Valve Removes Right For Class Action Claims From EULA

trawg writes "Valve has joined the list of companies that have altered their terms and conditions to prevent users from filing a class action suit. Their official statement says that such claims 'impose unnecessary expense and delay' and are 'designed to benefit the class action lawyers.' In its stead, they've added a new arbitration process, in which Valve will reimburse costs (under certain circumstances) when dispute resolution can't be solved through their normal support process."

Comments

I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Nursie]

It just seems wrong that a product EULA can make you forfeit your rights like this.

But at the same time they are absolutely correct, class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

For Valve's defense, their reasoning for this is more than valid. Valve has always been a good company and continues to be so.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's not just an end-run around the courts. The courts said "Go ahead, run around us." Specifically, The Supreme Court decided companies may enforce binding arbitration in service agreement contract: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/us-supreme-court-okays-binding-arbitration-clauses-prohibiting-consumers-from-joining-class-actions.html

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Dyinobal]

I also agree with these statements. The thing that makes me shake my head is these arbitrators are the same thing banks use to royally screw customers here in the USA. They are never impartial and have only 1 goal, to save the company that hired them as much money as possible.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[gman003]

I, and many actual lawyers, don't think that they can. These clauses *probably* will not stand up in court, at least against a legitimate grievance. It may work, either directly or indirectly, to stop money-grab class actions, but it may not work if there's a real case.

I am told (IANAL, remember?) that it is already unenforceable in the EU, and that several states in the US are considering making it unenforceable as well.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[macshit]

It just seems wrong that a product EULA can make you forfeit your rights like this.

Can it? Such terms may not have any legal force. There are certain rights you cannot sign away (especially with something as dodgy as an EULA, rather than a real contract).

They're free to write whatever they want in hope of scaring people away from doing certain things, of course, but that does not make what they write true...

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Asmor]

Even if the lawyers are the only ones that walk away rich, the defendant is still going to feel the sting.

Lawsuits aren't about winning money (though that's often a motivating factor for the plaintiff); the threat of a potential lawsuit may be the only thing keeping a company in check. And when that company deals in transactions with tiny individual costs, where no rational person would file an individual lawsuit over it, a class action lawsuit is the only way to give the threat teeth.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a good company like that should put stuff in their EULA so that they totally own you. I mean really make you their bitch. Yup, they're a good company.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Nursie]

EU - certainly.

But I'm pretty sure that in the US there was a SCOTUS decision specifically allowing this. It's possible that that only applies to 'real' contracts though, and EULA's may or may not be real contracts (IMHO, IANAL) due to the lack of negotiation and the relative positions of the two parties.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Nursie]

I'm not sure about EULA's but it has been specifically allowed by the supreme court in contracts. Whether the former count as much as the latter is a matter of contention.

It was only the right to band together in a class-action, it doesn't affect your rights to sue as an individual, and some companies (Sony) give you the option to opt-out of this clause, if you write to them directly to do so.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

BS. Valve is just proving they're as evil as anyone else. Fast downloads of games does not grant them a holy indulgence.

As far as arbitration goes, arbitration _always_ means that the rich side of a dispute wins. In normal suits the the rich side usually wins but there remains a chance to have actual justice. What matters in arbitration are the clauses that say what happens if either side disagrees with a ruling, and they usually say something like redo the arbitration with expenses split evenly, or the person disagreeing with the output pays for the new arbitration, etc.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[morcego]

For Valve's defense, their reasoning for this is more than valid. Valve has always been a good company and continues to be so.

The fact they are forcing arbitration pretty much destroys your argument.

Arbitration, as a choice, is a wonderful thing. Making it mandatory is spitting in the face of customers and their rights.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Guppy06]

class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms

Perhaps, but arbitration seldom really benefits anyone but the defendants.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the post in my RSS reader, they are also allowing small claims court, which is probably the appropriate venue for most disputes about video games. My account is pretty big (between one and two hundred games) but i still wouldn't expect it to be worth more than a couple of thousands dollars. Not with going to a jury trial over. I haven't read the full text of the agreement, though.

I'd mostly be concerned if Valve fucks something something so badly that the damage is much greater than the value of the account itself. In a catastrophic situation like that, a class action might be called for.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Coppit]

Don't forget it *punishes* the company, even if people don't get a dime. In fact for some things like pollution I'd rather they just take the award money and burn it, thereby increasing the value of everyone's money equally.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[tapspace]

Why don't we just start advocating small claims cases en masse? This shifts the tables in favor of the consumer immensely. There are no lawyers to get rich and they are extremely expensive to fight (rather than just settle). You can't get much more punative than that, and the claimant likely gets something out of the deal.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Artraze]

> But at the same time they are absolutely correct, class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

Directly? Yes. Indirectly? Well... Perhaps not.

Class action suits are much more about seeking _punishment_ than compensation. That's why companies hate them and want to preclude them with clauses like these. Sure every member of the class might only get, say 20% returned, but the company pays out 200%. Moreover, it's quite a lot easier to join the class than it is to file suit or enter arbitration on your own. So they maybe give full 100% compensation (+ maybe 50% in court/arbitration costs) to 10% of the customers and it's a "win-win". But really it gives them a much wider margin in which to screw the end user because it basically guarantees that potential costs will not exceed the profits from doing so (this being especially true for software companies where the cost per person is basically zero so _if_ they have to return your payment it's just a wash). While the law firm may take a huge and unfair cut, ideally that money is being pulled from a gaping wound in the company, in a way they hope to avoid.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

It just seems wrong that a product EULA can make you forfeit your rights like this.

It's not making you do shit you self-entitled twat. If you don't like the terms then don't agree to them.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[tapspace]

I'd have to agree with the courts on this one. It's a legislative problem for the moment. The last thing we need is more legislation from the bench.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Asmor]

Well, that works great for the one, two, or twenty dudes who actually do it, but a large corporation (Sony, MS, etc) will just laugh as they write off a check and continue doing whatever it was they were doing. Small claims court isn't a deterrent.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Black Parrot]

I also agree with these statements. The thing that makes me shake my head is these arbitrators are the same thing banks use to royally screw customers here in the USA. They are never impartial and have only 1 goal, to save the company that hired them as much money as possible.

I just ditched my bank for a credit union because they sent me a note saying I had to agree to arbitration.

Guess they found out I don't "have to agree" with *anything*.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[lexsird]

Wow, couple that with the Citizens United ruling and we have a SCOTUS that is in a race to the bottom.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

Completely doesn't matter and Value only mentioned it to distract you from the fact that they can now screw over all of their customers and the only consequence for them will be a little bad PR if anyone notices the extra screwing.

Class action suits' only objective is to punish the company. If Value added an illegal one cent fine every time you bought something from them no single person could take them to court, but they'd make a ton of extra money. A class action lawsuit is the only thing preventing companies from doing that. If they lost the class action, they'd have to pay back all those pennies plus lawyer fees. Now with the new EULA, they'll never have to deal with the lawsuit and can/will nickle and dime everyone to death as often as they want with no consequences. The extra money they make will easily buy enough good PR to offset the bad PR. Keep in mind it doesn't have to be an extra fee, it could be skimping on quality or lying about a food's fat content.

Also, it is the law firms that do all the work in class action suits. Why shouldn't they get the benefits? All you have to do is send in your name and address so they can send you your meager winnings. Simple. The lawyers are the ones who do the research and press the case.

I'll repeat because people seem to more and more only have a me me me attitude and can't grasp bigger concepts. A class action suit's objective is to punish the company for doing wrong. Take it away and they will do wrong. What would you do if you could never go to jail?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[ravenshrike]

Neither in the end are most class actions. Even the biggest class actions against places like tobacco corporations barely have any effect.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Gordonjcp]

So, you pay some money to $large_company, $large_company gets $some_thing wrong in a big way, you take them to the small claims court, and you get your money back.

Where's the downside?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[mwvdlee]

I don't know about US law, but in my local law it is impossible for any kind of contract to remove legal rights like this.
Ofcourse, this is assuming a EULA is considered a legal document at all, which apparently rarely holds up in court in my country.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[tlhIngan]

Why don't we just start advocating small claims cases en masse? This shifts the tables in favor of the consumer immensely. There are no lawyers to get rich and they are extremely expensive to fight (rather than just settle). You can't get much more punative than that, and the claimant likely gets something out of the deal.

Class actions deal with cases that fall in the grey area where the harm done is too low to justify the expense of going to small claims.

For example, let's say your wireless provider decided to raise your rates you pay on your contract by $2 a month. And let's say your contract states "small increases are allowed by this contract". Your option would be to pay up the extra $24/year for the remainder of your contract, pay the $200 to cancel the contract, or fight it out in court to get the contract cancelled.

Now, fighting it out costs something like a $40 filing fee, plus having to take a day off work and whatever else. All to save maybe $72 over a 3 year contract. Or $32 after paying the non-refundable filing fee.

You'll find most consumers shrug it off. The ones that fight it out? Well, the company would just not show up, and you win and they'll write you a cheque for that amount. So your win probably costed you more time and money and the company didn't do a single thing different. They ignored the court, don't bother showing up, and probably just prepared the cancellation paperwork for you just like everyone else who cancelled normally.

Let's say Valve decides to impose a $10 annual maintenance fee every year you don't buy something from the store, or you lose your account. They'll say that $10 fee will give you a $10 discount off a game you purchase that year, so if you buy something, you get it back. Is that fair? Would you go through the effort of fighting it out individually for the principle of it, knowing Valve will probably hand you the money the moment you win, probably on pre-prepared cheques? Not many people would go through the effort to save $10.

And yet, $10 times the number of steam accounts? Probably a few million dollars a year.

Companies have long figured it out - if you need $10M, it's easier, cheaper, and less chance of getting caught to steal $10 from 1 million customers than steam $10M from 1 entity. And yes, that case I mentioned earlier did happen in a very unconsumer-friendly contract that the company wanted $3/month extra or $200 to break the contract.

And some charities unfortunately have done the same too - they've bumped the "default contribution" up a couple of bucks hoping people don't notice (it was in small print) and give, resulting in millions more for the charity.

But hey, if that's fair for you, good on you.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bedonnant]

Well, in France for example, class actions just don't exist, but we do have special judges for small disputes that seem to work pretty well, and don't even require you to get a lawyer.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Asmor]

$large_company "accidentally" overcharges its customers $0.50 per month. Joe Blow sits there and calculates that, hey, his widget bill this month was $65.63, and it should have been $65.13. Joe Blow then goes and checks last months bills, same deal; he goes online and the oldest bills he can see online are 2 years old, and he's been charged this $0.50 every month for at least the last 2 years. Joe Blow's lost at least $12 dollars to this.

Joe Blow signed away his arbitration rights, so he takes $large_company to small claims court. $large_company says, "Oh, dear me, terribly sorry. Here's $50." and they flip a switch on Joe's account so that he alone won't get charged the $0.50 in the future.

Of course, amongst all its 10 million customers, $large_company has stolen $120 million in the last two years alone because of this $0.50 cent "accident," and because there was no big class action suit and no publicity they just continue on stealing from their customers because even if someone notices, what are the chances they'll care enough to actually go through the hassle of small claims court?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[greg1104]

Working link. It's worth reading the rendered opinion of the court here. AT&T was providing these arbitration rules:

In the event the parties proceed to arbitration, the agreement specifies that AT&T must pay all costs for nonfrivolous claims; that arbitration must take place in the county in which the customer is billed; that, for claims of $10,000 or less, the customer may choose whether the arbitration proceeds in person, by telephone, or based only on submissions; that either party may bring a claim in small claims court in lieu of arbitration; and that the arbitrator may award any form of individual relief, including injunctions and presumably punitive damages. The agreement, more over, denies AT&T any ability to seek reimbursement of its attorney’s fees, and, in the event that a customer receives an arbitration award greater than AT&T’s last written settlement offer, requires AT&T to pay a $7,500 minimum recovery and twice the amount of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.

To anyone who thinks there exists a class action lawsuit that is going to provide more compelling terms for AT&T to fix a customer issue than this, I'd say nonsense. I have a small pile of "won" class action suits, where I got $20 to $50 for abusive behavior that cost me far more than that, years after it was irrelevant. In each and every case, I would have preferred swift abritration over the option to sue if the option were available. That's the point the SCOTUS was trying to make here--that had a class action suit proceeded, people would have been far less likely to get satisfaction.

The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them. If companies want to push for abritration instead, the right response isn't to say "no, we want the right to be screwed over by our lawyers". What saavy people should be thinking about is doing the same thing--punishing companies on a large scale for their mistakes--via large-scale, coordinated abitration. I'm far more confident that crowdsourcing abitration will provide a useful benefit to consumers than any of the broken legal processes for suing companies we have now.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[AdamWill]

Wow, you have some terrible laws.

However, that decision does seem to refer specifically to *contracts*. As in, "Mr. and Mrs. Conception entered into a cellular telephone contract". An EULA is not a contract.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[sosume]

Not true. Many contracts worldwide detail how conflicts should be resolved, usually through arbitration. However, those are contracts which you sign. For an 'I agree' EULA this is quite new.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[fredprado]

But the laws in many countries in the world do not allow you to forfeit your legal rights by contract. Here, for example, a contract's clausal that forbids you from suing a person or a company in any way is null and void.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

In the EU, they definitely can't. They may even end up with being sued by the EU for it. And looking how they dealt with MS, I say good luck with that.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

It just seems wrong that a product EULA can make you forfeit your rights like this.

