Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

240 Comments

Valve Joins EA, Sony, Others in Trying to Block Class Action Lawsuits

Unclear if changes will hold up to legal scrutiny, but Valve's joined the club.

No Caption Provided

Steam (and Valve) is joining Sony, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and other companies hoping to block any and all class action lawsuits. When you boot up Steam this morning, you’ll have to agree to a new set of terms, and that includes agreeing to bring lawsuits against Valve in a a one-on-one capacity, not together.

Your other option? Not play your games, I guess.

“We considered this change very carefully,” said the company as part of a larger statement on the change featured on its website. “It’s clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers. In far too many cases however, class actions don’t provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims. Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities. We think this new dispute resolution process is faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a whole.”

“Some situations” of a class action lawsuit benefiting consumers isn’t enough, apparently, and Valve is removing the tool entirely. Unlike companies like Sony, Valve isn’t offering an opt-out clause. Sony allowed consumers to continue having access to class action lawsuits by submitting a letter of intent, though that option disappeared 30 days after agreeing to the new terms. You have no such option with Steam, and must simply click okay and move on.

Valve is, however, offering to front the legal costs of its preferred option, arbitration or small claims court. The company will reimburse costs “under a certain amount” no matter the outcome, even if it goes against Valve, but it requires the arbitrator to determine the claim “is not frivolous or the costs unreasonable.”

It’s not clear these changes will ultimately be enforceable, however. They’ve never been challenged, but by introducing the idea that consumers cannot use class action lawsuits, how many will consider it an option?

“Time will tell on that one,” said Washington attorney Thomas Buscaglia to me last September, back when Sony instituted the same changes for PlayStation Network. “The US Federal Trade Commission and various state consumer protection agencies could have a problem with it. Also, some courts might not allow it to be enforced due to existing state court precedent."

Again, time will tell on this, but I’m bothered by the response by most players to just shrug at this move, as they have in the past. You should carefully scrutinize the reasons your rights are being limited, even it’s by a company who has traditionally been exceptionally consumer-friendly in the past, Valve. There may never be a point in your life where a class action lawsuit benefits you, you may be tired of getting emails about being part of class action lawsuits you didn’t realize were happening, you may not understand why you received a quarter-sized check in the mail related to a class action lawsuit from a few years ago whose email notification went in your spam folder, but you shouldn’t be okay giving up your rights. One day, you may wish that right was at your disposal, and suddenly it won’t be.

Make sure to read all of Valve's statement.

Patrick Klepek on Google+

240 Comments

Avatar image for scarygaryofak
ScaryGaryofAk

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By ScaryGaryofAk

I feel like Valves change is not as bad as say EA and others, because they are at least up front about it and posted on facebook, and let people know what was going on and why exactly they did what they did. I still have my faith in Valve, and hopefully will for a long long time

Avatar image for gasparnolasco
GasparNolasco

365

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By GasparNolasco

Well, back to piracy it is, then.

Avatar image for nals
Nals

155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nals

Let's see.

Class Action lawsuits are giant frivolous pieces of junk that usually end up not helping anyone but lawyers, and whose only purpose in the legal system is letting people who normally wouldn't be able to afford small claims/arbitration have a voice.

Oh wait, Valve is offering to fully cover the cost of Arbitration/Small Claims.

Whats the problem here? Small Claims is far more beneficial to the consumer then class action is. The main problem I had with the EA EULA change was they just told you to go get fucked if you wanted to bother them legally. If Valve is willing to pay for Small Claims or Arbitration, thats a huge benefit.

Avatar image for ironlink
Ironlink

63

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ironlink

Wow. My heart skipped a beat when I first read "Valve Joins EA" in the title.

Avatar image for klumzee
KlUMZeE

328

Forum Posts

359

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By KlUMZeE

Wow, what a bunch of bullshit. I'd guess that this would not hold up in court if someone had a reason to file a class-action lawsuit against Valve or these other companies. No judge is going to dismiss a legitimate case because the violating company snuck some bullshit waiver into their terms of service.

