surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
This is pretty much just desserts for Sony. Hope the guy wins. Any way we can donate to him?
I feel the title and most of this story (except for the last line) is a little misleading; sony's new TOS prevents class action law suits (group sueing). So this guy is well within his rights to sue over it, even within Sony's TOS.
I feel the title and most of this story (except for the last line) is a little misleading; sony's new TOS prevents class action law suits (group sueing). So this guy is well within his rights to sue over it, even within Sony's TOS.
STEAM has it, MS has...why no sue them?
I do not see this cranky ass American winning though, it is a free service. Agree to it and use it, or don't.
I do not see this cranky ass American winning though, it is a free service. Agree to it and use it, or don't.
Good for him I suppose but didn't the supreme court already rule in the AT&T case that this is perfectly legit and acceptable as far as the courts are concerned?
Best news in a while. Also inb4 corporate lapdogs start defending the degredation of consumer rights.
@Tristix - Not entirely. Sony says so, but even they're not fully sure about it. Right in that same section:
"If any clause within this Section 15 (other than the Class Action Waiver clause above) is found to be illegal or unenforceable, that clause will be severed from this Section 15,and the remainder of this Section 15 will be given full force and effect. If the Class Action Waiver clause is found to be illegal or unenforceable, this entire Section 15 will be unenforceable, and the Dispute will be decided by a court and you and the Sony Entity you have a dispute with each agree to waive in that instance, to the fullest extent allowed by law, any trial by jury."
The AT&T case also has to do with if class action lawsuits can be initiated due to state laws. It started because AT&T had to charge a customer $30 in California taxes for a free phone.
For Sony, or any company, to use that as a blanket justification that Class Action lawsuits are illegal is dubious.
Which is why they're all covering their ass.
"If any clause within this Section 15 (other than the Class Action Waiver clause above) is found to be illegal or unenforceable, that clause will be severed from this Section 15,and the remainder of this Section 15 will be given full force and effect. If the Class Action Waiver clause is found to be illegal or unenforceable, this entire Section 15 will be unenforceable, and the Dispute will be decided by a court and you and the Sony Entity you have a dispute with each agree to waive in that instance, to the fullest extent allowed by law, any trial by jury."
The AT&T case also has to do with if class action lawsuits can be initiated due to state laws. It started because AT&T had to charge a customer $30 in California taxes for a free phone.
For Sony, or any company, to use that as a blanket justification that Class Action lawsuits are illegal is dubious.
Which is why they're all covering their ass.
This will be a major coup if this succeed, seeing as it will require flying in the face of precedent very recently set by the Supreme Court.
@mix
Because no one reads the damned things. It just goes to show how much power corporations have over the people.
Oh and Apple and AT&T have one such clause too.
Because no one reads the damned things. It just goes to show how much power corporations have over the people.
Oh and Apple and AT&T have one such clause too.
Or, rather, to my previous post: that companies think they can outright dismiss a consumer's right to a Class Action, not that they're illegal.
Goddammit, Dale - the one with the ball on his nose made me laugh.
Huh? There's an article? Oh, ummm...good for them! Maybe.
Huh? There's an article? Oh, ummm...good for them! Maybe.
Basically, the AT&T case has to do with jurisdiction of State law with regards to arbitration than it does with Class Actions.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-27-supreme-court-class-actions_n.htm
Everybody can look at the AT&T case themselves. It's very clear the Court was not saying Sony, or EA, or Microsoft, could do what it is doing.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-27-supreme-court-class-actions_n.htm
Everybody can look at the AT&T case themselves. It's very clear the Court was not saying Sony, or EA, or Microsoft, could do what it is doing.
@mix The thing is, they cant sell you something and then take it away if you dont agree to something new they want to add.
Im also tired of all this "its free" shit. Its not like they dont make money out of it and they do it for charity. Plus, I did pay for it when paying my PS3.
Im also tired of all this "its free" shit. Its not like they dont make money out of it and they do it for charity. Plus, I did pay for it when paying my PS3.