But at the same time they are absolutely correct, class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

They can't. At least not in the USA. You cannot contract away your rights. All kinds of laws would be utterly pointless if it were possible to do so, from ending slavery to minimum wage, just about every consumer protection law ever really.

When you scroll waaaay down an EULA one of the last clauses in it as some ass covering wording about how any clause that is illegal in your jurisdiction doesn't apply, or words to that effect.

They just count on nobody every calling them on it.

On that note, I do agree that class actions are bullshit, only the lawyers get rich, and after they take their cut, the settlement divided someodd thousand ways tends to be pretty pitiful. You probably would get more out of a small claims court, and faster.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Serpents]

No need to sue them. Provisions contradicting the EU law are simply considered to be null and void. Some contracts/EULAs just add "unless not permitted by your local/applicable law" or something to that effect just to let people know that they should check

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[jumpinp]

I am surprised Valve, any company really, doesn't have this included in there TOS from the get go, given the damages a class action lawsuit can bring to a company. The majority of customers don't care and can't even be bothered to read the agreement. There is hardly a downside, this clause can only improve their bottom line.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Firethorn]

How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?

I'd almost rather just be screwed for the $10, because I felt it was worth it at the time. Companies deserver their profits if they're good enough, and profits on computer stuff is razor thin as is, even with the occasional bit of price fixing(the normal reason for the lawsuit). I've never had a situation where I felt I was being screwed over when I bought something.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[hairyfeet]

That is why this doesn't really bug me, because I've seen time and time again what you "get" with a class action. YOU, the person that was actually wronged, gets a fucking coupon, while the lawyer gets a new house in the Cayman islands to go with the pile of money in the bank!

Its not like they are saying you can't sue valve, and its not like there aren't plenty of lawyers that would take on a company like Valve on a contingency basis, so its not like its gonna affect John Q Average. The only ones this "hurts" is those scum sucking ambulance chasers that get frankly obscene money in the class action lotto while getting the victims maybe enough to buy a fucking Big Mac.

Now that said, with me and two boys on steam I've had plenty of chances to deal with Valve support, the last one when my oldest tried to buy something with his Steam Bux and the money disappeared (turned out he had a flaky WISP connection and it caused the server to glitch) and I have to say in all honesty, out of all the tech companies I've had to deal with over the years? They are one of the easiest and most quick to try to get things right I've EVER seen. Hell I had a problem with some DLC right in the middle of their huge Xmas sale, when they had their servers practically melting from the strain, what did I get? I was contacted, on a weekend no less, less than an hour after i filed a ticket, the guy spent about an hour helping me fix the issue, and then even checked back not once but twice just to make sure everything worked. I was damned impressed. Same with the oldest and the Steam Bux which even they had admitted they had never seen that particular error before but they were quick, had his money back in an hour and a half and even gifted him the TF2 accessories he was trying to buy. Just damned good service.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bfandreas]

Even if you signed that EULA with your own blood it wouldn't be binding. Who makes you think that? Valve can't change the laws of this country and a contract(even if a EULA were one) can't be illegal.
Unalienable means you can't sell, be stripped, mugged, robbed, forbidden or sign over your rights as a citizen or a human being.
Unless you are a convicted felon, not quite the right type or not rich enough, that is.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bfandreas]

Allowing? ALLOWING?
Valve is not in the position to allow or deny anything. State and federal law may allow small claims. State and federal law allow and deny stuff. Valve "licenses" stuff under state and federal law. They have some wiggle room within their contracts(which a EULA is not) and that's about it.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bfandreas]

I'm not even sure this is really legal. What happened to "unalienable"? I don't give this BS the chance of a snowball in hell to stand ind court.
And yes, a EULA can't be a contract.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Hadlock]

I would disagree with you. I recently got an email from a random lawyer informing me that I was part of a class action lawsuit against netflix, and that the outcome was this:
 
Lawyers will get $220 million to cover their costs
Netflix will pay $3 million towards a non profit
I will get no money
 
Take your sides, but this just sounds like a money grab/extortion on the part of the Lawyers, with no benefit whatsoever to the consumer. Supposedly I have two free $5 off vouchers with ticketmaster from a similar settlement. I mean seriously, what the fuck? The only people who benefit from these lawsuits are the lawyers, and I think that's what Valve is trying to avoid. They're a ripe target for this sort of thing, especially in light of the shakedowns that ticketmaster.com and netflix.com have gotten in recent years (probably Sony too)

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bfandreas]

EU legislators take a very dim view on companies that take try to circumvent standing laws.
But bear in mind that class action suits are not common in the EU. You may appear as co-plaintiff and that's it. If a company royally screws up then it will be dealt with by state watchdogs of which there are a couple of kennels kept around.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bfandreas]

Exactly.
Which is why all contracts have a severability clause in it so if any portion of the contract is legally null and void the rest of the contract isn't.
A EULA isn't even a contract. If you'd print it it might serve a purpose as toilet paper. But there are better ways to wipe your arse.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Gadget_Guy]

For Valve's defense, their reasoning for this is more than valid.

What rubbish! In their announcement of the change, they tried to sell it as if us not being able to join a class action lawsuit was somehow better for us. This is all about them, and to claim otherwise is duplicitous.

I clicked the "I agree" button, but if I felt the need to sue their asses off I would do so and argue that I agreed to this under duress. They have hundreds of dollars worth of games that I have purchased. For Valve to make this change and say that I have to agree otherwise I lose all access to my games is despicable. I can understand it if I make any more purchased and have to agree to a new EULA then that is my choice, but I shouldn't have to agree to something just because I want to keep using what I had already payed for.

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. - Darth Vader.

I have currently placed a hold on any new purchases on Steam. I realise that is a cheap threat to make after they had their big sale, but I am going to use up my backlog of games so that if they do alter the agreement yet again then I am in a better position to make a choice to agree or disagree. And let's face it, for all I know they are making this change now to prevent us from suing them because they want to make an even worse change in the future.

This boycott will actually fit in well with another recent change I decided to make. I decided to pay more for indie games. I realised that I have been spoilt by the multitude of bundles on offer that I have really cut back on buying indie games because I assume that they will eventually be part of a bundle. But I want to support the indie developers. I want there to be a large number of game houses out there so that the balance between developer and gamer is no so one-sided like it is with Ubisoft, EA and Valve. If I want that, then I should be willing to pay a bit more to help it happen.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

So because lawyers get a big share, companies can effectively negate any and all possible class action lawsuits and still appear moral?

The point of class actions lawsuits is to get something done about egregious behavior that can not be solved via individual suits in small claims court. It's not about getting rich, it's about punitive action, making sure the company changes their behavior.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[fatphil]

Your link refers to a contract. At least where I live, an EULA is not a contract.
So that precedent isn't necessarily relevant. We may have to wait until something actually hits the courts. And the appeals court. And the SCOTUS.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Theophany]

It's not about getting rich

Tell the lawyers that.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[fatphil]

Having said that, the contract was a "Contract of Adhesion", where basically one party has no choice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion
. Add to that the fact that some say that EULAs are contracts of adhesion, and we're (well, the yanks are, I'm not) in a murky middle ground here.

Which is great, as it will keep the lawyers in jobs.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[_Shad0w_]

Small claims court in the UK is for claims up to £5,000, so it's almost certainly the correct place for most claims relating to a game.

I don't think the UK even has legislation to support class action suits in the first place.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Valve makes heart valve replacements? Screw them! Greedy SOBs don't care, just want the money and not be forced to pay for the litter trail of bodies they...

Wait, wut?

They make games? Huh. Well.

Nevermind.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[cheekyjohnson]

How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?

Class action lawsuits are clearly not so you can make a lot of money. I'd say they're more for teaching the company a lesson. And frankly, I would find it absolutely idiotic if a mere EULA was able to take that right away.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Luckyo]

The ethical problem of this, and the reason why this doesn't exist in most of Europe is that plaintiff should always be the main target of any money received. There is also issue with entire concept of civil law aiming for "punishment" over "righting the wrong", which is deeply unethical in itself.

Properly done class action lawsuit should severely cap lawyer fees and ensure that majority of settlement goes towards paying those who were hurt by the actions for which company was sued successfully. Unfortunately that presents significant difficulties in modern quick-profit oriented world where those with most money can corrupt legislation to modify laws originally meant to protect the weak into machine for enriching themselves even further.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Cederic]

and indeed, if Valve ever cut off access to the games I've purchased from them, I'll be pursuing them in small claims court for the replacement cost of those games.

That may well be less than I paid for them (or, for games I bought in a sale, maybe more) but I'll be seeking restitution not punishment.

Class action lawsuits have always struck me as being very wrongly biased towards the lawyers. I suspect their intent is to allow people to pool resources to bring a case, but the outcome seems to generally be extremely rich lawyers.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[dkleinsc]

It's also worth noting that arbitration clauses not infrequently make it so the corporation decides who the arbiter is. And yes, they tend to choose based on the odds of winning their case. Some courts have been ruling those clauses to be unconscionable though, which renders them null and void depending on where you live.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MacGyver2210]

They are absolutely correct, though. Nobody wins in class action suits except the lawyers. They are designed to be penal measures against a company where the people who had the problem with the company get nearly nothing in return, and the lawyers' "fee" is 90% of the payout. If it were a GIGNORMOUS company like Microsoft or Google, where you know they already have a fleet of lawyers and tons of money to blow, then this would be a scam, but as it is Valve is not a huge company outside their popularity.

Sorry to NYCL, but most lawyers don't have peoples' best interests in mind, only their own. At least, that has been my far-reaching experience with them.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Stormthirst]

If by that you mean the French don't enjoy getting raped by every company they deal with - then I'd take socialism any day of the week.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[dkleinsc]

The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them.

They can be completely legitimate.

Imagine an electric company that overcharges all its customers $10. Now each customer in theory could sue them in small claims to win your $10 but it's probably not worth their time, which means the company would make millions by doing that. What prevents them from just doing that regularly is the risk that somebody will notice the pattern and sue them in a class action all at once rather than each individual having to try to recover their $10 on their own.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Cederic]

But Joe doesn't claim for $12. He claims for $12, plus $400/hour for the two hours he spent investigating this issue, plus $2000 for the day he had to take off work to attend court.

Now the 10 million customers are costing the company $28bn, or they're having to fight 10 million individual claims, paying a member of staff at least half a day per claim.

5 million man-days is going to come in at well over $120m even if they don't then pay out $12 on top.

So yes, large scale consumer action where no consumer does more than a trivial amount will heavily impact on companies.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[headLITE]

EULAs are unenforcable in the EU if they're for a packaged product you bought in a store. If you buy something online on Steam, where you only "subscribe" to an online service, they are part of the contract and very much enforceable.

However, we don't really have class action lawsuits here, or punitive damages...

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

They're forgetting the case of Smith v. Wesson... I think that's who the litigants were... or maybe Smith and Wesson were the attorneys... I know they were involved, somehow, and it overruled some other court, I'll have to look up the details and get back to you.

Courts like to imagine that the "rule of law" is somehow qualitatively different from the Law of the West, or the Law of the Jungle which set the precedent for it. It's weird because the only reason anyone listens to judges is that there's a bailiff wearing a GUN standing by, to protect his arrogant ass, and enforce his despotic will over his tiny, pathetic fiefdom, while a whole force of police stands ready to do outside the court what a bailiff does inside it. They're basically shouting "might doesn't make right" when it obviously and clearly does in this so-called "civilization".

I have no real problem with this, except for the clear hypocrisy of it all. If the people as a body ever got good and sick of all the buying and selling of justice... well, the prudent man owns a gun for self-defense, but if and when the shit hits the fan, I think I'd rather be somewhere else, as the thought of living in a Law of the Gun-type society frankly wearies me. Forty years ago, I'd have shouted "viva la revolución!!!" but today, I merely mumble, "leave me the fuck alone!!!"

I've gotten too old for this shit. You kids fight over the planet, I'm going to bed.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MacGyver2210]

Why go through the trouble of a whole lawsuit to benefit a lawyer? The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.

Valve is not some huge conglomerate with billions to spend, and an average max product price of $50-60(which mostly goes to the developers and their studios). Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house? Isn't that just going to stifle advancement by Valve and Steam? Don't we have enough bullshit in the courts today?

Class action suits are a nuisance to our legal system. This is probably a step in the right direction.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MacGyver2210]

If it's egregious, you don't take them to small claims court, you take them to full blown "you can't handle the truth" court.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[hairyfeet]

No its because the "victims" get NOTHING, nothing at all, understand? If you rip me off for $50 then WTF am I supposed to do with a $10 off coupon towards my next purchase FROM YOU?

The problem with class actions is the victims don't ever get jack shit while the lawyers make it like fucking robber barons. Frankly you'd be better off getting a lawyer on a contingency basis or hell, even taking them to small claims court as at least there you will get more than a fucking coupon!

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[cheekyjohnson]

The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.

Because, as said in other comments, not very many people will be willing to go to even small claims court to sue for small damages. This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.

Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house?

You hate lawyers so class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed? I don't understand this mentality at all. If the company was the one who ripped me off, I'd rather have the money be in the hands of the "weasely fucker" than the company.

