Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.

sl4shd0rk writes "Microsoft has adopted a brand new licensing scheme for Windows 8 which effectively removes your right to file a class-action lawsuit against them should you feel the need. '...Many of our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims court or arbitration, but not as part of a class action lawsuit.' Class-action lawsuits are intended to help individuals stand up to corporate law-breaking but this new EULA model simply nullifies that course of action for the consumer."

Comments

not sure

[yagu]

Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

Re:not sure

[h4rr4r]

There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Now all 3 of our branches of government have officially sold out. We might as well replace all civil courts with a comparison of the defendants and plaintiffs net worths. Would not change the outcome much and save us a lot of tax money.

Re:not sure

[cpu6502]

>>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Which one?
I find it hard to believe. During the Paypal case, the U.S. judge crossed-out most of the EULA saying customers can not sign-away legally protected rights..... such as the right to sue a company for stealing money (that's what Paypal was guilty of).

Re:not sure

[gstoddart]

>>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Which one?

Hopefully you can get through the paywall ... here. Failing that, google for "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion".

SCOTUS ruled on this last year.

Re:not sure

[dkleinsc]

As opposed to the infinite "Legal Wisdom" of mbone, I'll take Scalia any day of the week.

We're talking about the same guy who has extensive ex parte communications with Dick Cheney and then goes on to rule on a case involving Dick Cheney (rather than recusing himself, as any non-corrupt jurist would do), right? He's not the only one, of course: Clarence Thomas has issued rulings on cases where his wife had a financial stake in one of the parties.

Regarding this kind of clause, the legal concept in question is an argument of unconscionability, where somebody claims that the contract terms are so unfair that they should not be enforced. Courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled both ways on whether clauses that bar access to legal redress are unconscionable. It's been part of contract law for decades at least.