Slashdot Mirror
New Sony PSN ToS: Class Action Waiver Included
rwven writes "Yesterday Sony sent an email to PlayStation Network members regarding a change in the Terms of Service for PSN. When agreeing to this new terms of service, you must waive your rights to a class action suit against Sony. I, for one, will not be agreeing to any such thing. You can view section 15 of the new ToS here (PDF)."
Time to go for a class action lawsuit for trying to make us waive our right to a class action lawsuit. Sony can burn in hell.
Onda Technology Institute
So... you're going to cancel your PSN subscription?
in order for you to enjoy gaming on PSN, you must first agree to a EULA which automatically waives your right to enjoin a Class Action against Sony should their network be compromised again!?
Are they expecting their network to be compromised again??
Is this legal??
Sony, you are a bunch of deluded fuckheads.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Could be worse -- they could be forcing you to wave your right to Ass Action!
Not sure what else to say, the title actually captures it all.
You're like the racist grandpa who doesn't know when to shut the hell up.
Okay, sooo... who's up for a mass individual filing of, oh, say, 20,000 lawsuits? we'll see how well that works when the courts choke to death on paperwork and reconsider that whole "class action" thing being allowed to be thrown out.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...is Sony going to be buying back my PS3 after renegging on all the deals and claims made when I purchased the thing?
Don't you just have to click a button to "agree to terms of service"? Cant you just claim that your PS3 was plugged in and the neighbor kid clicked "I agree".
Maybe there's one floating around here that could comment on whether this might be deemed unconscionable?
Seems to me Sony is spontanteously forcing users to renegotiate their use contract in a decidedly one-sided fashion. Yes, yes, all EULAs fall into that category, but this seems more like an ongoing service agreement--you've been using PSN for some time, Sony steps in and says, "Hey, if you want to keep using our network, you need to surrender an important right." Just the sort of important right that could put an individual consumer on more even footing with a multinational corporation in asserting his/her entitlements under contract.
You're not agreeing to not sue, you're agreeing to settle out of court via binding arbitration instead.
if i don't agree with the new EULA, can I return my PS3? Seriously, I don't agree to their NEW terms. Therefore some of the features of the device are no longer available. They have rendered it not fit for purpose.
The law in Denmark is a bit funny on this, which may be why I haven't seen this mail yet.
Basically you can not waiver your law given rights in a contract, if the contract (ToS) contains such demands, it pretty much invalidates the entire contract...
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
FTFToS:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10 TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
You just have to go through the pain-staking task of writing them via snail mail and don't forget to keep a copy of your tracking receipt.
If you want to stay on PSN but you don't agree, you can opt out. The directions ask for a clear statement about arbitration, but not about class actions, so it's a little puzzling - do you opt out of both by following the directions? If you add something about the class action waiver, are you then not following directions and therefore losing your right to opt out?
From the ToS:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER
WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING
ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST
NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT
THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080
CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL
DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR
ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A
CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH
ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
I cant believe this legal. What is stopping them from just making us sell our souls through a EULA.
I'm pretty sure they could not prevent a class action using a EULA, however if you then sue them in a class action, they can then ban you from PSN (SEN) for breaking the EULA... Therefore removing all the 'trouble makers'.
Just a thought...
I think there was a software update a few days ago when I played Madden for the first time, I didn't read the it as usual. Whatever I have my individual suit I can use after the class action suit wins.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
I'm really going to miss that coupon for 50% off a Spongebob theme that we were going to get in that settlement. I earned that coupon because Sony could have warned me 10 minutes earlier about my credit card info possibly (but almost certainly not) being stolen.
Lawyers will get $3 million in fees, of course.
Ontario, Quebec and Alberta actually have legislation that prevents such a clause, which renders Section 15 invalid. This is mentioned in an article about a BC consumer filing a lawsuit against Telus, see this. I haven't tried to track down the actual legislation that prevents these clauses, but CBC tends to be fairly reliable.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
Quality, nope
Price, nope
Customer satisfaction, nope
I started saying "WTF" with memory stick.
My wife was considering starting a business modeled after an arcade she saw that included PS3, xbox, and wii, and the moment we worked selling off hours compute time on the PS3 to local universities, Sony locked out alternate OS.
So they don't want class actions - no problem. Individuals get paid out a LOT more on an individual suit rather than having the share a settlement with everyone in a class action. Nice try, Sony - you just cost yourself more $.
Honestly, why not try it? Either the courts will allow it or they won't, from Sony's point of view all this means is they've gained one possible avenue of defense against future class action suits. Maybe they'll get some bad publicity out of the deal, but it's not as if things could get much worse for them in that regard.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
I'm afraid that many agreed without even reading the changes in the terms of service.