Don't we have enough bullshit in the courts today?

Obviously they shouldn't be able to win frivolous lawsuits.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MacGyver2210]

Read comments on parent post. There is a SCOTUS ruling saying forced arbitration is allowed, however, if the company loses they are required to pay more than they would with a class-action suit.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[hairyfeet]

Are you telling me you have more fricking video games than would be covered in small claims, which Valve specifically points out you can do? At least there you would get your money back, whereas a class action you'll get a nice little coupon towards your next purchase.

Now you tell ME Gadget Guy, which is better? getting your money back and possibly some over (since you probably got plenty of those games on steam sales) or not getting jack shit but a fricking eCoupon? Because ask anyone that has been part of a class action YOU ain't getting shit friend, while the lawyer will be getting Michael Jordan money.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

An EULA isn't legal in Sweden

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Hatta]

That's the old America. Business practices supercede the law in modern America.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Lostman]

Exactly which court do you believe will allow you to sue for lost wages incurred while attending court? As far as I can tell - none.

Search around and reply back.

You typically do not get to be reimbursed for expenses incurred with court costs including time off and time that you spent preparing your case. Besides this, of course, what reasonable person would think that the average joe could in any fashion claim 400/hour and 2k per day for court even if they did allow it? At the median household income of 40k usd a year, and 260 working days assuming no vacation time, that would make the average persons entire day worth only 153 and his two hours only a total of 40.

As I stated, though, no small claims court is going to award any damages based on you having to sue someone.

I think, still though, you are missing the point. You are not going to go to court - or really even an arbiter - for 12 dollars. You are going to call and complain, maybe tweet about it, or just eat it. No reasonable person is going to think that going to court for 12 dollars is something that sounds like a good idea. The end result will be that there is little oversight for the companies in this case and little to no ability for the consumer to stop these blatant abuses.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are the one who hires the lawyer in the first place, you can actually make money. The Named Defendants will be rolling in cash if they get enough people in the class. Not as much as the lawyers are rolling in cash, but still rolling in a good bit.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[stiggle]

Joe then publishes his information for any user user of $large_company to claim the same.
A little publicity on the case in the local media about Joe beating $large_company, then national media and $large_company is soon getting hit multiple times in multiple places.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MysteriousPreacher]

That sounds more like a job for a regulator. Of course this only works if regulators are well funded, independent of government and industry control, and have a specific mandate to act as an advocate for customers of the industry in question.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Hatta]

If AT&T doesn't like how the arbiter decides, they can just shop around for one they do like. The arbiter knows that repeat business is dependent on deciding in AT&T's favor more often than not. How am I supposed to get a fair hearing then? They can afford to offer what sounds like generous terms because they know it's unlikely that they'll ever have an arbitration agreement go against them.

The reason to go class action isn't to recoup your expenses. It's for when the losses were too small to bother recouping, but you still want to punish the comany. How much time are you actually going to spend trying to get that $50 back? It's gone, the best thing to do is punish the company. Class action is going to be far more effective at that than arbitration. That's the whole reason companies keep pushing for it.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[MysteriousPreacher]

Small claims court and complaints to regulators can make a difference with larger companies that would typically care more about publicity. I'm yet to work for a large corporation happy to adopt a "see you in court" response to threats of legal action. Going to court is not cheap, can involve disclosure of information that a company would rather avoid, and looks bad when word gets around.

Small claims is far less useful when it comes to cowboy operations, such as dodgy builders, who'll if under financial pressure, will can the company, to resurface under a new name. That process isn't quite as easy as that, as it risks criminal charges if assets are improperly hidden or moved around prior to or during the process of winding down the former company. Still, I wouldn't hold out much hope of reclaiming money from a cowboy. I would be reasonably optimistic though if I have a good case against a larger corporation.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the UK even has legislation to support class action suits in the first place.

We have something similar called a "group action". The main difference as far as I know (which isn't very far) is that if you don't join it you can still bring your own suit later, unlike a class action in the States. This is something that's always troubled me about class actions over there; if you join in you get next to nothing and if you don't you can't even bring your own suit.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Cederic]

UK small claims court let's you claim for the costs of bringing the action, including court costs. What, you live somewhere that justice is only available to the rich?

Anyway, I didn't say Joe would win on all counts. He doesn't have to, as I highlighted it's going to cost a fuck of a lot more than $12 dollars to defend against his claim.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Yvanhoe]

I know it will sound trollish, but this is for reasons like this one that I don't think I will ever live or make business in the US (unless I have a big legal department one day). In France, you can accept EULA knowing that some legal rights are not circumventable. I can buy stuff online and click "accept", I know that I have 3 (or 5, can't remember) days to cancel the order.

Living in a country where a single click or the buy of a DVD or a hardware device can void your democratically decided rights is really dangerous.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the Class within the suit. Most of the class-actions you hear of are huge classes- but a class-action suit of a couple dozen often nets quite a bit of money for the plaintiffs.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... If the States don't render such clauses as the one we're talking about void, they should (In fact, there's parts of the law that deem similar passages trying to get the party of the agreement to waive thier rights under things like the Texas DTPA, Colorado Landlord-Tenant Act, etc. that render either the passage void or the whole agreement for the attempt...).

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

In actuality, they can't, not in at least Texas. If it falls under the DTPA, it's specifically public Policy that any attempt to force a Citizen to waive their rights under the same (This would count), is explicitly Void and non-enforceable. Depending on the nature of what's being done, they could be facing off against someone within the context of said law. Worse, there's similar types of laws on the books in this space in most of the other States in the Union. All of them pretty much enforceable.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

But at the same time they are absolutely correct, class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

In terms of the judgment ($$$) this is true. In theory, the customers benefit because the company has to deal with the threat of losing a class action, and will therefore avoid the behavior that incurs the liability.

In the absence of a class action style suit, as long as the individual amounts in controversy are less than the expense of pursuing a lawsuit, there is no incentive to observe the rights of the customers.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[cheekyjohnson]

Now you tell ME Gadget Guy, which is better?

That would be up to me to decide whether or not a class action is worth it. Not only is it unlikely that most people would bother taking the company to small claims, but if they want in on a class action lawsuit, then that's their choice. I don't understand why anyone would want to take away this choice, which is theirs, from them. At the very least, I don't believe random EULAs should be able to take away this choice.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Willingfully...

....

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually depends on what laws they touch.

For example. If you fall afoul of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, you are explicitly forbidden to attempt to put passages to force it to arbitration or to remove your right to sue and the like in your contract and the Law on the matter in that Jurisdiction explicitly says that they're void on the spot.

The laws that the Supreme Court of the US covered in regards to arbitration aspects of things with their Jurisprudence on the matter- they didn't have such public policy passages barring such actions.

And in at least some cases, while they're allowed to put it to arbitration, the Arbitrator's required to honor aspects of the law wherein they have such public policy statements to be able to have their decision binding to begin with. (See the California Labor Code. They have a part that renders part or all of an employment contract void if they attempt to get the employee to waive their rights either directly or indirectly- the Employer, for example, has to reimburse all expenses by the employee for their working for them, period. If you explicitly bar them claiming them, the passage is void. If you just simply omit it and say that the contract doesn't cover things like expenses, the whole contract can end up being "void".).

You have to understand the decisions and the contexts- the current jurisprudence doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[AJH16]

The problem is that encouraging a system that involves the lawyers getting huge pay days while the victims get nothing means that lawyers will look for ways to go after companies for things that really aren't unfair. This creates overhead and risk for companies which make them not pursue helpful things for the consumer on the grounds some asshole might sue them over it to get a fat paycheck.

The root of the problem is that the class action system is BADLY broken, (you give up your rights even if you are never notified about the class action if you fit the definition of the class, for example), I agree there could be some point to it if the system worked right, but at this point it isn't. The "cure" is a greater evil than the problem and causes more harm to the consumer.

Also, as an aside, the details in the earlier post about Netflix are incorrect, the proposed settlement is 25% for the lawyers (2.3 million) and 9 million to charity, with 30,000 split among 6 named plaintiffs. They're still scum bags and I fully intend to remove myself from the class or file my objection with the court, just haven't decided which yet.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[TheSpoom]

I think the bigger issue here is that courts accept that a practice's costs are actually $220 million.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[tapspace]

I am fairly certain you can request punitive damages in small claims court. And, you can add in all the normal ways to jack up the amount (emotional distress or whatever). You just do it on a smaller scale (like $300 punitive rather than $300000). And, in most cases, you'll just get the company to cut a check. But, if everyone did it, it would be nigh impossible for a global corporation to fight. They'd be facing quite a pickle (settling with 200 people might be reasonable, but 20000 might not, and fighting is even worse).

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[TheGratefulNet]

lets repeat this one more time since a lot of you dunces are not quite following.

the point of a suit like this would be to PUNISH bad behavior.

it was NEVER to get anyone money or make them rich.

it was ALWAYS to punish.

and when we remove the punishment, little johnny can now hit his sister with a stick all he wants. he can throw rocks at cars and there's no punishment!

this is what's wrong with the 'it only benefits lawyers' bullshit response. IT DOES NOT. it benefits us when you punish bad boys.

how can I say it any simpler? should I add a car analogy, too?

I was starting to think well of steam (I don't game or live in that world, fwiw) but it sounded like they were a good place.

now, they are yet another american corp who wants to have no down-side if they do wrong.

well, FUCK THEM. I now consider them evil. like sony.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[TheGratefulNet]

they get rich with the legal system (taxpayer paid courts) OR arbitration (company paid and OWNED courts).

ie, it does not matter.

(just like your post...)

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[TheGratefulNet]

Arbitration, as a choice, is a wonderful thing.

are you drunk, stupid or just high??

its not a choice. if your contract allows it, you can ONLY have arbitration. it removes NORMAL LEGAL processes from you. strips you of much of what we call 'american laws'. its an end-run for rich corps to buy their form of 'justice'.

how on earth is it a choice? you NEVER have a choice! when you sign a contract that prohibits a regular court trial, you have REMOVED choice.

you must be stupid since its too early in the AM to be high or drunk.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[mcvos]

Because I once owned Apple stock, I regularly get mail about how I'm still not part of some class action suit and how everybody is getting money but not me, because I owned that stock at the wrong time.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Entirely not true. It actually protects the company that the suit was against. Usually when there is a class action suit, it prevents any other person that was not a part of the class action to bring suit for the same complaint at a later date. Class Action Lawsuits can actually be effective in getting reparations and possibly changing legal precedent for future cases.

Also, the fact that they remove the option for people to sue via a class action law suit within the EULA is not legally binding in any way. If the situation is severe enough, that EULA would not stand in a court of law. How companies are allowed to put this in their EULA's without any legal action by the government... that is beyond me and a shame. The only reason why publishers put that in their EULAs is as a scare tactic.

HOWEVER, the fact that Valve DOES offer a reimbursement option is fantastic. So, in one way... Kudos to Valve... in another, BOOOOOOOO!!!

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[mcvos]

Why can't you do this in small claims court? It's only a small claim per user, and having to send someone to small claims court for every single user is a lot more punitive than any class action suit.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't.

The law is the law is the law, and ultimately, it is the court that decides such things. In the end I imagine that most courts would view this as a way to Userp law, and so the courts would rule the EULA as "unconscionable", which in effect nullifies the EULA or that part of it.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[bjdevil66]

class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

Wrong. While it's true that the cash payout isn't that great for individual plaintiffs (vs. the lawyers who make big-time dough), the THREAT of class action lawsuits keeps companies in line. Therefore, the consumer benefits.

OTOH, as other posters have already said, arbitration almost always settles in favor of the "rich". In many contracts/EULAs with binding arbitration, the arbitrators are selected by the companies, which means they are paid by the companies - a conflict of interest that leads to them favoring the companies (if they want to get hired again).

Our legal system may be flawed, but since the executive and legislative branches are now in the hands of big money, the judicial system is all the average Joe have left to truly protect our rights. Why give that last right up? (And even those rights are dwindling due to big money and corruption. While the federal level is still relatively clean, the state level judicial systems are being corroded by companies that are now trying to load various state supreme courts with hand-picked judges so they can appeal any losses to the top and get the judgments they want when a lower-level judge tries to do the right thing...)

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Chaos Incarnate]

No, if you opt out of the class you're still allowed to bring your own suit. It's only if you remain as part of the class action that you're enjoined from bringing your own suit later (as that would be double jeopardy, having two trials for the same dispute).

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[pnutjam]

You forget that while the lawyers get paid, the company also gets indemnified against future lawsuits dealing with that issue. To an outsider it looks suspiciously like collusion.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[freeze128]

Here is the heart of the matter: YOU DON'T NEED TO SUE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR $10 BACK! Have you tried calling customer service? Maybe if you point out the overcharge to their billing department, they would just refund your $10. If every one of their customers started to do this, it would easily overwhelm their financial dept. Maybe so much so that management may take notice. At that point, they could give each of their customers a $10 discount in order to quell the calls. All this without involving a single lawyer. AMAZING!

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[greg1104]

One of the points of arbitration is that it is more efficient on both sides than small-claims court. Suing an entity for a small amount of money is fundamentally unsatisfying, in terms of getting something worth the time and money it takes to do. And that doesn't get better by doing lots of claims in bulk, class action style--the efficiency in terms of returning something to the people with the problem gets worse.

