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
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.
He doesn't have to cancel it. The terms say you can write to Sony that you don't accept that part, and it's ok.
Of course, here in Europe our laws are saner and this kind of behavior is forbidden by laws. You can't sign off your lawful rights.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
Actually, I am wrong, I missed that it does say the class action waiver as well
That's agreeing not to sue. Agreeing to do something other than suing is agreeing not to sue. Words mean what they mean, and sticking some weasel words on to the end of the words that already mean something doesn't negate those meanings. It just means you, Mr. Sony Representative or whoever the hell you are, don't like what the words mean. So you're trying to re-define them.
How did basic comprehension of words and sentences become so degraded?
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I simply won't be buying anything again from PSN.
I very much doubt that that is legal. And, if it is, Sony will have to either turn up at the small claims court to contest their jurisdiction, or appeal later.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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 would be 1000x easier for the customer if there were a web-based way to do this.
They must have learned this trick from the banks: On one hand they will charge you a fee for getting paper statements instead of electronic delivery, but then they send a privacy policy and require you to mail in a form if you don't want them to share your information with marketers.
well, you don't actually HAVE to do that, because a clause like this is illegal in the first place. you can't waive your legal rights. this will never hold up in court.
The Supreme Court of the United States on April 27th, 2011, said it was legal in a 5-4 decision.
It became legal rather recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
You did a great job at talking about everything NOT relevant in the episode, beside the relevant part (and the central one). Namely, putting weird clauses in EULA that people do not read but remove some of their basic rights.
EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
Considering how "secure" sony's network was, I'd liken it to a collander....in which case "leaked" is an accurate portrayal. :-P
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.
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.
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.