@mix
If Sony loses here, that will be irrelevant. If it becomes illegal to implement "no sue" clauses, Microsoft, Steam, and everybody else will be required to change.
If Sony loses here, that will be irrelevant. If it becomes illegal to implement "no sue" clauses, Microsoft, Steam, and everybody else will be required to change.
I have a feeling this will be like the OtherOS case.
It will vanish for a half-year, then we'll get a small article stating the case was thrown out.
It will vanish for a half-year, then we'll get a small article stating the case was thrown out.
I hope they will win as I find it quite strange that a company may deny people the right to sue them
@jimboxxx
WHY d0 yu AlWay$ haV a mes$3d up keyboArd? Or are you just trying to sound like a kewl kat?
WHY d0 yu AlWay$ haV a mes$3d up keyboArd? Or are you just trying to sound like a kewl kat?
Sony is kinda crazy to think that people won't sue about a clause that makes you can't sue them, people won't be okay with that
@jimboxxx
This same bullshit anti-sue stuff was in the last Xbox update, too. In other words, shut the hell up for once.
This same bullshit anti-sue stuff was in the last Xbox update, too. In other words, shut the hell up for once.
And I'm sure that California man plans on cutting us all a cheque and isn't trying the same get rich quick bullshit that part was meant to combat.
Yeah, anyone particularly interested in this stuff should really look more into the AT&T case if they haven't already.
That said, the movement against binding arbitration being used in this manner is actually much larger than I think most realize. I watched the senate hearing on it, and the prevailing mentality was, to put it in simplest possible terms, something to the effect of "seriously, we have no fucking clue how something so unbelievably retarded is protected under the law right now, AT&T literally got away with stealing from my constituency".
All these clauses will enable, as they are being utilized here, is the creation of a series of kangaroo courts. It isn't being hidden, there are no conspiracy theories, its almost too fucking comically obvious.
That said, the movement against binding arbitration being used in this manner is actually much larger than I think most realize. I watched the senate hearing on it, and the prevailing mentality was, to put it in simplest possible terms, something to the effect of "seriously, we have no fucking clue how something so unbelievably retarded is protected under the law right now, AT&T literally got away with stealing from my constituency".
All these clauses will enable, as they are being utilized here, is the creation of a series of kangaroo courts. It isn't being hidden, there are no conspiracy theories, its almost too fucking comically obvious.
Guy's lawyers have no foresight what-so-ever. They need to be going after EA, Microsoft and anyone else who has on of these on their ToA's. The idea should be going after the clause itself and get the laws changes, not to go after a single company who uses it (and yeah, I think Trist is right, AT&T got the supreme court to rule its legality)
Where can I donate to this guys legal costs? This no-sue clause is Bologna and I hope Sony loses this case.
Um...you should probably take another look at the Playstation Terms of Service. They don't say you can't sue. They say you cannot make a class action lawsuit. Sony is trying to avoid class action suits, instead opting to take any suits on a case by case basis. Nowhere does it say you can't sue.
For an "Editor-in-Chief" I'd think you'd check your facts before reporting something.
For an "Editor-in-Chief" I'd think you'd check your facts before reporting something.
The fact that others do it to doesnt mean its something that should be allowed. Luckily we in Europe dont have this (I think)
While crying over corporations being.. well, corporate, is the most pathetic shit I've even seen in the industry, I must admit, Sony had this coming to them for the sheer irony and audacity of this little loophole they tied to conjure up for themselves.
@Perpetual Struggle
Hmm, must be having fun with that tumbleweed.
@Perpetual Struggle
Hmm, must be having fun with that tumbleweed.
@DtoidBadMrK
Of course they are trying to avoid class action lawsuits, because Class actions are the only type of suit that stands a chance against their nearly limitless legal defense funds. Elsewhere they would just keep people in legal limbo until they run out of money to continue pursuing the case.