Anyway, your example is not novel--that is in fact exactly the setup for the AT&T case this ruling was made on. A small amount of sales tax was being charged on a phone that was claimed to be free. I maintain my position that I'd rather see every customer band together and force arbitration on them than trust a laywer and our slow judicial system to do anything in this sort of situation.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[rwven]

Yup, and if a consumer really cares about getting their "due," small claims court will yield them FAR more than a class action ever will.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[morcego]

Arbitration, as a choice, is a wonderful thing.

are you drunk, stupid or just high??

its not a choice. if your contract allows it, you can ONLY have arbitration. it removes NORMAL LEGAL processes from you. strips you of much of what we call 'american laws'. its an end-run for rich corps to buy their form of 'justice'.

how on earth is it a choice? you NEVER have a choice! when you sign a contract that prohibits a regular court trial, you have REMOVED choice.

you must be stupid since its too early in the AM to be high or drunk.

Are YOU drunk, stupid or just high ? I said in the same line that if it is mandatory, or is not good.

If both parts agree on arbitration, you don't even need to have it on the contract. Removing Normal Legal process is the opposite of "as a choice", it is "mandatory arbitration".

Wtf is wrong with people ? My post was not that long. I mean, can't you read 2 lines without putting your foot in your mouth ?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Trebawa]

Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house?

Yeah, fuck Ron, the Burrow doesn't need to be rebuilt.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[ifrag]

This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.

I suppose at some future time if Steam did decide ripping people off was in their best interest it could, at least briefly. However I think Steam at present is smart enough not to do so.

With the disaster that was the RAGE release, a lot of people had a non-working product in their library. Some were willing to wait out driver releases and some just wanted their money back. From everything I read on the forums, it sounded like people were quite easily able to get refunded for their purchases (I'm assuming the game is somehow removed from their library, at least that's how it worked when I asked for a refund from Impulse). I think in most cases, Steam is willing to work with users.

Perhaps in some hypothetical future Steam will turn to the dark side and this will matter, but it doesn't seem likely.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Hadlock]

I hadn't had much sleep when I posted that, here is the actual text of the email:

In addition, Netflix will pay $9 million into a Settlement Fund to:

• â Make donations to Court-approved not-for-profit organizations, institutions, or programs.
• â Pay notice and settlement administration expenses.
• â Pay attorneysâ(TM) fees of up to 25% or $2.25 million of the Settlement Fund, plus up to $25,000 in expenses.
• â Pay a total incentive award of $30,000 to the Named Plaintiffs.

I can only imagine what $30,000/total number of netflix subscribers is, minus taxes

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[NeutronCowboy]

You couldn't be more wrong. Arbitration is a god-send for companies. Why? Because they can fuck individuals over $100, $1000 or even $9999 at a time, and only a small fraction of the users will actually make it to arbitration and win it. Class-action lawsuit means that a few individuals can say "We weren't the only ones fucked by $Company, and are requesting that this lawsuit is for everyone who was also fucked over."

In short, arbitration means that a company can fuck over millions, and only worry about paying out a few hundred cases tops. It makes fucking your customers an actual viable business strategy, with a positive ROI. And that's the only thing that matters to a company.

I'm far more confident that crowdsourcing abitration will provide a useful benefit to consumers than any of the broken legal processes for suing companies we have now.

The entire point of arbitration is that it cannot be large-scale, and it cannot be crowdsourced.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Seumas]

Arbitration always benefits the corporation, who is the one giving the arbitration company the business and therefore has a symbiotic relationship with. Anyway, it doesn't matter what a EULA says. You don't lose your right to sue someone, in any form, just because they slip "don't sue me, bro!" into a contract or TOS.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[NeutronCowboy]

And when was the last time 10 million customers went to arbitration for something like that? Never. Not even 1% of 10 million. Maybe a few hundred.

Arbitration is a total win for companies.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Gadget_Guy]

Are you telling me you have more fricking video games than would be covered in small claims, which Valve specifically points out you can do?

That is not really my point. This was a wake-up call to how easy it is for Steam to suddenly prevent access to my game collection. When we were forced respond to the dialog with the new "agreement" before being able to play any game, they might as well labelled their buttons "I will submit to the company's whim" and "I never want to play my games again".

When Apple change their EULA on the iPhone, you only have to re-agree when buying a new game. All the old ones still work.

Regarding your point about the small claims, this is my problem. If they stuff me around to the tune of a game or two, then it is not worth the time or cost for me to take Steam to small claims. Hardly anyone would. But if they did something that would cause problems to enough people, then those customers/victims can pool their resources in a class action lawsuit. It is more cost-effective and simple way to wrest back some control over our purchases.

Would we all get satisfaction? Would the lawyers win again? Probably. This is about holding the company to account for its actions, not just what's in it for the Gadget Guy.

The other problem is that I do not live in the same country as Valve. The chances of me finding a venue to have any power over the company is remote. I probably could not even take part in any class action lawsuit. But I would gain protection by the fact that others who would be in a similar situation to me could actually ensure the company doesn't go too power crazy.

Finally, there is the principle of the matter. I want to have an industry who doesn't feel that they have the power to treat their customers like crap, that doesn't install spyware or rootkits on gamers systems, and that doesn't hold my access to my entire games collection as a bargaining chip in any dispute.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only the right to band together in a class-action,

Yeah, the peasants don't need freedom of association. That privilege belongs to the corporate aristocracy.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[TheSpoom]

This situation with class action lawsuits being inequitable would easily be fixed by mandating that at least 50% of the total settlement amount must be equally distributed to the members of the class.

But that's not going to happen as lawmakers tend to be... lawyers.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Shotgun]

Civil lawyers are not the ones empowered to meter out punitive actions. That is why we have various agencies regulating trade. If the companies are so evil, why are there no criminal actions being taken against them.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Fallingcow]

... and hope a fairly large number of others don't agree to them, or you'll have no alternative source for the service.

Of course, that state of limitation of practical freedoms occurs "naturally" as a result of market action, so clearly it's fair and just, while a government action prohibiting douchebag behavior to make purchase and contract decisions easier (you know the ways they can fuck you are at least somewhat limited) and improve just about everyone's interactions with the market are tyrannical abominations that must be stopped.

Further, lack of access to infinite time and resources to thoroughly research every purchase option and contract is a failing of the individual. Government action aimed at overcoming the lack of perfect knowledge in the markets by establishing baselines of expected service and behavior are communist market interference.

God, free-market worshippers are annoying. It's like they're proud of their ignorance.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[AtariEric]

You should send them a note explaining exactly why you left. Otherwise they won't know to change their behavior.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

Lawsuits in the US are the only way to enforce laws and regulations relating to corporations. There are no "police" or "jails". In some cases a lawsuit may only be about resolving a contract dispute but in many cases a lawsuit really is about stopping a corporation that is breaking the rules and applying a punishment. We've learned in the past that corporations will treat the cost of paying damages as just a cost of doing business without actually affecting their behavior.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

It may not be egregious when applied to a single consumer. However it can become egregious when it is applied to a large fraction of consumers. For example, if they failed to deliver the product as advertised to one person and refuse to compensate then that's a small claims court issue. But if they do the same thing to one hundred thousand customers then that is egregious.

An example somewhat recently were video monitor manufacturers who were advertising the size of the viewing area in a deceptive manner. Having every buyer try to get a refund in a small claims court would not have changed the behavior of the manufacturers or forced them to comply with the law. Most customers would not even bother with the time and expense of going to court over a $300 monitor. However a class action lawsuit did go to court and the manufacturer did change their advertising.

This is why companies want to nullify all possible class action lawsuits, because they know that individual plaintiffs will not bother suing them. Ie, who is going to sue Valve over a $70 game that has a defect or which can not be resold because of encryption?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

Because small claims court is still expensive. If the damages against you are $10-50 then it's smarter to just eat the cost and avoid the company that's breaking the law in the future.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Darinbob]

The government takes on the really big cases. There just isn't enough funding and manpower in government agencies to take on every case, especially smaller cases. Sometimes a class action suit is just about 1000 plaintiffs, so that you have one lawsuit instead of 1000 people deciding if they want to spend the time and money to have an individual suit.

But enough about this. The original point is about Valve deciding to nullify class action suits before they get off the ground. The right or wrong of class action suits is irrelevant here, and so is hatred of the legal system. Point some of the hate towards the companies that are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions by removing the legal system from the process. Arbitration is not some righteous solution to an broken legal system, arbitration is even more broken and one sided than the legal system.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[dkleinsc]

Ok, so what's to stop them from doing this?
1. Overcharge everybody $10.
2. Refund anybody who calls up to complain.
3. Profit = $10 * percentage of customers who don't get a refund.

And if you're wondering about the cost of extra customer service reps, why should Evil Inc do anything to make it easy to talk to a rep? Far better to leave the department understaffed, so customers who were going to demand a refund give up after listening to elevator music for 40 minutes interrupted by "Sorry, all representatives are currently busy,"

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

7 working days. It's an EU-wide law. Also it's from date of delivery, not date of order or date of dispatch.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0007:EN:NOT

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[hairyfeet]

It seems like your whole argument boils down to "I'm lazy so lawyers should get rich on my laziness' which frankly is REALLY not a good excuse. I know the UK and EU have something similar to small claims, frankly I wouldn't be surprised if most countries have similar courts just to keep the system from getting clogged, and if your principles aren't even worth a $40 filing fee and a little of your time why the fuck should we care about some blood sucking leech fucking ALL OF US by raising prices across the board (because that is what happens in a class action Gadget Guy, corp simply passes the buck to ME AND YOU) because you can't be arsed to spend a little of your time getting justice?

If some company fucks me over damned right I'm hauling their ass into small claims because its the principle of the thing. But my actions aren't gonna fuck YOU where class actions DO fuck everybody by raising prices. Hell if you've ever dealt with companies with disputes you'll know that frankly most will just give you your money back rather than be drug into small claims as they know the judges there can't be bullshitted and have a habit of awarding punitive if they thought the company should have just offered a refund or some other redress. I know relatives that have drug companies into small claims when they couldn't get a bill straightened out and frankly nothing could be easier, hell they said its like "The People's Court" TV show. You bring your receipts, state your side, and if the company don't have a damned good excuse? Their ass is paying out and probably with some extra for wasting the court's and your time.

So frankly there isn't any excuse. It takes less than a dinner for 4 to file and maybe an hour or two out of your life, and the alternative is raise prices for everyone just so some lawyer can get a Michael Jordan payday. It sure as fuck don't help YOU any, show me one case where a corp completely changed their ways thanks to a class action. Hell these corps just write it off as cost of doing business, raise prices 5% across the board, and probably make a nice little profit off the whole deal. Now tell me, how in the hell does that help anybody but the blood sucking lawyer?

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Luckyo]

In that case, it looks like an abysmal failure in USA where its most notable achievements are the ridiculous "don't dry cat in the microwave oven" warning tags, while European model is a resounding success at stated goal of getting companies to change through significant financial losses. They challenge major corporations through consumer protection organisations that are often in a regulatory or monitoring and advising position to the government, and fines these levy tend to be quite significant when harm is significant (and when some dumbass burns herself with a cup of coffee in a car, she gets laughed out of the door).

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Firethorn]

1. These class actions were typically for hardware(One was for RAM); no EULA agreed to.
2. Another was for a alleged deal between Netflix and Walmart where Netflix agreed to not get into the physical disc sale market and Walmart agreed to not get into the online streaming business. Not especially a big deal in my opinion.
3. The latest(that I just got the email about this morning) is somehting about Netflix keeping customer preference data for customers more/less than a year. I need to read the legalese again to see whether it affects those who were customers for less than a year, or former customers who have been gone for more than a year. Regardless, I agreed to let Netflix keep that data; rather obviously it's needed for them to give me good suggestions!

Basically, I don't consider the dealings mentioned in #2&3 to be such bad behavior that they deserve a multimillion lawsuit. Class actions should be more along the lines of 'you polluted this whole town, now you're liable for $x amount of medical bills for all the occupants'.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. I thought it sounded more like a job for a competitor.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[alexo]

The point of class actions lawsuits is to get something done about egregious behavior that can not be solved via individual suits in small claims court. It's not about getting rich, it's about punitive action, making sure the company changes their behavior.

I would agree with you, except that in most, if not all, cases, the "punishment" is significantly less than the profit the company made from their transgression. Add to that the fact that you have to explicitly opt-out of a class action and the net effect of those lawsuits is:
For the company - the cost of doing business.
For the lawyers - the chance of getting filthy rich.
For the victims - losing the option to sue the company individually.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[lsatenstein]

BS. Valve is just proving they're as evil as anyone else. Fast downloads of games does not grant them a holy indulgence.

As far as arbitration goes, arbitration _always_ means that the rich side of a dispute wins. In normal suits the the rich side usually wins but there remains a chance to have actual justice. What matters in arbitration are the clauses that say what happens if either side disagrees with a ruling, and they usually say something like redo the arbitration with expenses split evenly, or the person disagreeing with the output pays for the new arbitration, etc.

What is the Valve Product? Is it an implanted medical pump? Is it a logic chip for your new vehicle? It is not a pacemaker, but just a game. Suppose you discover a flaw in the game, how will it endanger your life?

