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

[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

[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

[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.

-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: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.