Valve pulls a Sony

[Ędward]

This would be for the USA only as most people are picking up on.

In civilised countries that still have a functioning rule of law (as opposed to rule of corp) and consumer rights this is just so much bog wrap.

Are you dumb or just cant read the thread?

Both ofc. What's your problem that you are so mad all of a sudden bro?

[tulip]

SECTION 12 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT. IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OR ALL OF SECTION 12 MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Doesn't apply here (EU represent) but it is still shit, valve used to be chill bro's.

hello serious business posters, please fuck off to the serious business scrubforum

any lawyerism or legal shit beyond this post will not be tolerated

also gaben is paying me to clamp down on this as we are a hugely influential vidya gaem website

Yeah, no. You clamping down will not be tolerated.

why dont you go fuck off back to your shit forum and try to learn about humour

Filingo that was a serious post, I have reported it for being serious. Seriously, pick that report up before sofia does and Infracts me bro.

[Hel OWeen]

Probably a topic for a different subforum, but basically, the political metagame in the US is the supreme court. You get your side in and stack it (currently favoring republicans), you get the law bent in your favor.

Same in Germany (parties agree on judges), but once in, they're independent and to my surpise and pleasure act & rule accordingly. I do ofc not agree with all their decisions, but "our SCOTUS" ("Bundesverfassungsgericht" or "BVerG" in short) is the institution in Germany that I (and according to polls) many other Germans trust the most - by a far margin.

[SilentWinter]

RPS write up about this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...tion-lawsuits/

quite understandable even for people who know nothing about this law shits (like me)

[evil edna]

valve can pull my dick

for context i do not care about eulas of any kind

[Nordstern]

What happens if you don't accept this ?

Then you can't use Steam and you lose access to all the games you've acquired through the platform. It takes effect immediately.

Since when do corporations get to decide that the people no longer have a right to petition for a redress of grievances?

[Lallante]

Lol at all the failed e-lawyers getting it wrong wrong wrong.

Pretty sure clauses like that are unenforcable anyways so it doesn't really matter.

They are as you cant remove a basic right or get around the law via a contract (for example, I cant contract you to kill someone and then you use that as a 'get out of jail' defense in your murder trial). The bigger question for existing customers is can this invalidate the whole contract as they have added potentially illegal clauses. (Taking the murdering example above, if I contract you to pick up my washing for $4million and you agree to it, and I use a clause in it to adjust it so you have to murder someone to get the money, well.. you do the math)

Nonsense, there are lots of laws you can contract out of, including the right to litigation. Your example is silly and has nothing to do with this.

A large proportion of commercial agreements governed by UK or New York law (i.e. most agreements) contain arbitration clauses that look like this, preventing law suits pending arbitration.

This clause is enforceable EXCEPT where it may be challenged due to unfairness (for example in the UK we have the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which might allow this clause to be disregarded as it is on Valve's standard terms and not open to negotiation, if ruled unfair which is pretty arguable).

This wont matter in a lot of places anyway as class-action isnt available (UK again, for example). In those jurisdictions being restricted to Arbitration is unlikely to be deemed unfair as arbitration is quicker and cheaper than a full on law suit, and in any case the terms of the arbitration are actually pretty good, covering the claimants costs for non-frivolous claims under 10k (win or lose) is great for small consumers like you or I (it really encourages Valve to settle legit claims for under 10k). It also doesnt prevent you using local small claims courts (e.g. sub 5k in the UK), but if I had a claim I knew was legit I'd go the arbitration route anyway so Valve foots my legal costs.


This is to fuck US class-action litigators, not individual customers for the most part.


Also a lot of you haven't got your reading glasses on because the clause is clearly disapplied in relation to "unauthorised use, theft" etc. This would cover losses from your card details being mislaid.

[Lallante]

SECTION 12 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT. IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OR ALL OF SECTION 12 MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Doesn't apply here (EU represent) but it is still shit, valve used to be chill bro's.

All that refers to is that class actions dont exist in a lot of jurisdictions. Binding arbitration provisions are common across europe and are likely binding in most countries FHC dwellers inhabit (any country which has signed up to the UNCITRAL convention basically).

[Lallante]

What happens if you don't accept this ?

Then you can't use Steam and you lose access to all the games you've acquired through the platform. It takes effect immediately.

Since when do corporations get to decide that the people no longer have a right to petition for a redress of grievances?

Now THIS is a bit more interesting, legally. I think they might run into different legal problems if they tried to restrict your access to previously purchased games due to refusal to accept changed T&Cs but this is a less clearcut question than whether the T&Cs themselves are binding.

[elmicker]

a thread about valve in the video games forum? someone think of the children.

[Frug]

1) I still like Steam. Quite a lot actually. I buy and keep buying games from them for practical reasons.

2) I think lall's explanation of all this is probably the most accurate. I doubt it's as horrible as it sounds although as a Steam fanboy I suppose I have rose colored glasses on. When Sony did this I cursed their souls for being evil sinners but I guess I don't care as much any more considering Lall's explanation and my opinion of the people doing it.

3) Filingo with apparently douchy butthurt moderating getting all upset over a serious thread about the gaming industry in a gaming forum is baffling. Dude it could go in either forum, what the fuck.

[Krugerrand]

Have a proper working legal system, not affected.

edit: now having read the thread properly, p much what lall said.

I certainly think, that should anyone not agree to the new terms then there could be interesting legal arguments made. Ofc I dunno what was in the original TOS documents, which I'm sure would allow for variation. Certainly a fun area.

[tHornton]

best thread i read all week

[Ophichius]

Come for the "Oh god what is my local beloved game company doing to ruin themselves!?" title, stay for the moderator pit fights and popcorn.

Honestly I was expecting to see "Valve credit card database stolen, used to buy Steam games." or something of a similar nature. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem like a giant dick move.

-O

[dpidcoe]

Honestly I was expecting to see "Valve credit card database stolen, used to buy Steam games." or something of a similar nature. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem like a giant dick move.

Yeah, assuming what Lall posted is true, it seems fine to me. They're protecting themselves from the sorts of lawyers who chase ambulances, and if you've got an individual case against them they're covering your legal costs.

[Nordstern]

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!"

[dpidcoe]

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.

That would be a great idea actually. Instead of a class action suit you'd only have to face one lawsuit from each of your tenants, and pay all their legal costs no matter if they win or lose.

(ignoring the fact that that your analogy is wrong on its face, because of the exception for illegal stuff)

[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.

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.

[Steph]

Incidentally, how would you dispute the legality of this clause? Would you take it court, or seek arbitration?

[Nordstern]

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.