Few people read the countless pages you should read in these situations, and the worst is that you just can't say "no" and go on using your product as usual...
The fact that you can agree to it by clicking a button, but waiving it involves letters and stamps and writing is very telling.
Obviously this is on purpose. They could very easily have an extra button (or website somewhere) to opt out, but by requiring users to mail in a letter... they are banking on the fact that most people won't bother (and they are probably right).
If you actually read section 15, it includes instructions for how to opt out of the waiver: send a letter to Sony HQ. Now, let's be honest, this is absolutely retarded. It would be 1000x easier for the customer if there were a web-based way to do this. Send an email. Check this checkbox. Whatever. It seems apparent that Sony feels obligated (legally, perhaps, definitely not morally) to provide this option, but they want to provide it in such a way that the absolute minimum number of customers will take advantage of it. I'd love to see statistics on how many people actually send an opt-out letter.
It's impossible to wave your rights to protest legally. So yea, their contract is invalid in PA. I believe it's also illegal federally in America. AT+T tried it when they changed their name to Cingular and then changed a bunch of peoples prices. They claimed that we were bound my contract to whatever they wanted to do. We threatened to them. They said we can't do that, its in the contract. Local judge said he would happily take it on, citing that it's illegal in PA to have such terms. If i find sauce on this law, i'll post the link, but i'm at work, so don't hope.
Exclusions from Arbitration.
YOU AND THE SONY ENTITIES AGREE THAT ANY CLAIM FILED BY YOU OR BY A SONY ENTITY IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 15.
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS.
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
I apologize for the capitalization, but this is how it appears in the PDF.
Terms of Service Agreement
You have to be realistic:
The successful class action lawsuit demands a major investment in time, money and legal talent. It moves through the courts slowly. The return to any individual claimant is often quite trivial.
I've not bought any sony products since they removed the other OS option from the ps3, and I must say they've lost a bunch of money from me. Didn't look at any monitors, tvs, cd or anything else with the hated label.
apparently I'm not alone.
http://wololo.net/wagic/2011/04/24/64-of-users-ready-to-boycott-sony-products/
It's sad people are complaining about something like this. Obviously filing class action lawsuits is high on your priority list in life if you care so much about something that means so little to you. Get over it and care about more important things than complaining about something that barely affects you. So many other things to care about and enjoy than legal garbage all day long.
You cant agree to give up the right to sue or the right to a class action suit. EULAS have zero enforceability when they put silly crap like this in there.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He's a minor and therefore the contract is invalid
Track IP - Remotely track the IP address of a machine via email or MySQL.
So? That's how the world works; it's not some new-fangled corporate conspiracy. If you care about the right at all, $0.41 and a few minutes will be nothing to you. Hell, even to file a lawsuit, which is your legal right, you have to pay a filing fee and send all the appropriate papers to the appropriate places.
What Sony is primarily banking on, IMO, is that most of their users were not substantially harmed by the recent outage and data leak, or do not feel they were harmed, or both — and have no intention of suing, either individually or as members of a class, and no intention of seeking dispute resolution.
Sony is completely within their rights to include this provision in their TOS, and they have provided a very reasonable means to opt out for people who feel this is a serious issue.
—Legal.Troll (only allowed to post once per day on my account)
Just because Sony puts it in their ToS doesn't mean much, right? I was under the impression that, in the US anyway, any Federal and State laws that are contrary to what is in a ToS/EULA/Employee Handbook, take priority.
That's the whole point. NO ONE is up for filing 20,000 lawsuits. That's why the corporations are going this route, because they no that no one will be up to filing small lawsuits for claims that might barely get you back triple-digit amounts.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Time to sue them again, this time to force them to change the EULA, to something that actually increases the user's rights, increasing Sony's liability overall.
Giving up a chance at a $5 PSN voucher in some random class action suit.
IANAL, but isn't it illegal and/or non-binding to try to enforce a contract that waves a legal right? For example, I could not pay you $1 in return for you signing a contract that indicates you are my property. Slavery is illegal, so such a contract would not be enforceable.
While it is an established practice to create a contract that says someone will not pursue further litigation in return for a settlement, it sounds somewhat shifty to try to proactively prevent someone from engaging in litigation.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I'd never read the ToS in the first place. They cant make them short enough for me to care. I could go lap the real Nurburgring with less legal concern than lapping the one in my PS3.
That's *IF* EULAs are even considered legal in the first place.
They are null and void... The parent didn't accept the EULA, therefore there was no contract.