You Americans, are you bored with life that you need to sue to "Get the other guy?". I bet you that if there was a latent defect in the software, that like every other software company, Valve would be working on its corrective.

Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Tainted blood scandal in Canada, 1980's era..... Yea the lawyers got paid, but the families of the afflicted
got the revenue their missing parents were supposed to earn during the period they were afflicted and ultimately
killed by negligence. Yea the lawyers got paid, and paid well.... but the afflicted got most assuredly compensated
in a manner that eased the consequences of their affliction.... many afflicted died before the money ran out...
people whose home ownership were up in the air due to health care expenses kept their houses.

Someone that I know still has compensation money in the bank, and their kids went to university because of it.
Unfortunately her husband has been dead for many years.... Money cant make that better....

-1 Evil

[gman003]

Yeah, normally I'm a big Valve fan, but I've gotta admit, I can't defend this one. I mean, they're right about "class actions only make money for the lawyers", but still...

I may not start boycotting you now, Valve, but you just lost a few points of rep with *this* faction.

Re:-1 Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't it be +1 Evil (or -1 Good)?

Re:-1 Evil

[gman003]

I was aiming more at gently ribbing /.'s mod system. I metaphorically rated Valve's action "-1, Evil".

Re:-1 Evil

[Dan667]

what is the right answer then? No one makes money on class action lawsuits expect lawyers so what benefit are they to the people that suffer? I believe in the rule of law, but corporate lawsuits are a broken system where the guilty don't go to jail.

Re:-1 Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Class action suits are filed on a contingency basis, the attorneys don't see a dime unless they win the case. Which is a large part of why they end up keeping so much of the money, they've got bills to pay and interest on any loans and they don't always win.

I'm usually up for bashing lawyers, but the money they get here is legitimate.

Re:-1 Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. They are investing. Proper investors will fight hard for the opportunity for a average 10% return. Why do lawyers get hundreds of times what they put in? With appeals processes, or the like, they even get more than one shot to win.

Re:-1 Evil

[Patent Lover]

There goes $4 from Valve.

Re:-1 Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather hypocritical of you, if it were any other company I'm sure you'd be quite sure about your supposed "boycott."

If the best you can muster in response to this is "okay Valve, I may or may not stop buying your products now" posted in a Slashdot comment then nothing is going to change. Either buy their products or don't.

Re:-1 Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

That attitude, right there, is why companies are in complete control and will remain in complete control. It won't be until they lose a substantial amount of customers that a company would ever "back down" from something. injitzs.....

Re:-1 Evil

[PhxBlue]

what is the right answer then?

Become a lawyer and specialize in class-action lawsuits.

Re:-1 Evil

[knigitz]

Says...gman?

Is this even legally binding?

[klingers48]

I'm not going to pretend to have much of a legal mind, but the whole EULA-manged arbitration process isn't really legally binding isn't it? If someone wants to start a lawsuit (class action or not), can't they just file papers and well... Sue Valve? Whether or not it becomes a class-action lawsuit would have more to do with the plaintiff's request being approved by a presiding judge wouldn't it?

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Nursie]

Unfortunately yes, it does seem to be legally binding. MS, Sony and various others have got in on the act long before Valve.

IIRC there was a decision in the Supreme Court that allowed this.

Individuals can still sue, I'm pretty sure this only applies to class action, and with the Sony agreements you can opt-out of the clause in their EULA by sending them a letter (yes, on dead trees).

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[LordLucless]

An anonymous coward provided this link further upthread:

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I did watch the SouthPark episode "The Human Cent-iPad"

After watching it again on southparkstudios.com I think I will put my iPhone 4 on Craig's List because I didn't read the EULA before I started using it. I'm seriously you guys.

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my exemption to their EULA posted on the side of my machine. If they don't agree to my modified terms, all they have to do is notify me by letter.

Still haven't received one.

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Mashiki]

Unfortunately yes, it does seem to be legally binding.

If you live in Canada, the ruling is not binding. In Ontario for example, you're protected under the CPA(Consumer Protection act 2002). This law, ensures that no company may remove, or attempt to strip away your legal rights to sue, or force you into binding arbitration via contract, ToS, or EULA.

This comes from the case Kanitz v Rogers Cable

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious that US law now allows the imposition of contractual terms post contract agreement without explicit agreement of the terms? (This is my reading of EULA, which are not binding in Uk). Home of the free to land of the sold :(

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Noread]

In the Netherlands these do not have any legal base. I can accept any EULA without being worried one bit about the contents.

First of all they would have to prove I signed the EULA and not someone else installing the software for me. If someone else installed it, the EULA would be applicable to him/her and not me since I never read or agreed to the contents in the EULA.

Second I have to be able to read the EULA BEFORE I buy the software, not after I have bought it or they need to provide the means to me the reject the EULA, send the software back and reimburse me. Since almost every shop in the Netherlands does not accept returns on software for which the seal has been broken, the seal I needed to break before I could read the EULA, the EULA has been forced on me without giving me the choice of being able to reject it without any losses.

Third, the law always precedes the EULA, or any contract for that matter. I can put anything I want in a contract with someone else and sign it. If it conflicts with the law, the law applies and that part of the contract is nullified.

This might even be applicable to the entire EU.

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Grumbleduke]

As discussed in other replies, it depends on the jurisdiction. From what I understand this is probably binding in the US. In the EU, some of these terms will probably be struck out as unreasonable (via the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Directive). Elsewhere it will depend on whatever the local consumer protection laws are like.

Even if it is binding, all it means is you can't bring a claim for more than $5,000 (the current maximum for brining a claim in a small claims court in Washington State). If you want more from them, you have to go through arbitration. And you can't bring class action cases (whether that's a good or bad thing is discussed in detail elsewhere).

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding to parent info...

Govt of Ontario website quote (http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Memberships_Arbitration_Clauses.aspx):

Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act voids any clause that attempts to make you waive your legal rights or promise not to go to court. Unless your contract pre-dates July 30, 2005, such contract clauses are legally ineffective. Consumers are not bound by them, even if they have accepted the agreement. The new law does not prevent you from agreeing to use arbitration after a dispute has arisen. Sometimes arbitration works quite well. But you cannot be forced to use arbitration instead of the courts or instead of complaining to the ministry. The choice is yours.

And possibly Quebec:

In Québec, the legislature adopted Bill 48... which amended Québec’s Consumer Protection Act, came into force on December 14, 2006. As a result of the amendments, no pre-dispute arbitration clause agreed to after that date will be upheld if it prohibits a class action or otherwise waives or restricts the consumer’s right to go to court.

JOIN US. POUTINE ISN'T AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS.

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia:

Sellers, manufacturers and service providers can make extra promises about their goods or services as a way of giving consumers more confidence in their quality, or the level of consumer protection if things go wrong. These promises are known as warranties.

If there is a problem with a good or service, the terms and conditions of the warranty generally set out what consumers can claim and how they should go about making a claim.

It is important to remember that regardless of any warranty a business chooses to offer, consumers still have rights under the consumer guarantees. The extra warranty does not alter or limit consumers’ rights under the guarantees, and businesses should be careful that their warranties do not mislead consumers about their rights.

Warranties against defects – the Regulations

The ACL also includes some specific requirements in relation to voluntary warranties or warranties against defects.

These requirements are contained in the Trade Practices (Australian Consumer Law) Regulations 2010 (No. 1) (the Regulations).

The Regulations require that businesses must:

give warranties against defects in a transparent document stating what business giving the warranty and the consumer must be do for the warranty to be honoured prominently

state the name of the person giving the warranty, their business address, telephone number and email address (if any)

state the length of the warranty

set out the procedure that a consumer must follow to obtain a remedy under the warranty

state who will bear the costs associated with making a warranty claim, e.g. the

state the benefits that the warranty gives in addition to the rights and remedies under the consumer guarantees

include the text:

Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law.

You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure.

Re:Is this even legally binding?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOORAW!

Sadly true

[Anonymous Coward]

I've received 3 class action notices in the mail over the past month. I have no interest in joining them but the net kickback if I did was about nothing.

Re:Sadly true

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The kickback is only half the equation. The total amount should, and I'm only speaking theoretically here, discourage future BS. The lawyers may get it all, but more importantly, the do-badders lose it.

If AT&T lost a class action suit over unlimited throttling I'd do a little dance even if I didn't get a dime.

Re:Sadly true

[Anonymous Coward]

The kickback is only half the equation. The total amount should, and I'm only speaking theoretically here, discourage future BS. The lawyers may get it all, but more importantly, the do-badders lose it.

If AT&T lost a class action suit over unlimited throttling I'd do a little dance even if I didn't get a dime.

But unfortunately, often the do-gooders also lose it. People are discussing a class-action against Blizzard for Diablo 3. Why? Because the game may have an (unconfirmed) bug that prevents them from selling virtual merchandise that they acquired in game for real dollars.

Personally, I find D3 by far the worst of the series, but even so, suing over the inability to play the game for profit? That is exactly the sort of BS lawsuit that should be handled in arbitration...

Re:Sadly true

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how the anti-judiciary meme has spread to the point that lawsuits are always bad. If it's an individual suit, then it's "Jackpot Justice" and people are just looking to "get rich quick" and so it should be done away with. If it's a class action suit, then "the lawyers will take all the money" and "the people who filed won't get anything" and so it should be done away with.
  I also see a number of related memes all over slashdot today, "legislating from the bench" and such. This set of beliefs is incredibly successful at propagating, I suppose. Probably because so many Americans get their ideas about how courts work secondhand.

Re:Sadly true

[fredprado]

Blizzard opened itself for this kind of trouble when they decided to condone with real money trading.

Re:Sadly true

[Firethorn]

I like how the anti-judiciary meme has spread to the point that lawsuits are always bad.

I've never said this, and I likely never will. However, I've never been involved in a 'good' lawsuit, mostly just picked up in class action sweeps. The explanatory documents have mostly been about nitnoid stuff, and the lawyers profit far more than the 'plaintiffs'. The businesses being sued have to make up the money in some way, as I see it, so it tends to make anything I subsequently buy from the company a touch more expensive to pay for the lawyers.

Of coures, I'm a moderate libertarian; so by default I'm pretty free market. On the other hand, as a libertarian I think that when businesses DO manage to violate laws that somebody should be going to jail/prison for a bit. In most cases it wouldn't have to be long to get executives concentrating on staying firmly within the (admittably somewhat looser) law/regulation structure.

Re:Sadly true

[MacGyver2210]

AT&T has lost many, many class-action lawsuits, some in more recent history relating to 3G and their advertising of the same product as both 3G/4G. It never even hurts them, it just costs them a small chunk of cash which, of course, goes directly to the lawyers and nobody else. Valve doesn't have that kind of capital, so they would probably be ruined by any class action suit, no matter how frivolous and ridiculous the claims. What does Valve make that could really hurt anyone? Even if they make SeizureQuest, and it causes severe epileptic reactions, they disclaim that in their EULA and general terms of sale. You can't file a lawsuit over that anyway.

Re:Sadly true

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not surprising to me. The anti-judiciary meme is basically a conservative thing, not a libertarian one. Libertarians I've known believe that there should always be consequences for bad action (something which conservatives and liberals both say, but they seem to have trouble with applying it consistently) and it's government, via limited liability and "tort reform" and other such silliness, that insulates big business from its responsibilities and externalizes costs onto the general public.
  A lot of the libertarians I've talked with hold that there should be a greater emphasis on contract law than judicial law, and that courts ought to be decentralized, but that's a different thing entirely.
  No, it's mostly just conservatives who push this idea of eliminating the little people's access to the judiciary system, by constantly repeating catchphrases like "jackpot justice" and all.

opt out

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I sent an email to sales@steam.com that bounced back and then I forwarded to webmaster@steam.com

I told them that I would not give up my rights as an american to have a jury of my peers, and since I notified them of that I would then accept the altered terms of the EULA based on that statement.

They did not respond before I clicked it.

I don't think they should be able to steal my money if I do not agree (by not allowing me to play the games I purchase if I do not agree) so I figure in the unlikely event that this EULA would ever matter, I could at least hope for a sympathetic judge when I explained how drunk I was when I came up with this plan. //toddles off to get another beer.

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent an email to sales@steam.com that bounced back and then I forwarded to webmaster@steam.com [...] They did not respond before I clicked it.

I'm not sure what 'the former home of Steam Tunnel Operations' is going to do with your email?

Re:opt out

[SolitaryMan]

I don't understand, If I don't accept this new EULA, will I get a refund for all my games or what?

Re:opt out

[the_Bionic_lemming]

that's not my problem.

They don't give me options to change the eula, I don't care if they aren't at the email they should be.

Beer!

Re:opt out

[broken_chaos]

Now I'm just imagining the day the poor schmuck who's Steam Tunnel Operations' webmaster is going to have tomorrow, starting with that e-mail, a few followups from other Slashdotters, and topped off by a heaping helping of spam.

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

He means you should have sent the email to valvesoftware.com or steampowered.com, not to someone else. You didn't notify them of the changed conditions and accepted theirs. Enjoy your beer.

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent an email to sales@steam.com that bounced back and then I forwarded to webmaster@steam.com

I told them that I would not give up my rights as an american to have a jury of my peers, and since I notified them of that I would then accept the altered terms of the EULA based on that statement.

They did not respond before I clicked it.