Avatar image for laserbolts
laserbolts

5506

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By laserbolts

And this is why I will stick to my discs. Thank you very much.

Avatar image for president_barackbar
President_Barackbar

3648

Forum Posts

853

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

I know Patrick would prefer that people get upset, but honestly, what can any of us really do about it? We live in a world that puts corporations before people.

Avatar image for bvilleneuve
bvilleneuve

304

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By bvilleneuve

Patrick, I find it a little disheartening that you assume my acceptance of these terms is a shrug, some kind of tacit approval where I just roll over and let Valve do what it wants. It's not. I accept these terms after having thought deeply about them, after having read extensively about what they say and what they mean, and deciding that Valve is exhibiting tremendous transparency and honesty in this matter, as per usual.

I'm not an idiot, dude.

Avatar image for tourgen
tourgen

4568

Forum Posts

645

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 11

Edited By tourgen

A class action lawsuit for my bike drove Suzuki to issue a general recall on it for the frame. So yeah, I'm not buying the argument that class actions serve no other purpose other than to make lawyers rich. There were hairline cracks in my frame and I got it replaced as a result.

Without class action I guess my family could have sued for wrongful death after the frame cracked.

Avatar image for goldanas
Goldanas

568

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Goldanas

@Nals said:

Oh wait, Valve is offering to fully cover the cost of Arbitration/Small Claims.

I think this is something I keep skipping over and over. I see that they're DENYING US OUR RIGHTS, but then I also see that they're going to take care of the aspect that makes class action necessary to begin with. I suppose it's just the nationalist in me and the paragraph at the end of the article.

You won, Patrick! You got me to gloss over the facts with your propaganda! It's like I'm really watching Fox News!

However, do individual claims always enact change in companies? That one lady sued because her coffee was too hot. Now they label their coffee as hot. I guess that's precedence maybe sorta'?

Avatar image for jayperr
jayperr

31

Forum Posts

161

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jayperr

As someone who has not used steam in years could someone explain this to me.

If i have the game disc, lets say HL2 and don't accept the new terms, will i still be able to play it?

Sorry for being noob :)

Avatar image for tehpickle
TehPickle

693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By TehPickle

@bvilleneuve: To be fair to Patrick, he did say "most gamers." I don't think GBs patrons qualify as 'most'. He does also go on to recommend (and link) the full post.

Avatar image for big_jon
big_jon

6533

Forum Posts

2539

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 18

Edited By big_jon

I trust Valve, and most of the lawsuits I see coming out of people against these big companies are total horse shit any ways, it often seems that it has nothing to do with the end user, it is just them trying to get rich.

Avatar image for ogg25
ogg25

13

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ogg25

Well Canada overrules these laws. According to Canadian laws these points in the TOS are void for Canadians. Not sure I would ever enter one anyways but nice to see that perhaps I could if it ever got to that point.

Avatar image for bluebird14
bluebird14

20

Forum Posts

176

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By bluebird14

As an EU citizen this means nothing for me.

Avatar image for dopey2400
Dopey2400

73

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dopey2400

Class Action Lawsuits are just fucking stupid. Tell me the last time you had some form of payout from a Class Action Lawsuit. I have to tend to agree with Valve on this issue.

Avatar image for spydrmrphy
SpydrMrphy

92

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By SpydrMrphy

The real problem I have with this is, you really can't decline it. Sure you could not buy games from Steam, of which I have way to many and would lose most of my PC gaming, but what people forget is more and more companies are using Steamworks which requires Steam to Play. This means if you want to play those games at all on the PC you have to agree to the terms and conditions that now include this crap. Steam has become so strong because it has become almost essential for PC gaming.

Avatar image for grandharrier
GrandHarrier

189

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By GrandHarrier

I find it fascinating that Valve is ranked "F" by the Better Business Bureau here in the states.

