Slashdot Mirror
Second Life Arbitration Clause Unenforceable
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a decision that could have far-reaching implications, a federal court in Pennsylvania has held that the California arbitration clause in the 'take it or leave it' clickwrap agreement on the Second Life website is unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. In its decision (pdf) in Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., No. 06-4925 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2007), the Court concluded that the Second Life 'terms of service' seek to impose a one-sided dispute resolution scheme that tilts unfairly, 'in almost all situations,' in Second Life's favor. As a result, the case will stay in Pennsylvania federal court, instead of being transferred to an arbitration forum in California."
lack of mutuality. The TOS gave Linden Research the right to terminate users "for any reason or no reason," the right to invoke several one-sided remedies to protect its own rights, and the right to modify the TOS at any time, including the arbitration provision.
no more 'we can kill your account any time and you suck it' from online game companies. a lot of tos's just went invalid today. the shakeout from this will be huge in the pay for online gaming sector.
-.no
I, for one, will be VERY interested to see if Blizzard responds to this in any way. Their policy is very much the same, as is their penchance for banning accounts and restricting access to real-world-value. (And remember, legality does not negate value in most cases. The IRS would have you pay income tax on your drug deals, if you follow the letter of the law.) So will the rules shift in favor of the end-user?
Likewise, what other EULA's might fall victim to the 'no viable market alternative' argument? Windows comes to mind.
This will surely die on appeal, but still, the possible implications are interesting.
The contract must be *both* procedurally (e.g., take-it-or-leave it, no alternatives, pre-printed) and substantively (e.g., unfair or hidden terms) unconscionable to be unenforceable. One is *not* enough - unfair isn't enough. The process must be unconscionable as well. BTW, arbitration clauses are presumed enforceable otherwise. Please do *not* rely on this as legal advice (but especially do *not* rely on Wikipedia for legal advice!). IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer).
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I have to wonder if the the Linden Dollar (and linden real estate) having a real world value weighs the need for a two sided arbitration more heavily. From the courts view (I imagine) the only thing at stake in a WoW arbitration is your $15 subscription fee, where as Second Life has some more significant monetary attachments. When there is real money involved the government is sure to follow.
We are all just people.
The next thing that they should go after is the concept that you don't actually *own* software that you purchase, you only "license" it.
Adobe v. Softman is old news, and addressed exactly that, and was ruled in the correct way. In California, at least, if you A) pay a set amount, and B) get indefinite use of the software for that payment, it's a Sale of Goods, and the Right of First Sale (under Title 17) applies. That ruling is at least four or five years old now.
This is why Microsoft is so desperate to get Windows and Office transferred over to a "pay per month or we turn it off" model.