Slashdot Mirror
EA's New User Agreement Bans Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes with this snippet: "Electronic Arts has updated its Terms of Service Agreement for the Origin platform. Following Sony's steps, and taking it even further, EA has added a new clause that prevents users from suing them in both class action and jury trial forms."
Outside of the game causing your console to overheat and burn down your house, why would anyone sue a game manufacturer? Outside of the Atari 7800 Impossible Mission fiasco, I've never even been all that upset with a game.
Am I missing something? I probably am, since I also miss why adults sink so much money into games. Don't you people have children? Don't you drink?
sig not found
Oh, no! I've sued them! Now they are no longer obligated to adhere to the contract!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Nobody can 'prevent you from suing them'. Especially through EULAs.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
At some point, someone will challenge the legality of this practice of blocking legal recourse. The fact of the matter is, the legal system is government and is in place to help guarantee peaceful resolution of disputes between parties.
When companies seek to remove these avenues from the people, there will come a point at which injured parties will seek other remedies.
So one of two things will happen: 1. The lawsuit dam will break once the practice is successfully challenged and they will be flooded beyond their capacity to handle it. 2. Parties will trash the business using other means not the least of which will include vandalism, destruction of property and releasing private information of the company and its leadership.
The courts system is there for THEIR benefit as well as that of their customers.
Call me when this holds in any court of law in the EU (except England - they always do weird stuff there).
It seems that local, state, and federal law supersedes a mere EA user agreement. I mean, you can't make a legal contract that says you don't have legal rights.
You hereby agree to wave all your bases to us
Borg
As far as I'm aware (in the UK at least), it must be proven that I have agreed to the contract.*
* IANAL etc
This is hilarious. Thank god it is considered illegal in writing to force a person to accept a contract denying them to sue in case of conflict or other situation where legal actions are necessary . Now we can sue them for illegal EULA's.....
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
The EULA clauses are unlikely to stand the test of a court case. People's statutory rights cannot be overwritten no matter how inconvenient it is for the manufacturer/supplier of a product.
This will soon be the norm in every industry. The supreme court has basically given corporations a get out of jail free card and you are a fool (or a libertarian, same thing really) if you think they aren't going to use it to get away with criminal acts.
It should be illegal to make people sign away their right for justice and a trial.
Halliburton raped a female worker in Iraq, locked her in a shipping crate under armed guard and when she tried to take them to court, haliburton informed her that as per her employment contractual agreements, she had signed away her right to do so.
She's been fighting for her right to take them to court, and finally has a court date.
FUCK EA. FUCK corporations.
Is a trial in which there is only judge, no jury.
Take this verbiage right here "...waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action..." yet they make no mention of small claims which is a single judge.
So you can snag them up to $2,500 in most states.
I've sold off my various consoles and games, and removed everything else from my PC except a few older games. I'm done with it. EULAs, online registrations, DRM - it's just gotten to be a chore and I don't find the newer games fun to play anymore. The gaming industry lost its soul somewhere.
This is the sort of thing I think of when people in magasine interviews say they want to move to Holywood
They probably see that demand for labor matching their skills is concentrated in one place in the world. As CronoCloud put it: "if you want to be a star on Broadway, you're going to have to go to New York City."
So are "Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union" taking refugees from the broken legal systems of United States and anglophone Canada?
So THERE!!!
Oh well, it could bring down the concept of the one-sided "click to accept" EULA once and for all.
Nahhhh - who am I kidding?
I wonder if anybody else will be boycotting games published by Electric Arts, even though the majority will not. It is a shame that most of the people here will play one of EA's new games anyway with the thought that "Oh, the courts will never allow it", forgetting that our courts are now stacked with pro-corporate goons who have jobs guaranteed in various industries if they ever lose their position.
Principles don't matter to consumers anymore.