Avatar image for patman99
Patman99

1650

Forum Posts

70

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Patman99

@tourgen said:

A class action lawsuit for my bike drove Suzuki to issue a general recall on it for the frame. So yeah, I'm not buying the argument that class actions serve no other purpose other than to make lawyers rich. There were hairline cracks in my frame and I got it replaced as a result. Without class action I guess my family could have sued for wrongful death after the frame cracked.

It's great that it worked for you but in reality I dont think a video game company's oversight could carry the same amount of weight as it does with a motorcycle manufacturer. Valve does something bad, people get pissed off. Suzuki does something bad, people could potentially die.

I believe class action has a time and place but it is something people abuse in most cases, especially when it comes to video games. I think these companies are putting these clauses in their user agreements to cover against pointless and potentially costly lawsuit. If Valve ever does something that actually warrants legal action, I believe that it will happen.

I am also amazed that it took Suzuki to be sued before they acknowledged a flaw in their design. Chevrolet did a recall on their power steering for most of their cars a while back and it only took a few people to complain for the company to issue a change.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

There's like three factions roiling at each other, this is like Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

One side is like "OUR RIGHTS, THEY'RE PUTTING MERCURY IN THE WATER GAHHH!" and then other is like "IT'S EVIL WHEN EA DOES IT BUT IT'S COOL FOR VALVE WUAAAHH" and the other is like "WHY IS EVERYONE SCREAMIN GWOOOORRGH!"

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

Edited By TheHT

Oh man. I read that as Valve actually joining EA, as in EA buying Valve. That was scary for a moment.

Avatar image for bladefire
Bladefire

223

Forum Posts

108

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Bladefire

@GrandHarrier said:

I find it fascinating that Valve is ranked "F" by the Better Business Bureau here in the states.

The Better Business Bureau is a scam, Valve probably just hasn't paid to join the BBB and that's how the BBB attacks businesses that won't pay them.

Avatar image for mackdaddicus
mackdaddicus

69

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

Edited By mackdaddicus

@RenMcKormack: I agree, especially in the area of digital distribution of electronic goods, you want arbitrators who know what is going on rather than whatever yokel judge will preside over a case in a given jurisdiction. Arbitration is also much less expensive for all parties, gets quicker results and in most instances the ruling can be adjucated by an appellate court. The argument against this position is that the arbiter overseeing the case will be more familiar with Valve/Sony/Microsoft etc. because they handle all of the instances of arbitration, but counter balanced against having a judge at a district court who will have no idea what is going on and will rule accordingly on his/her lackadaisical time-table, I'd rather go to arbitration.

Avatar image for incapability
Incapability

244

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Incapability

I AM DISGUSTED AND OFFENDED THAT I CAN NO LONGER PARTICIPATE IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS.

Actually, I had absolutely no plans to do so, so I don't really give a shit.

Avatar image for pr1mus
pr1mus

4158

Forum Posts

1018

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

Edited By pr1mus
Valve is, however, offering to front the legal costs of its preferred option, arbitration or small claims court. The company will reimburse costs “under a certain amount” no matter the outcome, even if it goes against Valve, but it requires the arbitrator to determine the claim “is not frivolous or the costs unreasonable.”

These costs are usually why class action lawsuits become a necessity even though small claims or arbitration is always more beneficial to the consumer. If Valve fronts these costs even if the ruling is against them then it covers 99% of the reasons why you would want to be part of a class action lawsuit anyway.

In any case whatever corporations put in their EULA/ToS is almost always groundless if you have any valid reasons for wanting to sue. The EULA/ToS is not the law. It's just a scarecrow trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights. If they screw you over you have rights that laws will protect.

Avatar image for clonedzero
Clonedzero

4206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Clonedzero

ToS dont really hold up in court though, like i dont think they can even do this, right?

Avatar image for deathbyyeti
deathbyyeti

790

Forum Posts

56

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By deathbyyeti

Whatever.

