The net effect of the 10k provision is that if your claim seems legit and is under 10k Valve will probably just pay up immediately and you wont even need to go to arbitration! Thats HUGE for small claimants.

[VARRAKK]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

[EntroX]

no filingos allowed

[Doomed Predator]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

You sure about that? AFAIK while steam allows you to access currently owned games even if banned it doesn't allow you to buy more.

[SilentWinter]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

if you don't delete your account and keep using it you will auto accept the agreement after 30 days
in other words: "no matter if you read and accept the terms, if you use our service for more than 30 days we will make you accept them without you even know it"

Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms

[Lana Torrin]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

You sure about that? AFAIK while steam allows you to access currently owned games even if banned it doesn't allow you to buy more.

This is what I wanted to know. I assume you can change your mind later as well (from no to yes).

[Lana Torrin]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

if you don't delete your account and keep using it you will auto accept the agreement after 30 days
in other words: "no matter if you read and accept the terms, if you use our service for more than 30 days we will make you accept them without you even know it"

Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms

If only that was actually legal.. set up shop, sell things, change terms of sale after the fact, post out notifications, wait 30 days, claim houses.

[Steph]

I just clicked Disagree, and steam rolls as before.

if you don't delete your account and keep using it you will auto accept the agreement after 30 days
in other words: "no matter if you read and accept the terms, if you use our service for more than 30 days we will make you accept them without you even know it"

Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms

Pretty sure explicit action is required to indicate consent to an agreement. Consent cannot be inferred by non-action.

Legal nerds correct me if I'm wrong here. Also, this seems similar somehow to the old shrink-wrap license agreements, you know the ones inside the shrink wrap that said "by opening the packaging this agreement was inside of you are agreeing to be bound by it".

[Bartholomeus Crane]

ITT: some people should look up what 'arbitration' actually means and entails.

Let me tell you what it doesn't mean: you automatically get fucked over by the corporation.

Valve's offer to cover the costs (up to a high enough point) is actually quite attractive for a single Joe-with-a-grievance. And since class-action suits aren't available in much of the world outside the US; my feeling is that the only people crying into their beers over this will be US class-action litigators; a group of lawyers not known for actually providing value-for-money for their clients (but lots for themselves).

e: above actually had nothing to do with Steph's post ...