Holiday Shopping List:
--No Sony
--No EA
Stupid Corporations: Simplifying holiday shopping since 2011.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Does it ban Lawpjamas?
rewriting history since 2109
IANAL, of course, but I don't see this standing up in court. You cannot sign away basic human rights, and recourse to the courts would, I think, be ruled (especially by lawyers) as such a right. Especially if it were entered into by the usual semi-formal means of opening the packaging or clicking "I agree" rather than the more formal signing and dating of a document,. It might have some impact in assigning costs if you bypasses their conflict resolution process, and it were later shown that the process could have solved your problem. Assign from that, I see it as meaningless other than as a generator of FUD.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
No business can ask a person to surrender assigned rights and responsibilities. It has been tried with a scam called Work Choices in Australia and failed.
I doubt this EULA is legal at all. Today, merchants tend to impose their own laws, above the constitutional rights. If that's not enough they are actively lobbying
the governments to pass laws in their sole favor.
So, there is a very simple answer: do not buy or use
By entering into this Agreement, you and EA expressly waive the right to a trial by jury ... It covers any and all disputes between us ("Disputes"), including without limitation ... claims arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between us, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory.
I'm pretty certain this is a ridiculously unenforceable and unfair contract term, at least in the UK. They are saying that after signing up for their game service, EA can misrepresent, hurt or outright scam you ... and you agree that you won't sue them, no matter what they've done.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
RTFA! It does not apply in the EU and several other countries, because there you have proper laws protecting customers from BS like this.
This provision applies to all consumers to the fullest extent allowable by law, but expressly excludes residents of Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union.
Read more: http://www.ngohq.com/news/20584-eas-new-user-agreement-bans-lawsuits.html#ixzz1YsQpy5t2
OK so i buy a new car, but the manufacturer has a clause in the paperwork which prevents me from suing. It catches fire and burns my family to death due to design defect.
You think that will stand up in court?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
so now people at EA can do sex harassment and now be able go to court over it?
then they should offer the service for free. If they are charging money then they should not be able to add crap like this.
This clause is unenforcable. You cannot enter into any agreement in which you give up your constitutional rights. If Sony harms you, you have a constitutional right to bring it before a court for judgement.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
EA (et al) wants your money, but can't be bothered to safeguard the means by which you give it to them. The are making it quite clear that they would rather spend a few bucks on lawyers, having them draft legalese that compels you to accept that bargain if you want to do business with them.
Given that we're talking about games, the proper course of action should be obvious.
... and don't forget to write them a *letter* to let them know they missed out :-)
Now you have to convince me to buy your shit at all.
It's a scare tactic. Don't bother trying to join that class action, it won't work, see, it's in the EULA.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We outnumber them, and they need our money. We absolutely could make them stop this behavior without even bothering to take legal action against them.
But we don't. Most of us just don't care. The few that do care whine a little bit and buy their crap anyway.
So long as we put up with this, they will continue to do it, and we will have no one to blame but each other.
My ban on EA products will last until Dec, when SWTOR comes out and then fuckit, i need me some starwars MMO
At some point, someone will challenge the legality of this practice of blocking legal recourse.
The Federal Arbitration Act dates back to 1925.
A number of Supreme Court cases have dealt with the preemption of state laws by the Federal Arbitration Act:
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) - Established the applicability of the FAA to contracts under state law of California)
Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987)
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc.. v. Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989)
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995)
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995)
Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996)
Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) - Arbitrators must first hear challenge to legality of contract
Preston v. Ferrer, 128 S.Ct. 978 (2008) - Act requires arbitration first even when state law provides for administrative dispute resolution
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) - Despite California state law and lower court rulings that contracts barring class actions are unconscionable, the Court ruled 5-4 that consumers are bound by that aspect of arbitration clauses
While the geek rages on... arbritration moves quickly.
You will not be in and out of court fot years with all the expenses and stress that implies. The award will arrive in the form of a check, not a discount coupon, a symbolic victory only.
Federal Arbritration Act
You can continue to sue EA --- and EA can continue to sue you --- in small claims court.
The definition of "small" varies by state and locality --- claims ranging from up to five thousand to $25,000 can be heard here.
I has been a long time since I took business law in college but one thing I remember is that you cannot contract away your right to sue. But having such a clause in the contract may discourage someone from trying to sue.