Of course they are trying to avoid class action lawsuits, because Class actions are the only type of suit that stands a chance against their nearly limitless legal defense funds. Elsewhere they would just keep people in legal limbo until they run out of money to continue pursuing the case.
@tekbunny
Listen, all I'm saying is that I have a few MJOLNIR Mk. V suits laying around from my supergenius engineer days if you want to maybe cause a ruckus. If you're fairly short, I'll cut a little breathing hole into the stomach of it so the person whos shoulders you'd need to sit on doesn't suffocate. Power armor is so much more persuasive than lawsuits.
@DtoidBadMrk
Hahaha, this is the beauty of it! The class action suit is typically used to cover large swaths of wronged people without flooding the courts with potentially millions of identical claims. Now, to null the private contract instating binding arbitration, you would have to prove there is no other recourse for anyone, which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible (this was the ruling in favor of AT&T). So basically, punch one person in the face real hard and they can sue you, but punch everyone in the face and your single case opens up the floodgates the way a class action is designed to avoid, which is why a class action would be the only way to go. Except you can't, because you signed away your right to be part of a class action. The more people you punch, the safer you are.
Also, "...instead opting to take any suits on a case by case basis. Nowhere does it say you can't sue. ". There are no suits. Sony pays for a private arbitrator, which they can fire and replace at any time they please, to make a judgement based on absolutely nothing, without any transparency, and without appellate rights afforded. This arbitrator, who is being paid for by Sony, can pull any number from his/her rectal area without any rhyme or reason, and there is nothing you can do about it. This is, of course, if Sony agrees they did anything wrong in the first place, which they're not obligated to do. If you're entering into arbitration with them, then it is inherent that you can't sue, otherwise you wouldn't be entering into arbitration.
Listen, all I'm saying is that I have a few MJOLNIR Mk. V suits laying around from my supergenius engineer days if you want to maybe cause a ruckus. If you're fairly short, I'll cut a little breathing hole into the stomach of it so the person whos shoulders you'd need to sit on doesn't suffocate. Power armor is so much more persuasive than lawsuits.
@DtoidBadMrk
Hahaha, this is the beauty of it! The class action suit is typically used to cover large swaths of wronged people without flooding the courts with potentially millions of identical claims. Now, to null the private contract instating binding arbitration, you would have to prove there is no other recourse for anyone, which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible (this was the ruling in favor of AT&T). So basically, punch one person in the face real hard and they can sue you, but punch everyone in the face and your single case opens up the floodgates the way a class action is designed to avoid, which is why a class action would be the only way to go. Except you can't, because you signed away your right to be part of a class action. The more people you punch, the safer you are.
Also, "...instead opting to take any suits on a case by case basis. Nowhere does it say you can't sue. ". There are no suits. Sony pays for a private arbitrator, which they can fire and replace at any time they please, to make a judgement based on absolutely nothing, without any transparency, and without appellate rights afforded. This arbitrator, who is being paid for by Sony, can pull any number from his/her rectal area without any rhyme or reason, and there is nothing you can do about it. This is, of course, if Sony agrees they did anything wrong in the first place, which they're not obligated to do. If you're entering into arbitration with them, then it is inherent that you can't sue, otherwise you wouldn't be entering into arbitration.
@onered
You're in luck, I'm almost freakishly small.
Also, I'm digging this idea. Now all we need to do is train some gorillas to throw large barrels on command, scrounge up a couple of dragons, aliens and zombies, and mass produce my health regen prototype device and we can do this thing up right.
You're in luck, I'm almost freakishly small.
Also, I'm digging this idea. Now all we need to do is train some gorillas to throw large barrels on command, scrounge up a couple of dragons, aliens and zombies, and mass produce my health regen prototype device and we can do this thing up right.
Good on this guy! Wish i could give him some cash to help with the undoubtedly huge lawyer fees, but I really hope he wins. If he does it could overturn that awful, horrific, and straight up evil Supreme Court verdict. I want to play my games and I shouldn't have to give up my rights to do so.
follow
