surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I really don't care. Class action lawsuits tend to give the lawyers all the money and everyone else ends up getting what maybe $5.
Two things of note:
1) You can write them a letter to 'resolve' this.
2) EULA/TOS don't mean jack shit in a court of law.
1) You can write them a letter to 'resolve' this.
2) EULA/TOS don't mean jack shit in a court of law.
Maybe they wouldnt have this law in place if everyone didnt try to sue Sony when someone else broke the law and hacked them.
For me I personally do not care as any online thing like PSN, Steam, XBLA, WoW and all that jazz most likely have the exact same thing going on as lawyers write this shit and people don't really care to check out. Who the hell reads 100 pages of legal terms? Not I.
We have to accept it if we want to use it, nothing we can do about that.
We have to accept it if we want to use it, nothing we can do about that.
I'm against most class action suits, but to vilify the entire notion and trying to quell your inherent weakness to it by making people promise not to exercise their right to be a part of one is ridiculous and sickening.
It is not up to Sony to decide how their customers decide to go about seeking restitution, this would never hold up in court and has never done so in the past (there have been cases where these kinds of contracts have been rendered void because of their nature).
In the end, this is just Sony changing the rules after the game has already begun again. Ever few months we allow Sony to change the original agreement made at the time of purchase, and you get people who act as though that isn't a bad thing. But what are you gonna do. there's two games in online console gaming town, and when you know you have the market almost completely cornered, you can do as you please.
It is not up to Sony to decide how their customers decide to go about seeking restitution, this would never hold up in court and has never done so in the past (there have been cases where these kinds of contracts have been rendered void because of their nature).
In the end, this is just Sony changing the rules after the game has already begun again. Ever few months we allow Sony to change the original agreement made at the time of purchase, and you get people who act as though that isn't a bad thing. But what are you gonna do. there's two games in online console gaming town, and when you know you have the market almost completely cornered, you can do as you please.
Its the same clause that contractors in Iraq have to sign, which basicaly means anytime there is a complaint it cant go to jury, and an arbitrator(chosen by Sony) makes a judgement. Since Sony pays for the aribtrator the judgements will be in sony's favor 99% of the time, because that aribtrator wants to get hired again.
you would think a class action lawsuit would be less time consuming with the court system. But then again I think this is why this is a standard TOS agreement. I mean to say the more there are the stronger the case should be, but also when you do individual lawsuits you do get seen as wasting the courts time and the case could be dropped a lot sooner. Therefore the political peoples need to try to pass a law that makes class action lawsuits a reality in the business world. These company lawyers can be real smart fuckers but also real dumb asses at the same time.
"This language in our TOS is common and similar to that of many other service related Terms of Service Agreements."
He's right about that. Companies try to limit their liability by forcing consumers who use their products into to restrictive terms of services: credit card companies, online retailers, even employers use these tactics to ensure they can't effectively be sued. What's screwed up is that sometimes you can't even take a case to court. Google mandatory arbitration. It will make you wonder how it's even legal. It seems Sony at least leaves the option of going to court, but it also mentions arbitration which means you have a 3rd party of THEIR CHOOSING to settle your case. No one ever wins those kinds of cases. This blows. This really fucking blows. Bad form, Sony.
He's right about that. Companies try to limit their liability by forcing consumers who use their products into to restrictive terms of services: credit card companies, online retailers, even employers use these tactics to ensure they can't effectively be sued. What's screwed up is that sometimes you can't even take a case to court. Google mandatory arbitration. It will make you wonder how it's even legal. It seems Sony at least leaves the option of going to court, but it also mentions arbitration which means you have a 3rd party of THEIR CHOOSING to settle your case. No one ever wins those kinds of cases. This blows. This really fucking blows. Bad form, Sony.
Meh. I doubt this kind of thing is even legal. It is a very bad move from Sony, as it makes them look like bad guys, despite usually those class action suits are used in a way more harmful to everyone than it looks.
That said, never, ever sign a contract without reading first. It is shocking that this very simple notion seems to be forgotten.
That said, never, ever sign a contract without reading first. It is shocking that this very simple notion seems to be forgotten.
@OneRed
But the beauty of them changing the rules after the point-of-sale is that it completely invalidates any type of tacit/implicit agreement.
Not to mention that people should probably understand that contracts which can be entered into by your dog's ass sitting on a controller aren't the most robust examples to bring-up during a class-action lawsuit.
Did both parties sign and date the agreement in ink with a witness and notary? If not then it won't hold water when challenged.
But the beauty of them changing the rules after the point-of-sale is that it completely invalidates any type of tacit/implicit agreement.
