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."

Comments

Biting off more than they can chew I fear

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear

[swillden]

At some point, someone will challenge the legality of this practice of blocking legal recourse.

It has been challenged, many times. Congress even weighed in with the Federal Arbitration Act -- passed in 1925, don't think this is a new thing by any means -- and specifically stated that arbitration clauses are legal and enforceable. Courts have found that there are some cases in which they aren't, for example if the arbitrator can be shown to be biased. But even there, the Supreme Court found in 1967 that you basically have to try arbitration first before you can appeal to the court system.

Binding arbitration clauses in contracts are settled law and new challenges aren't likely to change that. In fact, they're not likely to survive summary judgment. I'm less sure about binding arbitration for class action suits; I think it could be argued that class action provides a form of remedy which isn't available through arbitration and therefore cannot be replaced by it.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear

[snowgirl]

I was going to make this comment. Thanks.

Although, recently there was a review and ruling about mandatory arbitration clauses when in dispute even in construction. Apparently, even if you disagree about the construction of the contract, a mandatory arbitration clause requires you to settle the matter in arbitration, even if the specific clause you're objecting to the construction of is the arbitration clause.

Basically, mandatory arbitration clauses are pretty good and well air-tight.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[Aladrin]

The whole credit card incident with Sony has already slipped your memory? Fraud of many sorts. Destruction of your personal property, both physical and electronic.

There are plenty of reasons.

If there weren't, why would they bother with this?

Re:The EULA said that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote from the EULA:

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.

Hence Europeans can feel safe.

Re:Horsecrap indeed

[Hatta]

Sure they can. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld clauses forcing you into binding arbitration. Such clauses would be tossed out as unconscionable in almost any other country in the world, but in the US unconscionable is business as usual.

Re:The EULA said that?

[Teun]

A nice discrimination according to place of residence :)

You either need balls or conceive a lack of responsibility to higher powers to put this kind of stuff in writing.

Oh I forgot, you especially need to have total disregard for (the rights of) your customers.

Re:Oh no!

[houstonbofh]

The prohibition against class actions has already been tested in court. It worked. For cases of small damages, that is the only way to make it feasible. Now they can screw 10,000 people for $50 each with relative impunity.

Re:Horsecrap indeed

[houstonbofh]

Also, the clause prohibiting class actions has been tested as well. That scares me more, as it makes small fraud (under $500) essentially a free ride. Can't hire a lawyer for that.

A sincere thanks to Sony and EA

[wwphx]

Holiday Shopping List:
--No Sony
--No EA

Stupid Corporations: Simplifying holiday shopping since 2011.

Re:A sincere thanks to Sony and EA

[wwphx]

My likelihood of buying a Sony product is pretty much zero. I sold their electronics for a few years and overall it was overrated crap. I have a vague interest in a couple of their MMO's, but I'm just not going to bother with them. I'll never own a Play Station because of structural difficulties of my right hand making console game controls painful to use. Using your food analogy, unless you buy 100% organic and never eat in restaurants, you're supporting Monsanto at some level, and they are pretty high up on the evil food pyramid along with ADM.

A certain amount of evil in your life is unavoidable if you live a modern lifestyle. Sony/EA aren't going to miss my dollars because they weren't going to get them in the first place, my post was meant as humor. And you're absolutely right, writing to my congresscritter would be much more effective, it's something that I really should do on a more regular basis. I actually got to insult one of my congresscritters to his face, that was a very fun day at work!

Re:My child clicked accept, not me.

[msauve]

Aw, heck. I just use a Post-It not on the screen to modify the terms to my liking. They seem to always accept my modified contract when I offer it to them. ("Software vendor indicates acceptance of these modified terms by continuing the installation process after the user has pressed 'I accept.'")

I figure if unnegotiable, one-sided contracts are legally binding, then I should be the one to write them.

Re:Oh no!

[MightyYar]

While I'd like to see the class action laws amended, this doesn't mean there is no recourse. A little organization and a mass of suits in small claims court would prove quite expensive for them. Hmmmm, I just got a web site idea :)

As an aside, I think that class action suits are fundamentally flawed in their current form. The settlements are generally a joke for the class, with the lawyers picking up most of the benefit. Frankly, the companies benefit from it more than they are hurt by it in it's current form.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[Torinir]

I think it has something to do with the debacle over Origin's data mining clause recently, and with it being on the heels of the Sony security breaches, bank on EA trying to cover their assets as much as possible.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[BlindMan101]

Everyone is speaking of the Sony server hacks but the first thing that came to my mind was when Sony installed a rootkit on your PC with their music CD's a few years back. I can see EA doing all sorts of things along these lines or at least trying to.

Re:Horsecrap indeed

[Hatta]

the supreme court said you can sue if you have suffered serious damages even if the contract said arbitration

So now corporations across the country can steal small sums from millions of people, and none of them can sue because they individually haven't suffered serious damages, and can no longer pool their resources as a class.

What it boils down to is that the Superman III/Office Space scam is de facto legal now. If you're a major corporation, that is.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[Black Parrot]

In the UK you could easily spend £50 on one night out, whereas a game costing the same would provide several days' pleasure at least without the hangover or any other hassles.

If your hangover doesn't last several days, it wasn't much of a night out.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/

Bad summary - just arbitration

[Theaetetus]

This is really just binding arbitration. And the clauses in it are actually pretty reasonable: the arbitration is under AAA rules (so EA doesn't get to pick an arbitrator), the arbitration is held at "any place convenient for you" (which is HUGE - they don't require you to fly cross-country), and if the arbitrator decides in your favor and the award is more than EA's last settlement offer, they'll pay 150% of the settlement plus your attorney's fees. Honestly, as far as arbitration clauses go, this is one of the most consumer-friendly.

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.

Binding arbitration == The Corporate Holy Grail

[oDDmON oUT]

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.

Re:Binding arbitration == The Corporate Holy Grail

[izomiac]

The point of the documentary seems to be that propaganda from large corporations has made people think these are much larger problems then they actually are. People on both sides abuse the system. In the case of the coffee, the woman nearly died (Baux score of 95, with 140 being "comfort care only") with third degree burns to 6% of her body (16% burned total), and medical bills of $10,500 for her 8 day hospitalization, and over two years of treatment including skin graphs. Here is a picture of her burns, if you're still doubtful.

Lets test if this EULA en masse

[ukemike]

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.

Re:Lets test if this EULA en masse

[Travelsonic]

You seem to be under the mistaken guise that the so called "right to refuse" is actually absolute.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer?

[Goldberg's Pants]

I can see one very good reason. The store is like Steam. Say they suffer a massive security breach like PSN did. I think that's grounds to sue.

There's also the speculation of other parts of their EULA, regarding you losing your games if you don't log in for a set amount of time. (Two years I think it is.)

Not to mention if they sell you a game knowing it's defective or broken in some fashion. (Like the recent From Dust debacle with Ubisoft.)

The fact is it should NOT be legal to have this in the EULA IMO. I would guarantee it wouldn't stand up in court. The only problem with that is you'd need a lot of money to do it.

I also love the way the EFF never say a bloody word about stuff like this. Finding the EFF increasingly pointless.