Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Valve Removes Right For Class Action Claims From EULA

Posted by Soulskill on from the let's-all-sue-them-for-this dept.

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."

32 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by gman003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by macshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    4. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Nursie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by morcego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      morcego
    8. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms

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

    9. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Artraze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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.

    11. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Informative

      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*.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Asmor · · Score: 4, Informative

      $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?

    13. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    15. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    16. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Theophany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about getting rich

      Tell the lawyers that.

    18. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    21. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    23. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    24. Re:I deeply dislike the end-run aroudn the courts by ifrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
  2. -1 Evil by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. opt out by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:opt out by SolitaryMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
  4. Re:Is this even legally binding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Re:Sadly true by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  6. Re:Is this even legally binding? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Re:Sony/BMG Rootkit AGAIN? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!