Not to mention that people should probably understand that contracts which can be entered into by your dog's ass sitting on a controller aren't the most robust examples to bring-up during a class-action lawsuit.
Did both parties sign and date the agreement in ink with a witness and notary? If not then it won't hold water when challenged.
Agree with CrazyCowboyDon & Onered, just about ALL contracts are considered void if they have clauses which are deemed "unlawful" / "unconstitutional.
Don't think this will hold any water.
and inb4 the haters.
Don't think this will hold any water.
and inb4 the haters.
Don't like it; don't support Sony. It's as simple as that. But people are going to complain and still buy Uncharted 3, Resistance 3, and whatever else they have this holiday season.
As a gamer and not a greedy litigious asshole, I'm glad to see this. Hopefully this at least cuts down a bit on the amount of money Sony flushes down the toilet on stupid legal shit (a class action over linux support, really?) so they can hopefully use it on things I give a shit about.
Same problem on the other side of the aisle btw. Anyone remember the class action against Microsoft over XBL bans? Or the one alleging that 360s damage discs? That's money that could have gone into something gamers care about.
Legal bullshit sucks. Make moar vidjya gaemz.
Same problem on the other side of the aisle btw. Anyone remember the class action against Microsoft over XBL bans? Or the one alleging that 360s damage discs? That's money that could have gone into something gamers care about.
Legal bullshit sucks. Make moar vidjya gaemz.
How does that say you can't take a case against Sony to court? I've read it three times, and I don't see that. I cannot speak to this being standard or not, however; perhaps one of the major gaming publications could contact an expert in this kind of thing?
Also, I'm with Frogboss about class action lawsuits. I "won" against AT&T one time, though I never knew I was a part of the case, and got a check for $1.15, which I never cashed. The lawyers involved probably got like $30 million.
Also, I'm with Frogboss about class action lawsuits. I "won" against AT&T one time, though I never knew I was a part of the case, and got a check for $1.15, which I never cashed. The lawyers involved probably got like $30 million.
Don't forget that you can opt out of this clause within 30 days of agreeing to the new ToS. Instructions are included in Section 15, and have been copied below:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
Don't think it a big deal. I'm sure if it was a situation where Sony was purposefully negligent with your personal information or something that caused actual harm to you, you could still sue.
Shit, you'd be amazed what you have to agree to just to play a EA distributed video game demo.
Shit, you'd be amazed what you have to agree to just to play a EA distributed video game demo.
@CrazyCowboyDon
Amen to that. Sony could, under no circumstance, prove without a reasonable doubt that you ever knowingly or willingly entered into binding contract with them. TOS agreements are just that, agreements. They don't often hold weight in a courtroom. This agreement in particular would never hold up in court, there are already precedents in place that would render this agreement void.
Which further proves this is just a stiff arm tactic on the part of Sony. They got into 2 high profile lawsuits in the last year or two, and didn't "win" either (I use the term "win" because while they didn't lose either case to my recollection, they failed to reach their goal of setting real precedents that would immunize them from further lawsuits). Without those precedents in place to cover their ass, they're resorting to simply threatening anyone considering being a part of a lawsuit against them with a loss of vital services.
It is a completely empty threat if you were to fight it, and Sony knows that (you can opt out if you write them a letter). They just want to make sure the people too lazy to fight it (read: most of their consumers) don't ever get it in their heads to try.
Amen to that. Sony could, under no circumstance, prove without a reasonable doubt that you ever knowingly or willingly entered into binding contract with them. TOS agreements are just that, agreements. They don't often hold weight in a courtroom. This agreement in particular would never hold up in court, there are already precedents in place that would render this agreement void.
Which further proves this is just a stiff arm tactic on the part of Sony. They got into 2 high profile lawsuits in the last year or two, and didn't "win" either (I use the term "win" because while they didn't lose either case to my recollection, they failed to reach their goal of setting real precedents that would immunize them from further lawsuits). Without those precedents in place to cover their ass, they're resorting to simply threatening anyone considering being a part of a lawsuit against them with a loss of vital services.
It is a completely empty threat if you were to fight it, and Sony knows that (you can opt out if you write them a letter). They just want to make sure the people too lazy to fight it (read: most of their consumers) don't ever get it in their heads to try.
So if they denied us of one of our rights, they will reimburse the price of our console, since it wasn't in the original TOS?
i'm sorry, but that's not similar at all. BestBuy or some other retailer was sued over similar policy few years ago and lost instantly in court.
yet another dick move by sony similar to their policy of blacklisting games from other publishers that were previously released exclusively on Microsoft/Nintendo platforms and not allowing them to be published by 3rd parties, that later they were trying to cover up lying about Microsoft publishing policies.
yet another dick move by sony similar to their policy of blacklisting games from other publishers that were previously released exclusively on Microsoft/Nintendo platforms and not allowing them to be published by 3rd parties, that later they were trying to cover up lying about Microsoft publishing policies.