I don't think they should be able to steal my money if I do not agree (by not allowing me to play the games I purchase if I do not agree) so I figure in the unlikely event that this EULA would ever matter, I could at least hope for a sympathetic judge when I explained how drunk I was when I came up with this plan. //toddles off to get another beer.

You do know that the website is steampowered.com, not steam.com?

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

You STILL don't understand? You don't "own" information. It's physically as much nonsense as saying "let's go north" ON NORTH POLE! ^^

It says "license" for a reason. (Yeah, the part about "buying" is bullshit, and at best, can only refer to the license itself.)

Software is a the result of a service. You pay for that service. Unfortunately you chose to pay for a service that gives you only encrypted software, and chose not to capture the key when they sent it to you to decrypt it to play the game.

Stupidity/ignorance always hurts. It's supposed to hurt. So you learn from it. Let's see if you do this time...

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron. It's your problem that you can't fucking read. Oh hey, that door company sells doors only if I give them a key to the lock, I shall send an e-mail to door.com to show my disagreement.

Re:opt out

[stephanruby]

I sent an email to sales@steam.com that bounced back and then I forwarded to webmaster@steam.com

I told them that I would not give up my rights as an american to have a jury of my peers, and since I notified them of that I would then accept the altered terms of the EULA based on that statement.

Good, now you just need to convince one other person to do the same, and when the time comes for a class action lawsuit -- you may be able to have at least one other person in your class.

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't "own" information.

I certainly do own the copy stored on my own hard drive (which I bought). Morally, that is. Frankly, I don't care what the law/ToS/EULA says about it; I own it.

In fact, what's ridiculous is them claiming they somehow own the copy that's stored on the hard drive you bought... If the laws were just, it would be impossible for them to claim you don't own the games.

Re:opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you won't- which changes the nature of this "agreement". Sadly, they don't understand that an "agreement" under duress like this is void- even if they reserve the right to "alter" the agreement at any time.

Re:opt out

[alexo]

I told them that I would not give up my rights as an american to have a jury of my peers

In a civil case?

Too bad it's no legally enforceable....

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily I live in a state where that is illegal to do - so it doesn't matter.

Fuck em...

Re:Too bad it's no legally enforceable....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad the supreme court overruled your state.

Ur fucked...

Re:Too bad it's no legally enforceable....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I live in Europe (I'm not the OP though). So it's still not legal.

EULA lawyers vs. Class Action Lawyers. Popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pop the corn. Really. Who cares? I'm from DC and this is like watching Philly play New York. Is there any way they can both lose? No? Sucky game.

Re:Well, this will last...

[jedidiah]

Of course there is an obvious solution to the "lawyer problem". You institute a police state or monarchy where the little people have no rights.

Communist? Nazi? Take your pick.

Re:I'm not a lawyer.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It means your next post may qualify for a +4 moderation!

Good

[larry bagina]

class action lawsuits are bullshit that enrich a handful of lawyers and does jack shit for everyone else. Hell, it's worse than jack shit since (if you were actually harmed) you can't bring your own lawsuit unless you opt out of the settlement (assuming you even know about it).

Well that's odd

[gman003]

I just restarted Steam and saw this (again - had already RTFA and commented). It of course popped up saying "the EULA and Privacy Policy have changed, please read and agree (if you disagree, you cannot continue)". Then it showed me the new EULA.

Or rather, it tried to. The text box was blank. I clicked through before I thought to grab a screenshot, otherwise I'd have one hell of a technicality should I ever want to sue them.

Re:Well that's odd

[yahwotqa]

Well, you can always photoshop such screenshot if you ever need it.

Class action lawsuits/lawyers are garbage anyway.

[flimflammer]

I'm sure a whole mess of people have seen that Erin Brockovich movie about the mother turned legal aid who took on the faceless megacorp PG&E with a class action and won, giving everyone who watched the film a rosy view of the process? I mean why would Valve dare remove such an amazing system unless they're they scum of the earth right?!

Yeah except that class actions aren't usually like that. Very rarely do they ever benefit the actual people wronged. It's a good way for the lawyers to make some cash though. You know those commercials on TV to contact specific attorneys about defective items, or medications that ended up harming people? It's all a game, using your suffering as a means to profit and returning very little, if anything, to you.

There is a number of practices I disagree with regarding Valve but honestly, but I can't disagree with their view that class actions are trash. They really are. Valve isn't taking away your ability to take them to court. They're just requiring that individual claims are brought to court, rather than a broad class action.

An EULA is not a contract

[Anonymous Coward]

An EULA is not a contract

Re:An EULA is not a contract

[ledow]

I'm afraid it is, pretty much, in the eyes of the law.

The beauty, though, is that an illegal contract term means nothing. I'm pretty sure this contract term means nothing. It could say I agree to give them my firstborn, it doesn't mean I'm required to, nor that the REST of the contract is non-binding.

The same as any, and all, contracts. Previously, the SSA claimed that I could only sue them in their home jurisdiction. I'm sure the EU would have had something to say about that and, given the OTHER changes made (i.e. the setting up of an EU office for Steam), I reckon they did.

Just because you say something in a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding. But agreeing to a contract (including EULA, software licensing like the GPL, etc.) is as binding as legally possible.

I'm pretty sure that, if challenged, any sensible country in the world would allow you to automatically and without question override the "no class action" clauses in ANY contract. The same as they can override the "We accept no responsibility" clauses in most contracts if they deem that party SHOULD be responsible anyway.

Re:Well, this will last...

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalist?

Good For Them

[Fulminata]

Most class action suits are scams anyway. Just today I received notice of one that I'm included in being filed against Netflix for alleged privacy violations. The lawyers are seeking $9 million. I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.

If Valve screws you over, you can still sue them as an individual, this just limits the ability of glorified ambulance chasers to make outrageous amounts of money in exchange for getting their supposed clients a settlement worth less than the cost of a good meal.

Re:Good For Them

[Fred Ferrigno]

I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.

In this specific instance, the six named plantiffs are getting $5,000 each. Everyone else is getting exactly nothing.

Re:Good For Them

[Fulminata]

Good point. So, the attorneys in this suit are effectively removing the rights of everyone in the "class" to sue over this issue in exchange for absolutely nothing. Further, they emailed me the notice, but in order to opt out I need to send a letter to a post office box in Minnesota. This information is not listed on the page the email links to, rather I had to search a moderately lengthy FAQ to find it.

Valve is doing their customers a service by including this in the EULA.

Re:Good For Them

[Cederic]

Surely unless you've given them permission to include you in the class suit they can not legally represent you?

In fact, invite Netflix to sue them for lying out of their arses for misrepresenting whether they're representing you. About $200m should be reasonable.

Re:Good For Them

[Fulminata]

Sadly, that's not how class action suits work. If you are part of a "class" then you are automatically represented unless you opt out.

Re:Good For Them

[Cederic]

Interesting. So why doesn't the company initiate a class action against itself, settle for $4.98 and walk away giggling?

Re:Good For Them

[Fulminata]

You'd have to ask a lawyer, but I believe there does have to be at least one or two legitimate plaintiffs in order to get things started. In the case of the Netflix suit, there are six "named" plaintiffs.

Dumb America and Corporate takeovers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you allow Corporations or individuals to announce that they are exempting themselves from certain legal processes then they are, effectively, saying "we are above the law and can do as we please". The correct response should be "if a group of your customers join together and sue you - tough - you should have looked after them better". But you can no more excuse yourself from Class Actions than you can excuse yourself from the laws on murder, or theft.

To Apply for an Arbritration Claim Form . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . please make an appointment with our claims appointment office by U.S. Mail (P.O. Box 101, Morpwar, TX 52577) or Telex (76622234). Claim forms must be recieved in person at the time of the appointment. The address of your regional claims form reception office will be provided to you if your application for an appointment is approved. Arbitration claim forms must be neatly completed in ink or typewriter and five notarized copies sent by authorized courier to the Arbitration Claims Reception Center (712 Manknar Center Road, Suite 12b, Manknar WY). A refundable arbitration claim fee must be remitted by postal money order to the Arbitration Claim Fee escrow agent within ten days of notification of the receipt of your arbitration claim forms.

If your arbitration claim is rejected, your fee will be refunded in the form of a American Express gift card. To get your card, submit a arbitration claim fee refund form to . . .

They make a valid point.

[Lord Kano]

I've joined a couple of class action suits over the years and it always ends up with a $4.00 coupon for me and $20,000,000 for the lawyers.

LK

Re:They make a valid point.

[Patent Lover]

$4 coupon! Dude you made out like a gangbuster. I've never made more than 99 cents. Enjoy being in the top 1%.

Re:They make a valid point.

[Hatta]

That's $20,000,004 that's not in the offending party's pockets anymore. Don't you think that's going to affect their behavior more than a $200 arbitration settlement?

If a company fucks me over, I don't care how much the lawyers get. Just fuck them over back. That's the point of the class action.

In a normal country...

[Anonymous Coward]

...an agreement between any two or more entities can not supersede any rights granted by the laws of that country.
I suppose that your rights are maybe not so well defined in the laws of USA as you probably think they are... if they are, you simply can sue Valve (and the other companies) for violating those laws.

Bad for us, but meh.

[game kid]

I want to be mad about this--I don't like losing any of my rights--but...

1. indeed, CALs ultimately have little impact on customers (yay a coupon) or corporations (yay another small regulatory tax expense that we overcharge our little consumers to pay for in the first place);
2. I clicked "I agree" because I kinda thought they already had terms like that the last one or two times they altered the deal (unless I was thinking of other games I've played); and
3. do I reeeeeeeeeeally want to lose my catalog of games that runs from a Half-Life 2 ATI card preorder...offer...thing to a Torchlight 2 preorder...offer...thing for not indemnifying and holding them harmless or whathaveyou as they see fit? I'm a tad invested in that system now.

So, meh. I'll wait until the courts grow a backbone. Any victory I gain from a boycott or a protest would be minimal if not pyrrhic.

Are there any limits on EULA?

[Grayhand]

The EULA can require that you give up your first born to be eaten by rabid weasels. It doesn't mean it's legal or that you have to actually do it. They've reduced EULA's to the level of a joke. The only reason they matter is most can't aford the lawyers to fight them!

Re:Are there any limits on EULA?

[Z00L00K]

It's time to make sure that there is a legal precedent set into what really can be written in an EULA and invalidate all the EULA:s that are stepping over the legal bounds.

Re:Are there any limits on EULA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dutch law has a more sane approach. A EULA (or FOSS license) has no legal status as long as you use the software for its intended purpose. Normal consumer protection laws apply. When you do things with the software it was not intended for the license terms do apply.

If you buy a game you can play the game without worrying aboute the EULA, if you buy a word processor you can do all the word processing you like. But games and word processors are not sold or marketed as reverse engineering material, so once you start reverse engineering them the license terms do apply (assuming there are no other laws they are in conflict with, of course).

IANAL, but a lawyer explained this to me once and this is how I remember it. I think the approach is sane because it's crazy if you can be bound by terms you didn't agree to *before* bought the software; it ensures that software you buy in a shop is just another item you buy in a shop and not something with entirely different rules, you get what you expect to get; but it does give the maker a way to say you can't reverse engineer the software or export it to Iran.

Valve declares itself judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

of disputes involving itself.

This is going to be good.

Is there a reason for this?

[freeze128]

Do they even need to force arbitration? When has one of Valve's products killed someone?
Or left them crippled?
Or changed their lives so seriously that they actually NEEDED to sue Valve for damages?

The EULA already pretty much says that this software is sold as-is and is not fit for a particular purpose, and indemnifies them against loss of data on your hard drive, and any responsibility is yours.

If the product doesn't do what you would expect, they can always just give you a refund, and kick your butt out the door.

It would seem to me that this clause would prevent lawsuits like "Your game gave me carpal tunnel" or "Because of Half-life, my family left me", which are all bullshit lawsuits anyway, and those are EXACTLY the things that Valve wants to avoid.

Re:Is there a reason for this?

[cheekyjohnson]

None of those three things really need to happen. You do not need to have a "need" to sue someone in order to be able to file a lawsuit. Valve is perfectly capable of ripping people off, and if it's done en masse, a class action lawsuit may be the appropriate option.

Re:Is there a reason for this?

[ReeceTarbert]

The EULA already pretty much says that this software is sold as-is and is not fit for a particular purpose.

The point, and the real issue, is that Valve is licensing, not selling anything. What do you thing is going to happen to the games I "bought" from them if I should decide to refuse the new terms?

RT.

Bah, Whatever

[Scorch_Mechanic]

I'm annoyed at valve for this (door-closing, even if it's actually not enforceable) earns a black mark in my book. Ultimately however, I don't think I give a damn. Valve would have to really start spiraling down the Evil Drain for me to actually care about suing them, much less joining a class-action lawsuit against them. There's also the bit about paying the arbitration fees (yes, I read the fine print go away) that tells me they're doing this more in a CYA move than because they've decided to be evil. They make boatloads of cash off of us already without being evil. I wouldn't put it past them to start being evil, but my experience with Valve and their Steam platform has been without flaw up to this point.

By all means, let me know if the water starts to boil around me. So far as I can tell, it's still ice cold against my smooth green skin...