I noticed the clause allows a small claims suit (The price of the game?) It also allows suits over intellectual property and piracy. It seems that they are trying to prevent lawsuits that would hurt them while keeping the right to sue when it benefits them.
My guess is that if someone attempted to sue them the court would throw out those clauses.
A real man would grab his AK47, load up his car with explosives and head down to their corporate headquarters. It's at 209 Redwood Shores Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065. USA.
But if you really think it's so onerous, then you can simply not agree to the EULA. It's not like you'll die if you don't play the latest Madden release.
I don't understand why no group of (American) consumers has ever organized to buy a lot of product (ie: one each); then return said product because of the ridiculous EULA. After all you can only see it when you open the box. It should be printed all over, or readily available next to the boxes. Of course there is the risk that people would start to know what they are (blindly) agreeing to. (I expect some can actually read)
Can a shop reject the return of the game because of the EULA how would they justify it ?
I expect it's less of an issue with digital shops since a simple click could lead to an EULA that "nobody" would read.
Nowadays I feel EULAs are looking more and more like "you agree to give us money and we agree to take your money. The service, product, support, ... may or may not work, exist and/or publish some private details of your live. It's not our problem, nor our fault.".
I wonder if such EULAs have any weight in Europe.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
This has been a corporate stealth agenda in the US since the late 1980s.
Don't believe me?
What's your immediate reaction to the following phrases:
McDonalds coffee lawsuit
Jackpot justice
Frivolous lawsuit
Tort reform
No need to reply, just hold the thought.
Now go to http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/ and watch the trailer (if you have HBO watch the full film there, or rent the DVD after November).
Now consider the sheer number of companies that have, or changed, EULAs, warranties, or other consumer contracts to preclude anything other than "binding arbitration".
Guess who pays for the "arbitrators"?
The company whose product or service you, the consumer, have had a problem with.
Since said arbitrators are paid for the company, how many adverse rulings do you think you're going to see against the company?
EA is just following suit of AT&T, Verizon, FINRA, auto dealers, and many others looking to minimize their "attack threshold", which is a good thing, right?
PS: For extra credit research and discuss ALEC, and enjoy your weekend.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Let's call it a "Vendor Payment Agreement". It starts with "By accepting payment you agree to...", then follow with negating EULA's presented after purchase, and other objectionable clauses. Then we just need to link this agreement to our credit cards/other payment methods, which is a a business opportunity for someone. Call it the "consumer protection card".
No matter what these folks would have you believe, you can't agree away your rights. That's one of the fundamental laws...
I doubt it would stand up in today's legal quagmire but from my point of view if the company acts so badly that they need a term preventing lawsuits then the contract agreement they are forcing on you is not being entered into in an honest capacity. Therefore they have entered a contract fraudulently and the contract itself is null and void.
Yes I know I'm dreaming here because the US court system, among others, seems to have the rule of "deepest pockets win".
On top of that we also have the "we are able to change this agreement at any time" clause which allows them to bend you over a barrel at any time.
What a sad sad place this country has become.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
So, naturally, EA is going to refund me for all their products I have since I am not agreeing and as such, like SONY, all network functionality is now not going to work. Like SONY, I paid money based on one model, and they have now changed all of that. When will the fkn retards of this world wise up and stop agreeing to this kind of strong arm tactics? Is the dam game that important to their life?
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Don't play EA games. If you don't want to abide by their terms, you're welcome to just ignore all EA games.
Note: this doesn't mean pirating/stealing them. Don't play them AT ALL. If they see 1M people playing their games but only had 300K sales, they'll blame it on cheap people turning to piracy rather than other potential issues.
So long Madden! It was nice knowing you.
But they have been, or did you forget the US Supreme Court verdict that allowed companies to prevent you from arbitrating them with class action lawsuits?
This is merely an extension of that.
Sure you can agree to anything via a blind EULA, but that doesn't mean its enforceable if what they are demanding isn't legal in the first place. And i would assume preemptively giving up the right to sue would qualify.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Binding arbitration says you agree to first go through the process of arbitration, and IF you reach a settlement in arbitration, then it's binding. Binding arbitration clauses do NOT prohibit you from proceeding to a lawsuit if the arbitration is unsuccessful.