@RaginDude: not, they will reimburse the PSN subscription value, since this TOS only apply to PSN, not the PS3. Since you paid nothing, you receive nothing. Also, even if it applied to the PS3 physical console, you would need to give the console to Sony in exchange of the mobey.
@Tristrix
That's the thing though; it doesn't cut down on the bullshit lawsuits but rather just adds one more thing for the judges/lawyers/juries to laugh right out of court.
If anything it says that they are openly admitting to behavior which could bring about a class-action lawsuit and therefore sought to wrongfully and illegitimately dictate/legislate provisions specifically designed to take away consumers' rights to participate in said class-action lawsuits.
A United States judge isn't going to say "Whelp is says that you can't sue them and you did press X so...".
That's the thing though; it doesn't cut down on the bullshit lawsuits but rather just adds one more thing for the judges/lawyers/juries to laugh right out of court.
If anything it says that they are openly admitting to behavior which could bring about a class-action lawsuit and therefore sought to wrongfully and illegitimately dictate/legislate provisions specifically designed to take away consumers' rights to participate in said class-action lawsuits.
A United States judge isn't going to say "Whelp is says that you can't sue them and you did press X so...".
@Tristrix/pokota/MCBattery
Class action lawsuits are no more inherently bad than a regular lawsuit. Class action suits can, and do, cause real damage to companies who are proven negligent, and can set important precedents to make sure those companies are not as negligent in the future. Most people who join a class action suit do so because they do not have the means of effecting change by themselves, and having one giant lawsuit over the same subject saves substantial cash over the alternative of what could be thousands of individual lawsuits.
Just because defendants don't prosper on them, and many lawyers do, doesn't mean they are bad inherently.
Class action lawsuits are no more inherently bad than a regular lawsuit. Class action suits can, and do, cause real damage to companies who are proven negligent, and can set important precedents to make sure those companies are not as negligent in the future. Most people who join a class action suit do so because they do not have the means of effecting change by themselves, and having one giant lawsuit over the same subject saves substantial cash over the alternative of what could be thousands of individual lawsuits.
Just because defendants don't prosper on them, and many lawyers do, doesn't mean they are bad inherently.
@MCBattery
I just apparently won a class action lawsuit against classmates.com that I didn't know existed. Here's a quote from the email i got about it...
"IF THE COURT GIVES FINAL APPROVAL, THIS SETTLEMENT WILL AWARD YOU AN ESTIMATED $10 IN CASH, PLUS OTHER BENEFITS."
Wow. Ten bucks. Unless "other benefits" is a blowjob from a gold-plated hooker, I won't be claiming. Meanwhile, wonder how much this cost classmates.com, and how much the lawyers got. Enough for several gold-plated hooker blowjobs, I'm sure.
Fuck class action lawsuits. I'm sure this TOS change won't stop them, but good on them for at least trying.
I just apparently won a class action lawsuit against classmates.com that I didn't know existed. Here's a quote from the email i got about it...
"IF THE COURT GIVES FINAL APPROVAL, THIS SETTLEMENT WILL AWARD YOU AN ESTIMATED $10 IN CASH, PLUS OTHER BENEFITS."
Wow. Ten bucks. Unless "other benefits" is a blowjob from a gold-plated hooker, I won't be claiming. Meanwhile, wonder how much this cost classmates.com, and how much the lawyers got. Enough for several gold-plated hooker blowjobs, I'm sure.
Fuck class action lawsuits. I'm sure this TOS change won't stop them, but good on them for at least trying.
@OneRed
"Just because defendants don't prosper on them, and many lawyers do, doesn't mean they are bad inherently."
Yes, OneRed, that's absolutely exactly what that means.
"Just because defendants don't prosper on them, and many lawyers do, doesn't mean they are bad inherently."
Yes, OneRed, that's absolutely exactly what that means.
Ah, I believe that what you seek is something most akin to the 'Loser Pays' system present in Texas. It is still FAR from perfect but it's cutting down on frivolous lawsuits none-the-less.
NO YOU!
Seriously though, I get it, you're talking about punishing corporate wrongdoing like some kind of legal Dexter. That's all well and good, but you apparently think bullshit litigation is the only way to go about it. It's not, at all. There are much better, faster means that don't line the pockets of societal parasites.