Re:Bah, Whatever

[Hatta]

There's also the bit about paying the arbitration fees (yes, I read the fine print go away) that tells me they're doing this more in a CYA move than because they've decided to be evil.

They're not doing this to be generous. They're doing that because arbiters know who signs the checks.

Independent arbitration should be illlegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every citizen has a right to fair trial. Corporations owning their own fake judges and courtrooms is not at all fair.

dev/null

[Anonymous Coward]

time to uninstall

Re:Class action lawsuits/lawyers are garbage anywa

[Anonymous Coward]

Class action suits aren't supposed to be a wonderful revenue source for claimants, they are supposed to punish misconduct

ProCD v. Zeidenberg

[Hognoxious]

An EULA is not a contract.

Really? There's a clearly communicated offer, an explicit acceptance and an exchange of valuables.

Re:ProCD v. Zeidenberg

[mrbester]

Really? Did you sign it? Did you get it notarised? Did you understand every word of legalese used? Did you agree to forfeit statutory rights (that can't be forfeited) like "you agree this bullshit can be changed at any time at our whim when it benefits one party over another"?

Or did you click through the unenforceable crap just so you could use what you paid for?

Re:ProCD v. Zeidenberg

[Luckyo]

This depends on the country in question and how far it allows such contracts to go. In USA, EULA of this kind has been legally enforced with great degree of success in courts. It had a bit less of luck in various European countries, and even less success in the rest of the world where companies don't even bother trying to enforce it knowing that such action would be smashed by local law.

Re:Well, this will last...

[bfandreas]

Of course there is an obvious solution to the "lawyer problem". You institute a police state or monarchy where the little people have no rights.

Communist? Nazi? Take your pick.

I'll pick Anarchist. Those guys build interesting dictatorships.

Well that sucks..

[whois]

Steam just made me update and click through the agreement. I figure it isn't valid in court considering the only way to continue playing the games you purchased was to agree to new terms, but it's still bullshit we have to wait until someone tests the law.

It doesn't matter if it actually benefits the consumer. The companies doing this are playing dirty by limiting the users rights to use the legal system. They haven't given us a choice in the matter, they've decided that whats in their best interest is also in ours. I find that hard to believe.

I've boycotted Sony for doing the same thing with the PS3, after shenanigans before of removing Linux from the PS3 and taking other things away from the customer. So what am I supposed to do in this case?

 

Re:Well that sucks..

[Anonymous Coward]

So what am I supposed to do in this case?

Not buy DRM ridden software for one. It's your own fault for locking yourself in their platform. Let that be a lesson.

Re:Well that sucks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seed and share.
And tell your children to do the same.

Or, contribute to some free/open-source game someplace, Liberted Pixel is a good start: http://lpc.opengameart.org/

Re:Class action lawsuits/lawyers are garbage anywa

[bfandreas]

It did cost Erin quite a lot of time and effort which is why many people think she is a national heroine and not at all that wosshername actress who played her in a movie based on what she did.
If you do not stand up and speak for yourself who else is supposed to do it?

This attitude reminds me of this "You are about to be fired" speach V broadcast and that didn't make it into the movie. For shame!

Is it legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it legal to change service contract terms retroactively after I paid already? I have huge collection of games on Steam and now they come and say that they changed rules of the game and I should pray they do no change it further!

impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Class action is a fundamental right. It is completely impossible for it to be removed by any contract, even if agreed to.

I'd complain but...

[HungryHobo]

I'd complain but I have quite a few games on steam and they'd probably find some excuse to ban me if I made too much noise. what would I do then? sue them?

Not just in France

[Firethorn]

We have those judges in the USA as well, and they're mentioned elsewhere in the thread. They preside over special courts called 'Small Claims Courts'. Exact verbage may vary by state, as does the exact rules and limits on awards. In general, though, $5k is a good rule of thumb and in most cases it's actually illegal(or greatly frowned upon) to bring legal representation(it's considered unfair to the other side). A business may send a representative, but it's supposed to be somebody in charge, such as the owner or manager. They can send an employee, but if said employee has a legal degree the court may forbid him from presenting/arguing anything, or handicap him; IE if I was using a point system you won on points, but didn't beat the 10 point spread because you're a lawyer, so I'm finding for the other party.

Class action lawsuits are an different matter. Early on they made sense where a company may/may not have violated contracts/laws/fair business practices with a large number of customers in a small fashion. Basically, too small for most to bother with small claims, but amounting to millions on the side of the company. It saves(theoretically) on costs because you don't end up with 10k court cases(small claims or not), plus allows the sort of deeper discovery a proper trial can have, getting a company for tricky rule-tweaking that can't be proved in a small court. Basically, a class action is for when multiple parties want to sue another for essentially the same thing, combining all their trials into one. Saves on the plaintiffs and defense alike. Traditionally used(and probably stil worth it) for things like when a factory polluted a whole town to the point it had to be abandoned or caused increased medical expenses to all the residents. Hard to prove increased sickness on the part of one person, much easier when you have enough people to do proper statistical analysis.

Sueing Netflix and Walmart over a supposed deal where Netflix doesn't get into DVD sales and Walmart doesn't offer an online rental/streaming business is a bit more complicated. In reality, most people wouldn't have sued over something like that anyways, such trials end up expensive messes, and the awards often aren't worth reading the paperwork to apply for them, mostly benefiting the lawyers.

I am not surprised...

[tryptogryphic]

A corporation is a corporation is a corporation is a corporation.

It's sole purpose is to make an ever-increasing profit for it's stakeholders...seemingly at any cost.

Forgive my cynicism, but I have much more faith in the ability of human greed and maleficence to overcome the human spirit, the larger and more successful a corporation becomes.

There seems to be less legislative incentive for larger companies to simply care, about the end-user. I mean, the prevailing attitude of recent times in the software industry is that, once they see the market likes their shit / trusts them to a degree, they abuse this fact and start doing all kinds of errant, stupid abusive things (see, Microsoft, Macintosh, Google, Ford, GM etc etc etc etc etc) which of course, one can then say "well if you don't like them, don't buy their shit". This is indeed true, but when looking at a product say, a PC operating system, it's a little difficult if you want to compete / thrive / be able to do work on a computer with everyone else around you.

Corporations aren't designed to care...they're designed to make profits. The people in them are supposed to care....but...as I said earlier I have much more faith in the ability of human greed and maleficence to overcome the human spirit, the larger and more successful a corporation becomes.

So valve, in and of itself, isn't evil, it's the key people involved in letting this decision take place, that are.

Lawsuit buggy yellow, no suing back?

[Arancaytar]

http://xkcd.com/392/

I think I finally understand EULAs.

What valueable did you get for agreeing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What valueable did you get for agreeing?

The game? No, you've bought that.

You will, however, mean it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You two-faced shit.

There you go

[humanrev]

And this is why I don't buy using Steam.

If the EULA changes in such as way as to become unacceptable, you can't just "leave" Steam without some sort of sacrifice for what you've already bought, as most (but not all) of the games use executables which incorporate a wrapper requiring Steam to launch and authenticate anyway in order to run. I suppose you can still leave of course, you just have to find cracks. And I doubt when Steam appears on Linux that cracks will be particularly easy to find (when's the last time you needed a crack for a Linux game?)

At least with GOG, if they fuck up the EULA you've already got all the game installers and extras downloaded (presumably), can play them without any further interaction with GOG and so you can take your business elsewhere without losing what you bought. Steam? Not so much.

Re:Class action lawsuits/lawyers are garbage anywa

[flimflammer]

I never implied they were supposed to be a wonderful revenue source for claimants, but that they rarely actually benefit the people who are in need of help as a result of the action which caused the class action. That is, unless you're one of the few people who first initiated the class action and get on the plaintiff list. Many people don't know that once you've gone into the class action, your ability to file your own lawsuit pretty much goes up in smoke. Attorneys will pull in their millions in winnings, the plaintiffs will get a modest sum, and anything else will usually be put towards something silly (like giving all claimants a percentage off their next whatever the company is pushing, or something)

Valve, schmalve

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave up on games long ago. Yes, they are fun, but then I realised that I'm 30 and still living in my mom's basement and I have no social, nor job, skills and all of my friend's refuse to talk to me unless its in COD. I still have about 4 cereal bowls under my bed(along with all the monsters, which is why I dare not pick them up), but I do sort all of my underwear by color before my mom does laundry, she says that I'm growing up just fine.

Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Class action lawsuits are clearly not so you can make a lot of money. I'd say they're more for teaching the company a lesson. And frankly, I would find it absolutely idiotic if a mere EULA was able to take that right away."

Class-action suits are useless--a judge gets to decide what you get out of it, which usually means a free product of the ilk that got them sued in the first place.

The answer is to sue individually--BURY them in lawsuits and make them pay the legal fees of every single lawyer involved. So what if you don't get any of that money--you ain't getting it from a class-action anyway.

While were on the subject, anyone that plays Everquest 2, or any other Sony Online Entertainment MMO for that matter, can get in on the action. Check out this thread on their forums--it looks like the Sony/BMG Rootkit all over again...

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=520848

Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[cheekyjohnson]

The answer is to sue individually

Yeah, and how many people are going to do that when the damages are small? Most likely, not very many. Which means the company can pretty much do whatever they please.

Besides, if I want to enter a class action lawsuit, that's my choice. If I want to risk getting less money than I lost from getting ripped off, that is, again, my choice. I don't see why people want to remove that choice from individuals just because they hate lawyers.

Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[Shotgun]

You don't "enter" a class action. You are "put" in it, unless you take proactive steps to get out of it.

And as to the other argument being put forth in this thread, it is not the civil lawyer's job to "punish" a poorly acting company. We have state and federal entities for that which we have already paid for. Again, we're paying exhorbitant taxes for government, and not getting what we've paid for.

Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[cheekyjohnson]

You are "put" in it, unless you take proactive steps to get out of it.

I've heard of that before. That actually sounds like a problem.

And as to the other argument being put forth in this thread, it is not the civil lawyer's job to "punish" a poorly acting company.

It might be the intentions of those in the class action lawsuit.

We have state and federal entities for that which we have already paid for.

I'll be waiting. In any case, I don't think any of this is a reason to remove the choice, and especially not a reason to enforce ridiculous EULAs.

Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[GT66]

Uh... In a class action, the plaintiff's lawyers are usually fronting the bucks to handle the case in EXCHANGE for a bigger slice of the money they stand to make. Whether a company pays cash, coupons or a replacement product, there is a cost. Now, individual suits ONLY work to bury the company if everyone that was going to sign onto the class action chooses to sue on their own AND front the money (unlikely to happy on a class scale). ALSO, individually, one win for the defendant becomes a template for beating the remaining law suits. In a class action, the defendant gets one shot at making its argument potentially making a win for the plaintiff and a punishment for the defendant more likely.

Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN?

[Firethorn]

Just got another netflix class action - I have about a month to take positive action to remove myself from the lawsuit. I'm considering doing so because from the description given Netlfix didn't do anything I'd consider wrong, and I'd rather Netflix spent the money expanding their catalog.

In the US

[aepervius]

YMMV in other country you cannot give up rights, even willingly, and that clause is probably unenforceable in EU for example.

Unenforceable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been proven before EULAs don't hold up well legally. And they're certainly not allowed to declare that you can't do something the law says you, in fact, can.

Otherwise, we can definitely start playing some fun games with EULAs: http://xkcd.com/501/

Why forgo class action to benefit the company

[Anonymous Coward]

Why forgo class action to benefit the company who screwed you over?

You DO know that if the killer of your auntie is arrested for the crime, that the criminal doesn't work for you whilst in prison, right? So therefore why bother turning up to give evidence if it's not going to benefit you?

Thanks UBISOFT!

[yodleboy]

You can probably lay this one at the feet of crap companies like UBISOFT. An actual Valve game will likely never be cause for a class action suit. What this is, is an attempt to protect themselves from being the scapegoat for OTHER publishers' stupidity. I'm pointing to the recent announcement that UBIPLAY or whatever it's called has been installing rootkits on users computers. It's not Valve's fault that Ubisoft slipped some crap like this into their installer and they are rightly concerned about being sued for it, even though they are just the delivery boy in this case. With this move, greedy class action lawyers will just bypass Valve and go after Ubi, which is the correct thing to do anyway.

Question

[Big Jim Taters]

I know only a little about the legal system, so riddle me this, Batman. I was on the understanding with this that there are still two (2) avenues for suit against valve if someone were to need them. The aforementioned arbitration as one options (basically settling a suit out of court) and the standard one-to-one type lawsuit. If valve were to wrong me in some way, then I could personally sue them and make my own case. All that this changes is the many-to-one suit type. Am I completely wrong in this evaluation?

I never liked valve anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They are purely a digital company. Even their "retail" games are still just nifty packages for the digital content. And I dont like digital products because I will NEVER own them, I just buy a license for a undefined amount of time and rent the game. I can never sell the games I purchase, let a friend borrow them, try to sell them at what I want to try and sell them for, I can trade them in at another store or on ebay and so on. Not to mention digital products arent guarnteed to be around in 10 years and in 10 or 20 years the game may no longer run on my current pc then or the servers even still host the game or even be in business still. Digital is fine for people who only care about right now but for people like who when they purchase something and want to actually own the product then digital sucks.