IANAL, but I seriously doubt this clause will survive a challenge.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Everyone go to the local retailer and buy an EA game. Open it (don't be gentle with the packaging) begin to install it. When the EULA comes up stop the process return the store and tell them that the EULA is unacceptable and you want your money back. If they don't take it back the the EULA is not a valid contract, if they have to take back hundreds or thousands of partly used games then it'll cost them a fortune.
-- QED
I guess I'll have to sue them now, before I agree to their TOS. Too bad you can't sue someone for sucking, that'd be an open-and-shut case right there. Maybe I'll just continue my trend of not buying any of their games, though I have to admit the new Star Wars MMO is pretty tempting. I don't know that it's tempting enough to waive my right to sue them. They haven't done anything I'd want to sue them for (except sucking) up until now, but them putting that in there makes me think they're planning something.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I haven't bought an EA product since they dissolved Origin. FU EA.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
You're OUT!!
I wonder if this ea even pays corporate taxes in the US..
Did the contract terms say that customers can't storm the offices en masse and toss the executives into a running chipper/shredder? As long as they are making law they might want to include that one as well. Video games make people crazy.
Where are the warnings on the boxes of their crap that indicate the purchaser will need a lawyer to weed through the lawyerspeak and legal doublespeak? Where there is no meeting of the minds, there can be no binding contract. All corporations beware. We the people.. are not so stupid as to know when we are getting hornswoggled. It is quite easy to initiate boycotts online these days Schmucks.
Does this apply equally to EA as well? From what I have seen of the EULA, both parties agree not to bring any legal action. So, If someone illegally downloads a product covered by this EULA and then agrees to said EULA, are they then free of further legal action by EA? Seems like it to me, but I am not a lawyer...
I wonder, if acting as an agent of these guys by pushing their wares, you could slip in a note and add your own personal payment EULA. Like.. By accepting this payment.. (fill in the blanks). Then when pizza face boy at game stop takes your money and note (keep a copy) you lock them down the same way.. yeah yeah yeah.. prolly not.. but it would be an interesting ride I guess..
Under Australian law it is illegal to infer in any contract or license agreement that said agreement overrides "legislative law" , To do so allows said company to be fines up to $10,000 "per offence". Consumer law is very well defined in Australia and extremely complex, when I was working in the high court I was surprised by how many companies had their contracts/licenses thrown out and then have to face a huge volley of fines.
IANAL but this will also not apply in New Zealand... you cant contract out of your legal duties/rights under the NZ Consumer Guarantee's Act
I don't know about the US, but at least in parts of the EU, such a clause is automatically invalid.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It looks like all companies are copying this idea to avoid lawsuits. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
So EA can always offer to settle for $1 and when they loose the max that they have to pay is %150 of $1 or $1.50 plus fees?
Also, how exactly do you refuse the EULA after you purchase a game? I mean it's an open box and I don't think anybody will give your money back at that point. Do they offer to rebate the purchase price if you mail it back to them?
Contract law is all about what rights can't be signed away, so whether or not you can sue anyway probably depends on where you live. I guarantee you this isn't enforceable in California.
The law in Russia clearly states that any statement in ANY agreement that goes aginst the law is void.
Contracts requiring arbitration rather than law suit are legal and enforceable but putting the language in an EULA adds another dimension to the legality: I cannot be held accountable to the terms of a contract I wasn't aware of and didn't agree to.
So now here's the scenario: I buy an EA game, throw it onto my computer or console and, unlike 99.9% of users, actually read the terms of the EULA. I refuse to agree to the terms so I take the game back to the store...which refuses to refund my money. My next recourse is to attempt getting a refund directly from EA. Failing that I obviously - we obviously - have grounds for a lawsuit.
... You merely loose your licence to use the product after that, that's all.
And why sue a video game manufacturer anyway? It will probably be something like "I paid but it doesn't actually work/crashes/is not like advertising claims". So you are not going to use it anyway - suing will work fine here.