Supreme Court Prompted Sony's Restrictive Terms of Service

"The updated language in the TOS is designed to benefit both the consumer and the company by ensuring that" the consumer has virtually no chance of suing Sony for potential grievances.

@shinigami420 said:

@zoner said:

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can never understand you Americans

Yes, no one should be punished for losing personal information and risk putting people in danger of identity theft. Us Americans and our crazy identity theft culture.

Yeah i agree they should be punished but just saying HEY SONY YOU DIDNT KEEP OUR STUFF SAFE NOW GIVE US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

If it was the govorment i would be fine but this all seems like a cheap way to try to get alot of money

People in North America are just looking for excuses to sue big corporations so they can get rich

I don't think anyone will be getting rich for suing Sony unless Sony ran them over with a car. In these class action lawsuits that cost millions to the companies being sued, the individual only receives a small portion of the total amount. . . it just so happens that the company screwed over lots and lots of people and have to pay them all small amounts of money so that builds up into a large ass number. The alternative is not suing at all and just giving them a free pass to fuck up. Which is what they did. If they're paying, it's because they fucked up.

The cases where a single individual or small group sues and gets a large amount of money is one of two things. Either that individual actually got effed up to the point where they deserved the money for damages (iono, amputated legs, brain damage, loss of life), or the court is awarding punitive damages. Punitive damages? For instance, say an Apple iPhone exploded in someone's hand, and they lost a finger, and they sued. If it were Apple's fault, they'd pay for the damages to the victim. If Apple knew about this problem, that people might lose their fingers, but went ahead with it anyway, they would be slammed with punitive damages instead of just the amount of damage they did to the victim. Punitive damages is set up to be an amount that is large enough to cause the company to make changes, but not enough to cripple them or put them out of business. For big ass companies is a whole lot because if they just had to pay a few million, what's that to Apple? Not much. But if it were a few hundred million. . . they'd make changes fast.

Whatever you have against Americans, great. But these things are set up the way they are for a reason. . .

Don't blame Sony here, blame the Supreme Court.

But I expect many snarky jabs at Sony regardless.

Many thanks for the heads up and template.

Its heartening to know this young generation of "get over it" pushovers who gladly sign their rights away will one day be the leaders of the world.

@shinigami420 said:

@zoner said:

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can never understand you Americans

Yes, no one should be punished for losing personal information and risk putting people in danger of identity theft. Us Americans and our crazy identity theft culture.

Yeah i agree they should be punished but just saying HEY SONY YOU DIDNT KEEP OUR STUFF SAFE NOW GIVE US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

If it was the govorment i would be fine but this all seems like a cheap way to try to get alot of money

People in North America are just looking for excuses to sue big corporations so they can get rich

It's not the point of suing them. I have ZERO intention to sue Sony unless I lose money through identity theft. But the point is that you should not have to waive your fucking rights to access something that you essentially already paid for, and this case that something is Playstation Network. Yeah sure it's free on paper, but whenever you buy a PS3 PSN is a part of that transaction. It's clearly advertised right on the back of the goddamn box as one of the selling points.

The reason that they're doing this is because arbitration is harder to take part in than a class action lawsuit. A single voice is like a fart in the win. When you have a hundred, or a thousand, or even hundreds of thousands it's an entirely different story. Arbitration involves you potentially sacrificing work hours, and because of a clause in the EULA they can CHOOSE the point of arbitration. So not only are you losing the time that you're in court, but also losing the time that it will take to travel to wherever arbitration is to take place. This could amount to days without work, all for something that could amount to only a hundred dollars on stolen credit card information. And yes, Sony very well could reimburse you, but it will not ever be for 100% of the net loss. It never is for 100% of the net loss when it comes to reimbursement for loss of income due to missing work. Jury duty for murder doesn't even give full reimbursement. It mathematically will not make logical sense. Nobody would ever sacrifice hundreds of dollars in income for a paltry sum when it could just be written off by the credit card company. And Sony knows this. That's why they're doing it.

Straighten up.

If anyone needed any more proof the supreme court is no long for the people but for the corporation here it is.

You wanna find out why the USA is in the shitter all you have to do is follow the money.

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can not understand you America

Ok for the billionth time. Our country runs on a Credit system, idk if your does. Company A gets hacked and the hackers are able to empty out my checking account. Now every months bills that affect your Credit are due, car payment, car insurance, house payment, phone bill, ect..... Now I can guarantee it will take Company A longer than a month to return the lost money. Causing some of my bills to not get paid which in turn causes my Credit rating to drop. Now Company A will pay back the money lost in the hack im sure, but there is no way for them to make up my Credit, bad credit stays on your record for 7 years. So the next time I go buy a car my payments will be higher because my Credit Rating is now lower.

So now that my checking is empty how can I take on this huge Billion dollar company. This is where a class action lawsuit helps.