2) Steam is DRM. Everyone bitches about diablo 3 for having online drm, everyone bitches about ubisoft for using drm and so on but then praise valves steam when its the exact same thing. When you "buy" a game on steam you are forced to have a steam account, your forced to play your game through steam and your forced to be online for your account to be active. Its still a company saying "Ok you bought your game in full so it belongs to you, but if you want to play it then you have to do it the way you tell you to".

3) Gabe runs valve essentially and I personally dislike him as a person and as a business man. If nothing else because he is a fraud and only cares about appealing to whoever he considers to be the majority in gamers. When it was popular and cool to hate sony gabe would constantly in every single interview he would bitch about sony and act like a immature brat. Even when the interview had nothing to do with sony he would still find a way to wedge his hatred for them into it. Then he suddenly appears on stage with a sony rep when portal 2 comes out and he is praising sony and practically sucking their dicks because it was no longer cool to hate sony. All the while during his sony hating days he praised microsofts xbox 360, then he got on the sony side he started saying the 360 was inferior. He used to say how great and perfect pc gaming was and loved microsoft, now he sides with consoles because they make up the majority now and now he loves linux suddenly in a attempt at earning more geek cred.

4) Valve takes other peoples games and labels them as their own. Left 4 dead was made by turtle rock but valve but removed any mention of them and thus millions think its strictly a valve game. They did the same thing with counterstrike in that they make it seem like valve is the ones who solely created it. And so on, they would take others mods and brand them as valve games. Then you have dota2 which is their game technically, but its still just a straight ripoff of a mod built for warcraft 3.

And now they change eula to shit like this. How it is they have won such a large brainless, mindless and zealot like following Ill never know.

EULA for Valve

[Anonymous Coward]

By allowing Me to purchase any of Your products, via proxy or otherwise, You agree that the EULA attached to that product is voided and I may use the product in any way I choose.

IANAL but why can't I just fax a message like this to Valve/OtherEvilCompany and not have to care about EULAs ever again? If clickwrapping is ok then why isn't salewrapping?

Unenforcable

[Anonymous Coward]

I judge can simply strike out that part instead of processing 100,000 individual claims. The judge can also limit the payment to lawyers. Otherwise, every business entity would put terms in like that. It's a ploy just like those signs on back of dumb trucks that say, "Stay back 300 ft not responsible for damage."

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all your fault companies get away with this. If you stopped using their services and tell them why, then they will be forced to change their view. If you continue using these services, they have no reason to change. STOP GIVING THEM MONEY!!!!

the problems with arbitration/CAL

[RobertLTux]

1 most of the time there is a massive conflict of interest on the part of the arbitration company (you tend to decide in favor of the party paying you)

2 not enough of the "payout" gets down to the injured parties

3 most of the time the payout is NOT CASH

so i propose a bit of a fix

1 at any time the facts of any arbitration can be audited (by say the IRS or similar type folks) and if it is found that the case was decided WRONG (denied without sufficient cause) then 7X the payout is to be given to the customer (in cash money) and any negative notices placed on credit records are to be stricken.

2 payouts are to be not less than 110% of the money in question TO BE PAID IN CASH to the customer

3 the payout is to have interest equal to 150% of the current Prime Rate applied each 30 days the dispute is in play (so if a company stalls and throws paper around for 90 days you increase the payout by 4.875 *3)

This is what I wrote to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I am being held hostage by you guys - you gave me no opt-out when presenting new EULA terms and button "You have to agree to continue" underneath.

Are you implying that in order to play games I lawfully purchased through Steam, I must now retroactively forfeit my legal rights?

I am sure this contradicts Goods and Services Act (I am in UK), and if you do not reply with explanation/apology within 14 days from this day, I might be forced to seek legal advice on this.

I want original license, which influenced my purchasing decisions, to apply to all the games I have already purchased on Steam, and want you to confirm this. Please note that I do not want compensation - I want original service as promised and paid for to be delivered to me as your customer on the terms I initially agreed to.

As a side I might say that this is very dangerous road Valve as a company is taking - please stop act contrary to the laws of the country and also please stop treating my privacy as your property. Because it is not your property, full stop.

Have a nice day otherwise

Re:This is what I wrote to them

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I am sure you have them quaking in their boots with your hyperbole and empty threats,

Fundamentally you are being held hostage by yourself and your inability to ween yourself off Steam content. If you feel strongly enough that their new EULA (which nobody reads anyways) violates your rights then by all means you CAN opt out by uninstalling it. I am sure if you actually read the EULA you would be outraged over existing clauses you willingly accepted in the past, you are only reacting to this clause because it was made apparent on Slashdot.

Moral outrage is probably the biggest problems on the Internet today because there is a lot of bark and absolutely no bite. You will continue to, happily, use Steam and its products and services, and continue to make Gabe rich because the alternative is to stop buying their content and uninstalling their services once and for all.

I stopped using Steam 5 years ago because of stupidity surrounding their credit card payment system and treating me like I was committing fraud using my own money. I took a hit and lost the use of HL2 and a few other games I bought, but I refuse to use that platform again.

When consumers realize they have more power over corporations the corporations will bow to consumer opinion. You are never a hostage to a product or service, you have, and will continue to have, full rights to NOT use a product or service, you just have to accept the loss and move on.

However most people will bitch about this new policy and continue to feed money to Valve and nothing will change which is why corporations get away with what they do.

Grow a pair and uninstall Steam versus vapid diatribes.

Re:This is what I wrote to them

[zlives]

+1,

Way to go Gabe

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Talk bullshit about other people's platforms, while piling it up on your own platform.

Re:EULA lawyers vs. Class Action Lawyers. Popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

introduce death match...

Thank you for flying DRM...

[Splab]

So I just got home for work and first thing that pops up on my computer is the new license.

As a test I decide to not allow for the change (disagree) - now *none* of the games can be started and you can't access any steam downloads - this means you are forced into accepting new terms if you want to play your legally owned games.

Piracy here I come... Also I'm thinking of starting a class action lawsuit to get my money back from the games that I bought...

so what if you don't agree?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if you don't agree? Do you still get the game you paid for, or havethey stolen all your stuff? Can you get the money back because the contract as been changed on the same good and service that money bought?

Or is this where you are agreeing like someone agrees to give a mugger their wallet because they didn't want to die?

Isn't that sort of coerced agreement null and void EVERYWHERE?

luckily, you're talking bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I joun a class action, I cannot persue personally. If I do not know about, refuse to join, already have started and refuse to abort and join, or even am in a different country, I cannot lose my right to the court by the existence of a class action lawsuit.

In otherwords, you are talking comolete bollocks.

"we like to bring the changes to your attention"

[redizhot]

"Whenever we need to make changes to these agreements we like to bring the changes to your attention and explain why they’re necessary." Is that why you failed to notify us of EULA changes upon Steam login? I respect a companies ability to change user agreements, but they should ALWAYS notify you of such changes, even if 99% of readers click through it without giving it a cursory glance. I'm not sure I'm for or against this change yet, but for saying how much they like to bring attention to changes, they certainly can do more.

Not enforceable

[uvajed_ekil]

Don't worry. Lots of companies put lots of things in their TOS, EULA, whatever that are not legally enforceable. Courts in the past have determined that consumers and licensees can't give up all of their legal rights, at least in some cases. If a class action suit becomes a legitimate possibility for Valve customers, a review will probably strike portions of their EULA as illegal or unenforceable. This is simply a tactic to discourage such cases and make it as hard as possible to sue them, but not impossible.

Re:Not enforceable

[petsounds]

Is there even any case law which upholds EULAs as enforceable? AFAIK a EULA validity case hasn't gone to the Supreme Court. I guess Steam is a little more in the clear, but in cases where you must buy a product before you can even read the license agreement, I don't see how those could ever hold up to legal scrutiny.

Re:Not enforceable

[lpq]

Sorry, you are wrong.

The Corporations pushed through FEDERAL legislation that allows such agreements to be enforceable. The federal legislation overrides states rights, as it has to do with commerce that crosses state lines.

You've been sold out bub...

Existing Games

[genkernel]

I am familiar with clicking on the "I agree" checkbox when buying games. What was seriously annoying to me today, was that when I opened steam I had to click through an "agree" button *in order to access existing games*. For what it is worth, Valve is still better than the rest of the gaming industry concerning issues like this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't being asshats too.

Holy shit. Sony tracking torrenters with a rootkit

[Anachragnome]

This is the most recent post in that thread. I'm amazed it hasn't been deleted yet. That being said, I post it here on Slashdot for posterity. (I removed some spaces from the post for /. sake, and my emphasis). Somebody needs to get Mark Russinovich looking at this stuff--I'm sure he'd love another swing at the Pinata.

""The question at hand was about the Trusted Site settings. This is a Windows OS setting, it happens to be controllable from either IE or the control panel..."

My point exactly--it is an OS setting, something SOE should not be mucking about in, yet did, and without permission.

  "Then please explain LiveDriver.exe

This executable is not installed by any SOE product or used by any SOE product...."

  On my wifes XP machine, when EQ2 updated, one of the files that was downloaded was LiveDriverSDK.exe (the .exe installed the .dll, a .xml file and unknown other files, then deleted itself). So I missed a bit on the name of the file, but you should have know what I was referring to, seeing as how you have something very close to what I mentioned.

LiveDriverSDK.dll

Located at C:/Program Files/Sony Online Entertainment/Installed Games/Everquest II

Also...

eq2ui_popup-livedriver.xml

Located at C:/Program Files/Sony Online Entertainment/Installed Games/Everquest II/UI

This appears to be a popup for recording character voices. And you claim nothing called LiveDriver came from SOE?

  The EQ2 install directory">was located in C:/Users/Username/AppData/LocalLow/Sony Online Entertainment"

The EQ2 Uninstaller should have removed this. Simple as that. I'm not buying your excuse.

Now, on to another questionable folder far more serious--C:/Crash--My wifes XP machine had two files in here, for a total of 56MBs.

drwtsn32.log (this file can be opened with notepad.exe and be read in plain-text)

I can understand why you might want this file, although it has information in it that you really don't need. The next file is the one that every person that reads this forum needs to inspect on their own machines--this is a serious breach of trust, if not a violation of Federal Wiretap laws. This file may, or may not, be in the C:/Crash folder, depending on whether or not it has been uploaded as the files here are deleted once uploaded.

user.dmp

If you open this file with notepad.exe, what you see is mostly machine/assembly code--unreadable for you and me. Grab that scroll bar on the right and start dragging--you will begin to see code for a graphical interface, frame settings and such. Keep scrolling (I had to scroll down about 80% of the way down the file). If you are like my wife and I, we use a P2P client--that client, specifically BitTorrent, is listed along with a few other applications. What follows is what really matters...a list of every single file downloaded by BitTorrent since my wife last ran CCleaner(set to delete BitTorrent logs), as well as every other file placed in those torrented folders, up to and including update files, patches, cracks, mods and user created files.

  Hear me well, Torrenters. SOE is tracking everything you torrent, and doing so directly through your own computer. They are then uploading that data to their own servers via wws_crashreport_uploader.exe.

  I do not accept your lies, Sony.

  I'm done here. Good day."

Re:Holy shit. Sony tracking torrenters with a root

[Anachragnome]

Stupid "Post Anonymously" check-box didn't work.

Okies, time to come clean--I was trying to keep Sony from connecting this account to the Sony forum account of mine. Too late now. Deceiving Slashdot readers was not my intention.

I am "Bug", the dude that started that thread on the SOE site. I was trying to get the information I found out about EQ2, and what appears to be a rootkit, posted here on Slashdot without allowing Sony to make any connections between me (and my SOE account), this Slashdot account...and the only computer they didn't get into--this one. Oh, well.

The sole reason I started that thread was to get some feedback from SOE--re-posting those replies here on Slashdot is meaningless. I wanted people to see the SOE responses--denials in particular--first hand and not just take my word on it. That is the reason I posted a link to that thread here on Slashdot--to get word out. The fact I tried to do so anonymously is now moot, but no less regrettable.

The deeper I dig, the more shit I find. I've done everything I said in that thread, including imaging the drive from my wifes computer--that image is in someone elses hands now--but in the meantime I've been dissecting the drive in my wifes XP machine that actually got rooted. I am also quite serious about handing all of this over to my State Attorney General--in the last Sony Rootkit fiasco, Attorneys General were the people that spear-headed the investigations once Mark Russinovich identified XCP (I really wish he'd take a look at this). My understanding of this is limited--someone that really knows what they are doing needs to take a look at this. If any of you are interested in doing so (on a sacrificial machine, of course), EQ2 is Free-to-play and can be installed for free--you don't have to put real information in the account registration if you have no intention of paying for the game. At that point you'd have full access to everything I've found, unless of course they already removed it from the most recent update. I'm also very interested in whether or not ALL of the SOE games are dealing this crap.

Some people in the SOE forums have claimed that they have found up to 16GB of data stored in that "user.dmp" file--after what I've found personally, I believe them. I cringe at the thought of what might be contained in a 16GB "crash report".

PS: I apologize for the all-bold post above--accidentally removed some HTML. Also, my apologies to any that feel I was being deceptive here on Slashdot--I am usually honest and forthright here, and furthermore, posting anonymously like I did felt a little "dirty", regardless of my motives. It will not happen again.

I refused to agree

[Stan92057]

I refused to agree now i cant play or even get to the games i bought does that mean i can start a CA suite?