Ive been screwed over worse

Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace

Yes, the United States court system is back-logged, and some may say that corporate arbitration enables quicker and less costly dispensation of justice, but it's also just another way for big corporations to subvert the law because they have deeper pockets than everyone else. At least Valve is including something which sounds like human decency; the cost-covering for plaintiffs is seemingly noble.

The whole idea of corporate arbitration is sketchy; if one really reads one of these agreements one will notice that the corporation chooses (and hires, on a contractual basis) the arbitration company. I have a friend who recently left private family law practice and started working for JAMS (one of the larger corporate arbitration firms) and he fully acknowledges that it's a slippery slope where "real" justice is concerned. Think about it: is a company like Sony going to retain an arbitration firm which rules in-favor of the other party more often than they would like, or for a debilitating settlement?

Corporate arbitration is essentially the judge and jury being on the defendant's payroll.

I opted-out of that part of Sony's agreement a few times now; they changed the location of the class-action waiver in their contract, so I had to reaffirm my desire to be excluded from that. Another problem is that all they have to do is change the contract slightly every few months, have you agree to it every time, and if you don't send the letter every time the contract changes (basically every time there is a patch) then you're opted-in to the class-action waiver.

I don't have a Steam account. I was thinking about getting one ... but maybe I'll use my "extra" video game time and money on my kids instead of spreading my cheeks to make room for more corporate choad. America is fucked, and Romney isn't even president yet.

Avatar image for oginam
Oginam

459

Forum Posts

242

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By Oginam

Class action lawsuits are idiotic most of the time anyway so I would like to thank Valve for covering the cost of any small claims case I could theoretically bring against them in the future.

Avatar image for mattman734
mattman734

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By mattman734

Darn it! I guess I'll call my lawyer and cancel my lawsuit.

What would anybody possibly sue a game company for anyway? Just don't buy a game if it doesn't meet whatever made up legal stuff you think it should.

Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace
mattman734:What would anybody possibly sue a game company for anyway? Just don't buy a game if it doesn't meet whatever made up legal stuff you think it should.

Why ask this question when someone is going out of their way to give you less rights as a consumer? That would be like a part in a movie where someone hands the antagonist a nuclear weapon and says: "Sure, you can take this from me; I don't really have a use for it anyway, and can't imagine anything bad you might do with it."

Lack of imagination does not constitute a lack of importance, nor does it indicate a lack of social magnitude or meaning. "Made up legal stuff" is exactly what caused unwitting folks who used "free" file-sharing software to have 6-figure judgements made against them due to copyright infringement; "Made up legal stuff" can ruin your entire life. Those people said the same thing: "It's just music," or "it's just a movie."

Avatar image for zuldim
Zuldim

321

Forum Posts

1463

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By Zuldim

@mattman734 said:

Darn it! I guess I'll call my lawyer and cancel my lawsuit.

What would anybody possibly sue a game company for anyway? Just don't buy a game if it doesn't meet whatever made up legal stuff you think it should.

Remember the PSN outage, where people lost access to a service they were promised when they bought the PS3? Things like that.

Not saying that they'd be justified, just that it's an example of a possible lawsuit.

Avatar image for smokepants
smokepants

286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By smokepants

It's not like Valve pioneered this. They're just taking advantage of low-hanging fruit. Business is 90% covering your ass. It's a shame that that's what our society has devolved to, but it's the reality we face. Everybody is liable for some bullshitt. Companies can no longer admit to any wrongdoing, because of the repercussions. I'm sure most would rather spend the money they devote to legal defense trying to address complaints and solve their customers problems directly, but there's too many vampires out there.

Really, if you don't like this, don't write a letter to Gabe Newell, write one to your Congressman to get to work making sure a company like Valve can't do this. Then again, it's just video games.

Avatar image for evercaptor
Evercaptor

436

Forum Posts

3014

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Evercaptor

I bet EA is pretty happy that was in their EULA when MassEffectGate happened, eh? Imagine if that one crazy guy who sued had gotten one of these CALs going. Gaming would have been rocked to it's foundations in ways I guess would have been terrible for us consumers with the wrong outcome.

Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace

@SmokePants: Well said. Newell isn't even responsible for this; Valve's lawyers are the ones picking the "low-hanging fruit," as you said. While it's true that these are "just video games," this kind of trend represents something alarming which has been taking-place for a number of decades: corporations having more rights than regular people, and the general indication that the amount of money to which one has access directly determines the perceived social value of their ideology and their value as a human being. That seems ... wrong, because lots of people have lots of money because they found creative ways to screw people who didn't know any better.

Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace

@Dopey2400:

EA, class-action lawsuit for unpaid wages to Ultima-Online "volunteers." Not stupid, and not a waste of time at all; some "volunteers" were paid over $1,000 just for adding their name to a list and submitting their case to the pool. There's nothing stupid about the right for consumers to unify against a corporation; a lot of times that's the only way an average human being can right a wrong imposed upon them by a wealthy, multi-national corporation. Without these rights -- which are slowly dwindling, and will continue to do so with ignorant attitudes like yours -- corporations will be telling you what do do, what to eat, where to shit, and what to think. Use your brain before it becomes property of someone else, "Dopey."

Edit: Yeah, that's right: delete that post (which I should have quoted).

Avatar image for doesnoevil
doesnoevil

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By doesnoevil

HA HA... "Valve Joins EA, Sony, OTHERS?" how about MICRO$OFT?" i know you guys love your xboxes, but c'mon!

Avatar image for mattman734
mattman734

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By mattman734

@Zuldim: That one would be fair assuming they didn't handle the reimbursement properly, but I don't think this would help those company's in a situation like that.

Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek

Valve is only consumer friendly when nothing is going wrong.

About a year ago, I had an issue with my Paypal account. Paypal was deducting funds from a bank account they shouldn't have been deducting funds from resulting in some serious overdraft fees from the bank. Some of those funds were headed to Valve by way of Steam purchases. Long story short, the only resolution both my bank and Paypal could agree to was for the bank to dispute the transactions, at which point Paypal would rescind them.

Once that solution was settled upon, I went about contacting all of the various parties who would be affected. Everyone was happy to make arrangements with me to set up alternate payments for the now defunct transactions. Everyone except Steam that is.

When I told them what was happening, they told me to wait until the transactions got reversed before contacting them. Once the transactions were reversed, they promptly locked my account, cutting me off from all of the games I purchased through Steam (not just the ~$20 worth of games affected by the issue). When I reached out to them I was treated like a criminal and it was implied that I was trying to defraud Steam by reversing the transactions even though I tried to warn them and get it all sorted out ahead of time. After a two week downtime, they finally decided in their infinite generosity that I should be allowed to get my account back.

I wish the story ended there, but it didn't. A week later, the account was locked again, this time for just under a week, over the same issue. Nothing had changed mind you, their system just automagically shut my account down. Once I brought it to their attention, they did reinstate the account, but no apologies were given for the mix up on their end, and the CSR left me with the distinct impression that he was still suspicious of me, despite the issue being resolved before he ever looked at it.

So I guess my point here is that the more power Valve takes away from the customer, the less I like Valve. They were the only company (out of about 10) that I dealt with during that whole mess that gave me any trouble. Steam sales are great and all, but don't look at Valve funny, or they'll respond in as harsh a manner as possible.

Avatar image for herbiebug
HerbieBug

4228

Forum Posts

43

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By HerbieBug

This isn't legally enforceable. If any of these companies does something worthy of incurring a class action suit, you can be sure the courts will toss out that clause like so much rubbish.

Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace

@HerbieBug said:

This isn't legally enforceable. If any of these companies does something worthy of incurring a class action suit, you can be sure the courts will toss out that clause like so much rubbish.

State of Washington says it is, and when you agree to a contract with a company located in a state you agree to be bound by the laws of that state. Arbitration is perfectly legal, though a judge does have to review the results of the arbitration and rule whether or not it's legitimate.

