#1 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -
Following the huge security breach of the PlayStation Network, Sony realized that not only did it require better security for PSN, it also needed to protect itself as a company from millions of gamers potentially suing it in the future. The solution: add a new clause to the PSN terms of service that had gamers agree never to sue the company.
It was such a clever and sneaky workaround both EA and Microsoft decided to do the same thing. It meant if anything goes wrong with your Sony or Microsoft online services, there’s not much you can do about it. The same is true for EA’s Origin service.
While it may seem like a great solution to an otherwise potentially very expensive problem, not all gamers are happy to accept these new terms. You can opt out of the don’t sue clause, but there was limited time to do so (30 days from the time you agreed), and Sony didn’t exactly advertise this had been added to their terms and conditions.
So guess what has happened? A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sony for unfair business practices relating to the introduction of this clause. The lawsuit represents anyone who owned a PS3 before the don’t sue clause was introduced, and accuses Sony of forcing gamers to make a choice between giving up their rights or losing access to the online gaming network they are entitled to.
Sony has yet to make comment on the lawsuit, but it does pose a problem for them. If successful, it means the clause has to be removed. It would also mean both Microsoft and EA would likely have to change their terms too or risk facing similar action.

source

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Well, at least this has a chance of reaching the Supreme Court, where they'd have to say, "Stop doing this shit" and Sony would just have to agree.

#3 Posted by jjnen (661 posts) -

Hah, kinda ironic. But I approve.

#4 Posted by Montezuma (9 posts) -

Oh man, sure. Heh.

#5 Posted by pw2566ch (480 posts) -

If this catches wind, then I hope EA and Microsoft drops this clause from their ToS. Especially Microsoft since there's no way to opt out of it.

#6 Posted by DonutFever (3551 posts) -

Teehee.

#7 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

I don't like companies.

#8 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

This was bound to happen. Some state laws already precludes these kinds of clauses.

#9 Posted by mosespippy (4121 posts) -
@Buzzkill said:
 The solution: add a new clause to the PSN terms of service that had gamers agree never to sue the company.

source

That's not what the clause states at all. You can sue the company; you just can't do it as a group. You have to do it as an individual. Also, didn't AT&T have a similar clause that the courts upheld? If that's the case then this suit won't last long.
#10 Posted by countinhallways (632 posts) -

I appreciate the comedy inherent in this scenario. But even ignoring that aspect of it, I am delighted that this is going to happen.

Clauses like this should be challenged. Even if the system were to side with Sony (and consequently Microsoft, EA etc.) I think that at the very least they should face proper scrutiny along the way.

#11 Posted by Getz (2997 posts) -

@Galiant said:

I don't like companies.

then don't buy their shit.

#12 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

fight the fucking man, yeeeaah!!

#13 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

@Getz said:

@Galiant said:

I don't like companies.

then don't buy their shit.

That's the problem, isn't it? I'd have no shit.

#14 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

@Galiant said:

@Getz said:

@Galiant said:

I don't like companies.

then don't buy their shit.

That's the problem, isn't it? I'd have no shit.

You'd still have their bullshit, just none of their good shit. :D

#15 Posted by BeachThunder (11847 posts) -

@Getz said:

@Galiant said:

I don't like companies.

then don't buy their shit.

*BRB, joining Amish*

#16 Edited by GaspoweR (2960 posts) -

@mosespippy said:

@Buzzkill said:
The solution: add a new clause to the PSN terms of service that had gamers agree never to sue the company.

source

That's not what the clause states at all. You can sue the company; you just can't do it as a group. You have to do it as an individual. Also, didn't AT&T have a similar clause that the courts upheld? If that's the case then this suit won't last long.

In the case with AT&T, it was with their employees and not the consumers themselves as stated in the following news article from 1up:

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that AT&T had the right to include a clause in new employees' contracts stating they may not bring a class action lawsuit against the company. After word of a similar clause popped up in the Sony TOS last week, there was some speculation that the two could be connected, and indeed there is, CNN reports.

This gives Sony a better chance to just be able to have a settlement with the individual concerned who is suing Sony and avoid going to court altogether. I'm not saying that they can't settle in a class action lawsuit but there is a larger possibility that the people who don't want to settle outnumber the people who do. Also, it would be very expensive on Sony's part even if they did settle in a class action lawsuit since there would be more people involved obviously.

The dirty thing about the no class action clause from what I've read is that suing a large corporation is a very costly endeavor and thus in a way it deters individuals from pursing it. Though there is an article which states the disadvantages of class action while it also goes in depth about its function. I suggest to anyone who is reading this to read through the article since it is very enlightening.

#17 Posted by EmuLeader (558 posts) -

This is a good thing. They should take responsibility for not being able to protect the personal information they have been entrusted with. We shouldn't have to worry that all that information will be stolen and that we can do nothing about it. It would be one thing if it was like that from the beginning, but to make people stop using their service after they had already bought the product under previous agreements is stupid.