@ryanwho said:

Its heartening to know this young generation of "get over it" pushovers who gladly sign their rights away will one day be the leaders of the world.

I forgot how everyone over the age of 25 struggled for every right they enjoy and fought to the death when any were threatened.

So, lemme get this straight: Because AT&T managed to get the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing the stripping of the Class-Action rights of their EMPLOYEES (which, for those who somehow don't know, are paid by AT&T), Sony believes they have the right to do the same thing to their CONSUMERS (who aren't paid by Sony).

Someone needs to get the Supreme Court to review THIS one, and fast. And to Sony: Either pay each member of PSN in the US $174 per day (US Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 times 24 hours a day) that they are a member, without question, or take that clause out of the TOS.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

That AT&T law does bother me. Hadn't heard of that decision.

Not that I doubt Sony's lawyers looked into this, but I would guess they are stretching the meaning of the AT&T ruling. It just means it could possibly be legal, as are all contracts until they are broken down in court.

@ryanwho said:

Its heartening to know this young generation of "get over it" pushovers who gladly sign their rights away will one day be the leaders of the world.

I find it sad I'm grouped in with them :(

Its heartening to know this young generation of "get over it" pushovers who gladly sign their rights away will one day be the leaders of the world.

I don't believe it is right to change TOS after a customer has purchased a product. I bought something, I agreed to the TOS (or presumably disagreed and returned the product). Forcing the customer to accept a change in TOS without offering a refund if they disagree with the TOS should not be allowed.

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can not understand you America

Suing and retaining the right to sue are very different.

@zoner said:

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can never understand you Americans

Yes, no one should be punished for losing personal information and risk putting people in danger of identity theft. Us Americans and our crazy identity theft culture.

Yeah i agree they should be punished but just saying HEY SONY YOU DIDNT KEEP OUR STUFF SAFE NOW GIVE US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

If it was the govorment i would be fine but this all seems like a cheap way to try to get alot of money

People in North America are just looking for excuses to sue big corporations so they can get rich

It's a bit disturbing...but I don't find myself caring a whole lot. I have no plans in suing Sony any time soon, regardless of the issues they have been having. So long as I don't have to attend regular meetings, submit a survey at the end of every fiscal year, etc. As long as I can just play the games I want....I'll leave the letters to other people.

@AnZ17N said:

Huh, how could they rule that this language is enforceable.

All it takes is a Judge willing to play along and a legal counsel which has precedent to back it up. The AT&T case is actually far more astouding: AT&T actually put a clause in it's employment contracts, saying that employees could not take part in a class-action lawsuit against the company. A hard pill to swallow especially if AT&T does something bad enough to it's employees to prompt a class action lawsuit.

@AlexW00d said:

@shinigami420 said:

g

G for good job, and for grow up.

No G for gastronomical

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can never understand you America

It's not about wanting to due everybody. The law exists to protect everyone, and there is no good reason to sign away your rights. This is about trying to keep Sony honest in its dealing with you. If you throw your rights away then they have less reason to do things like protect credit card information, because a huge company can crush any one person in a court of law.

Basically, it's like taking the leash off the dog. And Sony has shown itself to be a bad dog in the past.

America corporate law at it's finest.

I wonder how many people are actually gonna send letters in? Hm...

@shinigami420 said:

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can never understand you Americans

Yes, no one should be punished for losing personal information and risk putting people in danger of identity theft. Us Americans and our crazy identity theft culture.

@shinigami420 said:

g

G for good job, and for grow up.

This is dumb why the fuck do you care? why do you want to sue everybody? i can not understand you America

Huh, how could they rule that this language is enforceable.

If you've agreed to Sony's recently updated Terms of Service to sign into PlayStation Network, you're waiving the right to collectively sue (read: class action lawsuit) the company in the future.

There was speculation Sony decided to make this change now was the result of a Supreme Court decision involving AT&T from April. The decision allowed AT&T to include a similar clause in employee contracts that prevented them from taking collective legal action against the company.

Sony confirmed to CNN today this was the reason.

"The Supreme Court recently ruled in the AT&T case that language like this is enforceable," said a spokesperson. "The updated language in the TOS is designed to benefit both the consumer and the company by ensuring that there is adequate time and procedures to resolve disputes."

As pointed out in my story earlier this week, you have the ability to maintain the right to participate in class action lawsuits against Sony by sending a physical letter to the company. It's not the most convenient solution, but it's there. The catch being that anyone who agrees must send a letter to Sony within 30 days of saying yes.

Sony claims the move will benefit both the company and consumers, but the updated Terms of Service means you must engage Sony via arbitration. There is no jury involved with arbitration, though there is a judge. The cynical viewpoint would be that the lack of a jury could create less sympathy towards a consumer.

If you'd like to send a letter to Sony, I used Google Docs to create a publicly available template.