This attempt to change the rules after you've purchased the hardware should be slammed down in the hardest possible fashion. Sony should have to refund in full the purchase price of the PS3 and all games and accessories that you purchased for it if you don't wish to accept the new terms.
This post also incorporates all of the above suggested punishments and outrages against Sony times 2.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Contracts requiring arbitration is nothing new, apparently. You may want to write your Congressman to get that act repealed if you feel strongly enough about the issue.
Personally, I question the notion that clicking an Agree button is legally binding in the first place. There's no signature and no witness. There's something wrong when I have to go through more paperwork in using my credit card in a store than to agree to sign away basic legal rights.
Here's your new slogan, Sony: make.believe.we.care
It would be totally awesome if you guys hack Sony's servers again, and perhaps asked them to stop being dickheads by posting it on their homepage.
Definition of Terms of Service ---- An agreement to which both parties agree on to provide service from one party to another.
Sony is not taking away anyone's right to sue. No company can do that. Sony is protecting their right to not to provide you with Service if you choose to sue them. It's a terms of service agreement. It's not a contract that takes away your rights to sue.
Look at it this way, you have a bike. Your friend asks if he can use it. You let him and when he returns he complains about a problem with loose handlebars that makes it accident prone. Later he files a former lawsuit for hmmm.... say negligence. Days pass by and the lawsuit is still just getting started. Suddenly you hear a knock on your door and he is asking you if he can use your bike again. Would you let him use it? Remember... He's suing you over the bike... Would you really let him use it?
Sony is only saying that if you sue us, we just might not let you use our bike. It's within their legal rights. After the lawsuit is sorted out, chances are service can and will be re-established. Especially since Sony wants your money.
Too many people in here are blowing this way out of proportion. And NO, I don't work for Sony! I just recognize that this story is simply meant to enrage people. It's obviously succeeded.
This is, very likely, illegal in my country ( Portugal ).
Yet another reason I refuse to own ANY sony product.
It's the one that promotes arbitration over lawsuits, it's the one that preempts state laws on the issue.
This interpretation isn't really new either, since it was held to preempt in Southland Corp. v. Keating. That was a 7-2 decision.
That was in 1984. The law needs to be changed.
Courts can, have, and will find such a clause legally binding. Ever since April 27th.
Post right out of your ass much?
13!
How does this work if someone buys one of these devices for their kid? I thought ALL contracts with children are void and must be signed via the legal guardian.
If the parent never touches/sees/uses the devices in question, how could they be bound to the EULA?
The only people who get anything out of most class-actions are the lawyers anyhow.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why doesn't Sony let someone else provide an online experience for their gamers? They obviously can't handle the responsibility. Better yet make it open source. Of course hackers will make cheats but other hackers will come up with ways to neutralize such attempts.
If you read clause 15, you have the right, without penalty, to withdraw from the binding arbitration caluse by notifying Sony in writing within 30 days. This is non-news.
I haven't read the new TOS yet, but the comment above you quotes it as "binding arbitration and class action waiver", which means that no, you don't have your individual suit. You go to arbitration, which typically means that Sony gets to choose an arbitrator to hear your arguments and decide in their favor. Companies don't tend to keep employing arbitrators who decide in favor of the consumer too often.
because this is merely a an option to waive your participation in a class-action. If this were, as many readers probably fear, a disclaimer of your right to be part of action, it would almost certainly be unconscionable and therefore void under modern contract law.
In order for a contract term to be unconscionable, it must be so both PROCEDURALLY and SUBSTANTIVELY. Burying a waiver over such a critical right under "clickwrap" terms of service, which will already be consider a contract of adherence (imbalance in bargaining power), is probably unconscionable in the procedure that Sony would allow you to agree to it. That the term would require you to relinquish your right to bring a suit altogether is perhaps so substantively unconscionable that it would fall into a narrow category of cases where courts find a contract unconscionable for substantive unconscionability alone.
IANAL, but I am a law student. Any lawyer working for Sony knows enough from Contract I to NEVER put the greenlight on a term waiving your class-action liabilitiy in that sort of manner unless they were asking for a suit in order to test the rules.
I've said this before. Companies should not have the legal ability to create ToS like for this general use. Only for one-to-one ToS.
doesn't negate your argument, but I find the amount amusing..
http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html
you apparently haven't mailed something since May 12, 2008
starts at 44 now.....;
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
What if something in the future happens where I think arbitration would be a good idea, but I can't because I already said I don't want arbitration?
I know, Sony will probably gladly agree to forget that letter, but still it would be nice to retain the option for sure.
given that any lawyer worth his bar tabs will even try to give any kind of advise outside of the state(s) he practices in. And to do a decent job he would have to have tabs in all fifty-one* states and burn billable hours (most likely also involving a clerk and a paralegal).
