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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Theophany]

It's not about getting rich

Tell the lawyers that.

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

[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.

-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.

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

[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: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: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.