#18 Posted by Dagbiker (6972 posts) -

The problem I have with TOS's is that there is no way to tell that the person agreeing to it is over 18, and in the US you have to be 18 and over to sign a legally binding contract.

#19 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

@Dagbiker: That and Arbitration judges side with the corps most of the time since they can manipulate where/which district the arbitration is held.

#20 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1438 posts) -

YES! I hope these guys win and stick it to Sony, EA, and Microsoft.

#21 Posted by xyzygy (9949 posts) -

Why isn't the suit also against MS though? Isn't their terms the same?  
 
I realize that the outcome, if Sony loses, would also affect MS because they'd have to review their TOS, but why is Sony the only one taking the lawsuit while MS has the same rule?

#22 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

Douche-chiiiiiiiiill.

#23 Posted by MelissaPeterson (23 posts) -

I hope that goes through and Sony is forced to remove it, the same goes for Microsoft and EA.

#24 Edited by SoldierG654342 (1763 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

Well, at least this has a chance of reaching the Supreme Court, where they'd have to say, "Stop doing this shit" and Sony would just have to agree.

Don't bet on it. This Supreme Court isn't know for siding with consumers.

@xyzygy said:

Why isn't the suit also against MS though? Isn't their terms the same? I realize that the outcome, if Sony loses, would also affect MS because they'd have to review their TOS, but why is Sony the only one taking the lawsuit while MS has the same rule?

Because they added the clause after a major security breach?

#25 Posted by Turambar (6739 posts) -

"The lawsuit represents anyone who owned a PS3 before the don’t sue clause was introduced, and accuses Sony of forcing gamers to make a choice between giving up their rights or losing access to the online gaming network they are entitled to."

Look, I'm all for consumer rights, but really now. If you're going to fill a law suit, don't make it so easy to throw out. We are not by any means "entitled" to PSN. I am more than confident there is some existing statute that allows companies to altar the TOS of an existing and on-going service in such a way that allows former customers to op out of it if they disagree with it.

#26 Posted by jakob187 (21665 posts) -

LAWL

You people act like Sony, EA, Microsoft, and every other company that you give your information to doesn't sell that information off to other companies for all kinds of stupid shit! That's more amusing than the irony of this lawsuit.

#27 Edited by spazmaster666 (1966 posts) -

@Turambar said:

"The lawsuit represents anyone who owned a PS3 before the don’t sue clause was introduced, and accuses Sony of forcing gamers to make a choice between giving up their rights or losing access to the online gaming network they are entitled to."

Look, I'm all for consumer rights, but really now. If you're going to fill a law suit, don't make it so easy to throw out. We are not by any means "entitled" to PSN. I am more than confident there is some existing statute that allows companies to altar the TOS of an existing and on-going service in such a way that allows former customers to op out of it if they disagree with it.

This. No one has a "right" to use PSN. PSN is owned and operated by Sony and Sony has the sole authority to decide who can or cannot use the PSN service. Whether or not the TOS clause is consumer friendly or not, extrapolating "consumer unfriendly" to "violating constitutional rights" is a pretty big stretch. I doubt this suit will go anywhere.

#28 Edited by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

@spazmaster666 said:

No one has a "right" to use PSN.

@spazmaster666: Just like no one has a "right" to put linux on their PS3?

#29 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Sometimes, i see the news, and i want to kill myself...well not really, but you get the point. And sometimes the news makes my day. This is awesome.

#30 Posted by spazmaster666 (1966 posts) -

@Buzzkill said:

@spazmaster666: Just like no one has a "right" to put linux on their PS3?

Why don't you sue Sony for getting rid of backwards compatibility as well? The suit over the removal of Linux is just plain silly, while this lawsuit at least as some merit behind, even though it won't get anywhere due to it's lack of precedent.

#31 Posted by Turambar (6739 posts) -
@Buzzkill said:

@spazmaster666: Just like no one has a "right" to put linux on their PS3?

And what relevance does that have with this potential suit in terms of legality?
#32 Posted by Hailinel (24417 posts) -

@Buzzkill said:

@spazmaster666 said:

No one has a "right" to use PSN.

@spazmaster666: Just like no one has a "right" to put linux on their PS3?

I'm pretty sure that Sony stated in the Terms of Service that they reserve the right to alter the functionality of the PS3 as they see fit, including removing functions entirely.

This is a different case, in that Sony's changes to the ToS are attempting to specifically block a form of lawsuit that is commonly practiced against corporations. Attempting to circumvent the law is a much bigger deal than not being able to run Linux on your console.

Online
#33 Posted by medacris (649 posts) -

Perhaps the companies are afraid they'll get sued over who-knows-what and are trying to make sure that can't happen as a precautionary measure. If they're doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have to worry about getting sued in the first place.

As long as installing Linux on your PS3 doesn't help you cheat in any way, I don't see what the big fuss is. You own a product, you have the ability to do whatever you want with it, as long as you're not hurting anyone.