*51 includes DC/federal
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I'm tired of all this crap from Sony. I'm selling my PS3 and I'm going to go buy an xbox from...Oh, godammit! I can't win.
I don't know what those people who created the ToS were thinking, I think even in the US it cannot be a binding section, as it is your right to sue them. At least in the Netherlands it's a section that goes against our laws and therefore you can ignore it.. Pff.. otherwise every company would add such a section to their ToS..
Certainly in all the most populous areas of Canada this is not allowed: BC, Ontario, QB. Sony don't have the choice here, the Supreme court has already ruled in a similar case.
"Canada's highest court ruled Friday that British Columbia consumers can pursue class action lawsuits even after signing contracts that appear to waive that right.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that B.C.'s consumer protection law allows customers to get past clauses in service contracts that say disputes must be resolved by private arbitration." ht tp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/03/18/bc-supreme-ruling-telus-class-action.html
Good luck trying this here Sony, the courts would just kick it out.
It won't hold up in many courts. Several states don't even allow a terms of service or license agreement to prevent a lawsuit or class action. Good luck wit dat Sony.
Sony's reaction to the loss of customer information has been less than splendid. I will simply never log into my account again.
It's a contract that says whatever the contract says.
If the Terms of Service say you can't wear plaid pants on labor day without paying the PlaidPants fee of $10,000, you agreed to it. It's then up to the courts to decide if it's valid, but Just because it's titled Terms of Service doesn't limit it to the Terms of Service.
They don't know what happened to the data that they lost. They don't know how that will be used to harm other people. They are trying to protect themselves from a very big lawsuit.
That's like saying you can't release your financial information under freedom of information because it will cause undue financial harm, as if you did it would become known that you are breaking a contract to rip someone off.
Enforce my legal rights because I am currently doing something illegal!
Section 1.
Sony will not install spyware on any of my systems. Ever. No rootkits, either.
Section 2.
Sony will not store private data that relates to me insecurely, nor will Sony delay disclosure of any security events that affect private data.
Section 3.
Sony will not seek to restrain me from using due process in the event that Sony breaches any other terms of this agreement.
Section 4.
In the event that Sony fails to honor one or more...ah, who am I kidding? (Goes and buys a Samsung TV instead)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
What about T&C on a URL printed on the outside of the box? One can key that URL into an Internet kiosk in the store. Does such a kiosk count as "signage in the store"?
I think what everyone is missing is that PSN is a PRIVILEGE. The only entity that can violate your "rights" is the U.S. government. If you don't like their ToS don't use PSN. It's a privilege so they can't violate your rights if they aren't forcing you to use it.
SONY? LOL!
Class action suits over consumer products are a lawyer scam. It doesn't much matter whether the alleged product flaw is real or not. The lawyer makes a lot of noise in the media and sues for a ridiculous amount of money, then offers to settle for less than it would cost the company to defend itself in court. The company settles--after all, defending itself in court would just generate more news reports and extend the bad publicity for months, and even if they won, would end up cost them more money than the settlement. All the "members of the class" get a piddly settlement, like a gift certificate for more of the company's products, that is barely even decent compensation for the time it took them to fill out the paperwork. But the lawyer gets a slice of all of those piddly settlements which add up to a nice chunk of change--all for no work other than giving a few press conferences and sending a few letters.
this! Why who would buy from a company with such rules?
Oh, haha, that's right, basically all of their old customers. Apathy will win in the end. I guess this is just one further thing we can expect from our cans of soup EULAs 10 years from now.
Well that change in the TOS is unenforceable in New Zealand... they can claim what they want...
Hope others have robust consumer protection laws
..cause the one you gave is no good, that's not English...
You'll get more money (and they'll lose more) in small claims court.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Since when can a business create a contract that overrides the law of the land? Oh, that is right, THEY CANNOT!!!!
Sony can put whatever they like into the contract, but it cannot remove rights already afforded by law.
Is that Lulzsec, or maybe Anonymous? Will they find some way to make thing funny for Sony? Are they busy with other plans? Or perhaps they are keeping their heads down from the big bad government?
The sad thing is, a Google of this info only reveals various video game sites, and not many of them. It's sad this hasn't made it into more mainstream media.
These people have got the knack for being hated by their users . Whether professional video or consumer electronics they have became the most hated , and for cause , company. .Sony ? What did you expect ?
Ok, call me a whiner but...
