Following in the sleazy footsteps of Sony and Electronic Arts, Microsoft has become the latest company to restrain one of the few legal recourses available to screwed customers. Seizing upon the opportunity to cram some sly restrictions into its new Xbox 360 dashboard, the updated terms and services mean you can no longer sue Microsoft.
As with the scummy terms of other companies, Microsoft declares that any consumer grievance must be taken up via private arbitration, a process which usually finds favor with the corporations and can only rarely be appealed. Imagine a typical lawsuit, only not fair, and you've got an idea of arbitration [Edit: I was attempting to be snarky here, but it seems I went a bit too far. Arbitration is not quite that simple, but there are several not-so-grand reasons why it's preferred by corporations. Money being one of them.]
In some states, it's undecided if this rule is even legal. It really shouldn't be, since companies like MS already have more than enough freedom and it's absolutely abhorrent that it wants to wield even more power over its customers. I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but it's one of the few things ordinary folk can use in order to keep companies in check. Without it, Microsoft can basically do as it pleases without fear, and we all know what happens when Microsoft doesn't give a shit.
The site Gamers Opt Out is currently down, but once it's up, you should check it out. Unless you're perfectly fine with Microsoft kicking your rights in the balls.
Now Microsoft Wants to Stop You Taking Them to Court [Kotaku]
Contest:
8:00 AM on 12.07.2011 | 
Lets also remind everyone that Steam has this exact same "no lawsuits AT ALL" provision.
And I agree, this rule shouldn't be legal.
Sony dropped their "you no can sue us!" bomb just before the game sharing feature was removed from the PS3.
Somehow, it makes just as much sense.
Damn, and I was totally going to sue sony over that too.
/chuckle
Please tell me how this defends it.
Point taken on the first.
As for the second point, when did Steam throw that in? I missed that one. Because it is bullshit there as well and certainly doesn't make it okay.
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
As for when that was added, I don't know, but I know it was there when we were discussing Sony. I only point it out for perspective, so we can understand that this isn't exclusive to consoles, or exclusive to one particular brand. This kind of thing is absolutely ubiquitous.
Not that I'm surprised that you're defending this, but you do realize the legal jargon from Steam that you posted is not the same thing as what is covered in the Microsoft agreement at all?
Read:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU AND MICROSOFT AGREE THAT IF YOU AND MICROSOFT DO NOT RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATION UNDER SECTION 18.1.2 ABOVE, ANY EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY BY BINDING ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES IN SECTION 18.1.7 BELOW. YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BY AGREEING TO BINDING ARBITRATION, YOU ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE (OR PARTICIPATE IN AS A PARTY OR CLASS MEMBER) ALL DISPUTES IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY. INSTEAD, YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT ALL DISPUTES WILL BE RESOLVED BEFORE A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR, WHOSE AWARD (DECISION) WILL BE BINDING AND FINAL, EXCEPT FOR A LIMITED RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. ANY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES MAY ENFORCE THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.
THE ONLY DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT IN SECTION 18.1 TO NEGOTIATE INFORMALLY AND ARBITRATE ARE DISPUTES ENFORCING, PROTECTING, OR CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S (OR ANY OF YOUR OR MICROSOFT'S LICENSORS') INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
You actually READ the new terms and services agreement?
A) I'm not defending, as you'd well know if you bothered reading a word I said.
B) It's the same thing. Please educate yourself on what "sole and exclusive remedy" means.
C) Done with you now.
That's the scary part.
I'm reading through the MS agreement and I don't see a way to opt out like with Sony. Section 18.1.11 gives you the option to reject further changes to the contract but this current one still stands. Bummer.
Not quite as bad as some of the people in here who are gleefully proud of the fact that they like these companies fucking them, though.
Well yeah, it IS scary, and it certainly DOES suck in every way in which something can conceivably suck. Point is, if you want to use any service, purchase anything, use any bank, any credit card, etc etc... you have to agree to this kind of thing on a daily basis. There's certainly an argument to be made that this is the bed we (and by that I mean 'Americans') made with our litigious society, but that doesn't make it ok, just somewhat understandable I suppose.
I, personally, don't have any fight left in me for this kind of thing. I can, on an intellectual level, realize that it blows, but I just can't work up a good froth of rage about it anymore. Maybe that's apathy or complacency, but it's also the price of doing any kind of business whatsoever in this country so... meh. It is what it is.
Cool!
A. I read your posts. Parroting "well, everyone else does it too!" is giving a free pass to Microsoft and friends. Don't pretend there isn't an implied intent in that statement.
B. No, it is not. Perhaps you are the one who needs to educate yourself. "Sole and exclusive remedy" refers to rights to which the customer is entitled for grievances without legal action. It does not prevent a consumer from pressing charges or attempt to make any agreement preventing it.
The closest part of the Steam agreement to the MS situation would actually be the following portion, but even then it is only referring to breaches of the subscriber agreement (i.e., you cannot sue valve if you end up vac banned for cheating and expect to recieve compensation):
11. INDEMNIFICATION
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription or any related content, or any User Generated Information, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter. This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.
In any case, I don't see anything good about this new dashboard. Between their confusing (possibly illegal) customer agreements and the downright shoddy interface (looks good, but is an inconvenient mess), I'd say it's a losing situation all around.
Please tell me how this defends it.
It doesn't defend it, but it does aid in rendering it moot. Just because there's a ton of boilerplate in a contract doesn't necessarily mean that the courts will uphold some or even all of that contract. If "every company that provides a service" is using this, and there hasn't been a significant drop in the number of lawsuits, I would say that this clause isn't being taken very seriously by the courts.
Fair point. However, and I made this point before when we discussed the Sony thing, but I very seriously question the benefit of class action lawsuits, because the benefit to the class member is just plain embarrassing, whereas the lawyers involved stand to make enormous sums of money.
I mean, I realize the counterargument there is that the defendant ends up losing a pretty large sum as some kind of punishment for whatever wrongdoing the class action suit is about, but as someone who'd found themselves a class member before, I just can't bring myself to give a shit when all I got out of it was like 10 bucks from classmates.com. Just... why bother, ya know? Meh. I am Jack's complete lack of enthusiasm today, apparently.
Come on Jim....
Anyway, I'm europe so it wont count for me, but the fact that this exists is disgraceful to fair corporatism.
"corporatism"
Good word.
Goddamn it, really wish people would tear Microsoft apart for all the shit that the 360 has been able to get away with this generation, paid basic multiplayer, ads even though you're paying through the ass for the privilage to own the hardware and the gold subscription again... I hate the world
Yep. This sort of thing is everywhere and makes me wonder what good civil courts will be in 10 years. I don't see it changing until we get to a point when you're not allowed to sue anybody.
"corporatocracy"
I had to google that one to make sure it was actually a word. I'm extremely jealous of everyone's vocabulary around here.
Cite your sources