EA Hopped on the Sony bandwagon. EA forbidding a class action lawsuit with new Origin TOS

[Vandole]

http://www.destructoid.com/ea-forbid...s-212287.phtml

A couple of weeks ago, Sony updated the PlayStation Network terms of service with a clause that forces users to waive their right to file class action lawsuits against the company. Instead, disputes must be resolved individually through arbitration, a process when tends to favor corporations over individuals. It sounds a bit dodgy but the change came about thanks to recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled in a separate case that such conditions are enforceable.

Recognizing a good idea when it sees one, Electronic Arts has now made similar changes to the Origin terms of service. Under "Section 20: Dispute Resolution by Binding Arbitration," the ToS now compels users to "expressly waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action." Instead, all disputes that cannot be straightened out through "informal negotiations" will be "finally and exclusively resolved by binding arbitration."

In case that's not clear enough in itself, the document also states, in bold face and all caps, "You understand that by this provision, you and EA are foregoing the right to sue in court and have a trial by jury." Furthermore, "You and EA agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding." And not only that, but "unless both you and EA agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person's claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding."

Got that, slugger? There are some limitations; you're exempt from these restrictions if you happen to live in Quebec, Russia, Switzerland or the Member States of the European Union, which apparently take a dim view on allowing people to forfeit their legal rights with a blind click-through, and claims relating to EA's IP rights or allegations of "theft, piracy or unauthorized use" - in other words, stuff EA is more likely to sue you over than the other way around - can still be pursued through normal means.

From a practical perspective, this won't mean a thing for just about everyone who uses Origin. There's a reason people just click past user agreements without even giving them a second glance, after all. But as a matter of principle if nothing else, the idea of surrendering your right to legal redress is troublesome - and I bet we're probably going to see a lot more of it in the future.

now i'm really not getting bf3 on origin

[Kaisha]

Wtf, why is Quebec the only province in Canada to ban such a retarded clause?


With Sony's case you could opt out by sending a letter. I'm curious to see how these hold up though in the future though given the kind of information these companies hold of you.

[Correction]

XBox 360 superior version confirmed.

[Qalbert]

just wow

[Ezek]

How is this shit even legal?

[Jefe]

Blah blah lady burns her legs w/ boiling coffee blah blah blah frivolous lawsuits blah blah blah we're fucked.

[Salodin]

I was half way thinking "Fine, I'm going to start burning and selling your shit fuckers", then read the rest and was like

[Cephius]

How is this shit even legal?

Falls under the "if you don't like it you're free to stop using our service" rationale.

Also lol at arbitration, as corporations win arbitration cases 95% of the time! Gotta love America, land of the free... if you're a wealthy corporation.

[Salodin]

Blah blah lady burns her legs w/ boiling coffee blah blah blah frivolous lawsuits blah blah blah we're fucked.

I know you wouldn't know this, but that case you're referring to isn't just a woman crying cause she spilled hot coffee; it was proven that mickey Ds keeps their coffee way hotter then it needed to be in order to keep the coffee longer. She spilled it and suffered serious burns cause of it, more then just a little burn from coffee kept at reasonable temps. The more you know~

[Jefe]

It was meant as a jab at the general public who made a mockery of the case, it was even parodied in an episode of Seinfeld. I'm actually aware how serious her burns were. Her case was used by many politicians and corporations to introduce tort reforms under the guise of 'jackpot justice.' People believed it, and hence my 'we're fucked conclusion.'

[aurik]

Furthermore it was shown that McD deliberately kept their coffee at higher-than-safe temperatures because it saved them money despite knowing that such a practice was causing injuries.

Anyway, while the supremes found that this right is in principle something that one can waive, they probably would find that its inclusion in every boilerplate contract (and guess what, it will find its way in) is unconscionable and thus entirely unenforceable.

[Haiko]

I don't get it...why would we sued EA/Orgin in the first place?

[sruon]

I don't get it...why would we sued EA/Orgin in the first place?

No idea, it's just cool to hate on companies. Didn't they do that like a month ago? I remember it being posted already.

[Correction]

No idea, it's just cool to hate on companies. Didn't they do that like a month ago? I remember it being posted already.

This isn't about bashing EA, it's about how fundamentally broken and unfair mandatory binding arbitration is to consumers and how any corporation that blocks redress of grievances behind an unassailable legal wall should be called out on its bullshit.

[Kuya]

Last time i checked, contracts don't negate legal rights. I certainly hope the Supreme Court doesn't surprise me on this.

[Melena]

I don't get it...why would we sued EA/Orgin in the first place?

In case we get a repeat of PSN hacking on Origin when people sued Sony due to the data breach and possible leaking of personal info.

[Katlan]

Why no Kyo in this thread?

[Priran]

What I'm most surprised at is the fact that people still pay for games.

[Kuya]

If i pay for games, will you make fun of me, priran?

[LinktheDeme]

Last time i checked, contracts don't negate legal rights. I certainly hope the Supreme Court doesn't surprise me on this.

Didn't this already get ruled and set in precedence with a case regarding T-mobile a while back? Something along the lines that if you don't like the service tough shit but you can't go after them about it because you are their customer and it sux2bu?