I just want to watch Netflix on PS3... and the PS3 prevents me from now from using it as a conduit to Netflix's servers until I accept the new license. I'm guessing that once once the PS3 network gives the wink-wink-nudge-nudge to Netflix, they're out of the network equation, so it's pretty pointless but...
Seriously not happy, Sony.
Add me to the list of never purchasing a Sony product again.
Sony IT: We could try to fix the problem...
Sony Lawyer: Or we could tell the bunch of sheep to give up their rights... that would be easier, and cheaper...
There's DO, and there's F***ing up Royally... and Sony, you're F***ing up Royally!
My lawyer scoffs at this sort of thing, and has advised me more than once to agree away. The way he explains it, you cannot make a contract for something illegal. You can sign a contract granting them your immortal soul, but that doesn't make it so.
Your right to class action is a legal (i.e. guaranteed by The Law) right, whereas they're talking about a legal (i.e. doesn't break The Law) binding contract. Just because the contract states your waiver of rights... doesn't make it so.
I've been a PSN user for several years, on account of owning a PSP. I was using Sony's MediaGo software and created the account to buy some DLC.
When they changed their TOS on April 1st, I declined them. My understanding from reading online was that Sony was supposed to refund whatever remaining money in the account and close it. As far as I can tell this never happened.
After those couple weeks later when they were hacked (multiple times), I received an email that my information had been among the millions of others jeopardized by Sony's lack of security. I emailed them back that I wanted nothing to do with them and to purge my information and close the account.
I played email tag for awhile as they refused to do it. I also called them a couple times (hold times were understandably long, so this required setting aside an hour minimum), and got the usual run around and contradicting excuses depending upon who I spoke to. I tried to elevate it to supervisors and they also refused. I cannot make any changes to the account, as I will not accept any iteration of their TOS. I have informed them of this numerous times. Sony's best offer was to ban the account--as if accessing my own information was ever the problem.
I've been waiting around for any news on the state of the class actions, and to see whether I can join. I have not forgotten this, but I don't know how to proceed. Is waiting on the outcome of a class action my only recourse here, or can I pursue this on my own?
Also note that I did not accept their token offer of free, valueless digital downloads, nor the credit service membership that they partnered with. I told them they can shove it. I would personally turn down a free copy of every game in existence if it meant that they would be held responsible and some new regulations would get passed to put Sony in their place. It's clear now they will do as little as possible for their users unless legally obligated, and are wont to treat our information like a commodity with no real reverence. I don't trust them having any of my information and regret that I ever offered it in the first place. I regret that there are no laws requiring that being able to remove our information should be as easy as submitting it.
I need suggestions on what to do, as I don't feel like letting them get away with this. It is amazing to me that they would come down on each of us for the slightest violation of their TOS, yet all this while they are holding my personal information despite being in breech of this same agreement.
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION
Just opt out people.
So, if the PS3 hardware is my property, but the PS3 software and firmware is only licenses, can't I write my own TOS that said licensed software must abide to and enforce it on Sony, since I'm licensing it the usage of my electricity, Local Network, Devices, Internet Access, and physical storage space in my home ?
Why is it still legal to change a contract after the initial purchase? I can see that I have to agree to a contract when I initially buy something, after all, a purchase is a binding contract between two parties, but how is it legal that one party may alter this contract at will and leisure after the fact? How is it legal for Sony to remove the other-OS ability without me having any say in it? How is it possible to alter the TOS unilaterally without me having a say in it? Oh, sure, I could not agree and be removed from the PSN. Can I return my PS3 (for a full refund) because of the change it is no longer useful to me due to the changes and if this contract had been the original one I would not have agreed to it and hence would not have bought it?
What if Sony bricks the PS3 with an update, is that at least grounds for a return? Or is that just "tough luck, better luck next time", too?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you buy the PS3, you get one month of PSN access. Each additional month requires agreeing to the amended TOS.
So we just need to make sure that everyone sends in the postcard saying "screw you Sony - I'll sue you if I want" (and I'll be amazed if someone doesn't have a form letter for this purpose done by the end of the day).
Of course, this makes it a slightly douchier move on Sony's part, since this will be the cover they'll use to make the waiver legal.
So they are basicallly trying to force us to sign the claus because if we dont, then we cant access psn anymore...
quote, "I, for one, will not be agreeing to any such thing."
Think about it. Class Action is where the lawyers make millions and you get $30 back.
Except in the most extreme cases Class Actions are often abusive to Justice.
I tried doing this according to the instructions in the email provided, and they do not work. The application returns the response "Please Select a Product" ...even when one is selected.
I ended up choosing corporate as the product. Fortunately they sent a response email to provide some evidence that I attempted to decline it.
Let's hope that all my PSN funds are returned...