The sketchy thing is that the corporation hires the arbitrator, so it's like having judge and jury on the defendant's payroll. Also, the court system is so backed-up that judges reviewing arbitration don't actually have the time to judge the results based upon the facts (except for the facts presented through the lens of the "impartial" arbitrator who was hired by the corporation) so they just crank them through the system.

Avatar image for kagato
kagato

1162

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 7

Edited By kagato

@Sword5 said:

Valve can do whatever they want because no one views them as big business. Hell, even the GB staff celebrates Valves growing monopoly.

Its a fair point, Valve at this point have to be making more money than Sony, Nintendo or Microsofts software sections and somehow everyone looks at them like this small company that always treats their customers with respect and love. People need to get it into their heads that Valve are just the same, no better or worse than the others, they just dont have the overhead of a console or perhipherals to worry about.

Avatar image for studnoth1n
studnoth1n

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By studnoth1n

@Dixavd Well I think people actually do care, and I'm fairly cynical myself. However these people tend to act on the strength of their own conviction, so usually all you're left with are the ones who justify their apathy with appetite, so to speak. So in a sense, of course it's going to seem like no one cares when you're constantly surrounded by those who clearly do not. If gluttonous apathy isn't an oxymoron, I'd say it defines this situation (and some people) quite appropriately.

Avatar image for psychohead
Psychohead

160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Psychohead

I would honestly be more concerned about the "erosion of my rights" if class-action lawsuits weren't already completely fucked from stem to stern anyway. Nevermind the already dubious nature of EULAs as a whole, quite aside from all this.

I appreciate that you're righteous and concerned, Patrick, I really do. And I want you to keep doing what you do with the passion you posses. I just don't see any reason to raise arms about something that's already as impotent as this.

Avatar image for iamjohn
iamjohn

6297

Forum Posts

13905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By iamjohn
@BlackLagoon

@sephirm87 said:

As an aspiring lawyer in school who believes in consumer protection, class action lawsuits are real shitty, because they are (in the real world application) all about shitty lawyers manipulating people into getting involved with something, then the lawyer wins big (or doesn't, like Vegas) and then takes a HUGE chunk of the winnings because they "won big." Also, when you sign on to a class action lawsuit, you forfeit your ability to sue later for related situations. Just food for though.

Class action lawsuits are the only real form of punishing corporations for abusing consumers you have in the US though. Regardless of the problems with them, giving them up leaves you with nothing.

: Are you sure about the not tested in court? I was under the impression the reason all these companies are adding this clause now is because recently AT&T won supreme court approval of them.

The AT&T; case is slightly different because it only applies to their employees under a very specific part of their employment contract with the company. It's never been tested in a provider-vs.-consumer context.
Avatar image for driftspace
DriftSPace

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DriftSPace

@Psychohead said:

I would honestly be more concerned about the "erosion of my rights" if class-action lawsuits weren't already completely fucked from stem to stern anyway. Nevermind the already dubious nature of EULAs as a whole, quite aside from all this.

I appreciate that you're righteous and concerned, Patrick, I really do. And I want you to keep doing what you do with the passion you posses. I just don't see any reason to raise arms about something that's already as impotent as this.

While you are right, and it's totally true that the system is "completely fucked from stem to stern," it is only that way because consumers are mostly uneducated idiots who don't read the contracts they sign. If more people are made aware of the magnitude to which things are actually "fucked," then it can change, and Patrick is doing his part to amend this impotency. While it currently is a factual state of things, it doesn't have to remain that way. Being involved in politics can certainly start with a bunch of people just having a conversation.

Avatar image for chumm
Chumm

347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Chumm

"rights are being limited, even it’s by a company who has"

Get a copy editor Trick!

Avatar image for izzygraze
izzygraze

951

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By izzygraze

Yeah that's really sucky. Why would they take that away anyway? They're only taking away one of the only ways consumers can fight back. Most people aren't rich enough to take on a company on their own. It makes no sense other than a "fuck the consumers" standpoint.