Seriously though, I get it, you're talking about punishing corporate wrongdoing like some kind of legal Dexter. That's all well and good, but you apparently think bullshit litigation is the only way to go about it. It's not, at all. There are much better, faster means that don't line the pockets of societal parasites.
@pokota
It doesn't say you can't take Sony to court but what it does say is that you waived your right to be able to take them to court in a class action status.
In which one (or a group of) lawyer(s) represents hundreds if not thousands of clients. Now according to those TOS each of those effected will have to pony up for their own lawyer and go up Vs Sony one by one.
Not everyone has the money to fund their own lawyer and Sony doesn't even have to win at that point. They can just make it obvious that they will make it so miserable that its not worth fighting even if they are in the wrong.
It doesn't say you can't take Sony to court but what it does say is that you waived your right to be able to take them to court in a class action status.
In which one (or a group of) lawyer(s) represents hundreds if not thousands of clients. Now according to those TOS each of those effected will have to pony up for their own lawyer and go up Vs Sony one by one.
Not everyone has the money to fund their own lawyer and Sony doesn't even have to win at that point. They can just make it obvious that they will make it so miserable that its not worth fighting even if they are in the wrong.
@CrazyCowboyDon/Tristrix/pokota/MCBattery
It saddens me to see consumers arguing against having more rights. In what world are companies always looking out for their customers interests? Why trust people that are only worried about how much cash they can make? Companies are are essentially trying to nullify the legal system with restrictive TOS. Granted, Sony's isn't the worst I've seen, but there are a lot of innocent consumers out there that get screwed by shady business practices. These TOS affect everyone, so if every consumer has the potential to get screwed, why is a class action lawsuit that aims to benefit everyone a bad thing? And if you do get screwed over are you going to take on multimillion dollar corporations on you own? Class action lawsuit protect consumers against corporate entities too big to fight single-handedly. This is a good thing.
http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/consumer-issues-id-theft/supreme-court-rules-favor-mandatory-arbitration/nCbfD/
It saddens me to see consumers arguing against having more rights. In what world are companies always looking out for their customers interests? Why trust people that are only worried about how much cash they can make? Companies are are essentially trying to nullify the legal system with restrictive TOS. Granted, Sony's isn't the worst I've seen, but there are a lot of innocent consumers out there that get screwed by shady business practices. These TOS affect everyone, so if every consumer has the potential to get screwed, why is a class action lawsuit that aims to benefit everyone a bad thing? And if you do get screwed over are you going to take on multimillion dollar corporations on you own? Class action lawsuit protect consumers against corporate entities too big to fight single-handedly. This is a good thing.
http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/consumer-issues-id-theft/supreme-court-rules-favor-mandatory-arbitration/nCbfD/
I think we're firmly in the realm of "no big deal". This is just lawyer fluff, the likes of which you can find in most every TOS agreement. It doesn't actually mean anything.
We did the same thing in my previous businesses, with personal injury waiver forms that weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and with rental agreements that were almost as worthless.
We did the same thing in my previous businesses, with personal injury waiver forms that weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and with rental agreements that were almost as worthless.
Bullshit litigation is bullshit, I am no fan of the American legal system I promise. However, class action suits cover everyone's ass at once. If Sony were to be found negligent, the same way many companies every year are, the alternative to a class action suit is to allow everyone to individually sue. You'd be trading one lawyer making decent bank, for millions making bank. Or you could simply not sue at all, which would allow the negligence to continue and possibly multiply.
This is all moot though, as what Sony is doing here is just a threat, and an empty one at that. Pinky promising not to sue in a TOS agreement is not legally binding at all. The funny thing about this is that the only thing that doesn't make this agreement illegal is the fact that you can opt out by writing them. This isn't a stab at class action lawsuits like some here are praising, Sony isn't that dumb. It is a strongarm tactic against their consumers, and nothing more.
Its not that this could ever harm consumers if they didn't want it to, it couldn't. Its that Sony thinks its okay to scare stupid people into thinking they would have to lose vital functionality to try to make right some wrongdoing.
This is all moot though, as what Sony is doing here is just a threat, and an empty one at that. Pinky promising not to sue in a TOS agreement is not legally binding at all. The funny thing about this is that the only thing that doesn't make this agreement illegal is the fact that you can opt out by writing them. This isn't a stab at class action lawsuits like some here are praising, Sony isn't that dumb. It is a strongarm tactic against their consumers, and nothing more.
Its not that this could ever harm consumers if they didn't want it to, it couldn't. Its that Sony thinks its okay to scare stupid people into thinking they would have to lose vital functionality to try to make right some wrongdoing.
follow
