New PlayStation Network Terms of Service Include a No Suing Sony And a No Class-action Lawsuit Claus
48 replies, posted
[URL="http://kotaku.com/5840517/new-playstation-network-terms-of-service-include-a-no-suing-sony-clause"]Source[/URL]
[quote=Kotaku] Have you agreed to the new PlayStation Network terms of service yet? If you have, then you've agreed not to take Sony to court or participate in a class action lawsuit against the company. You really should read things before you sign them, even digitally.
Today Sony Network Entertainment America transfers its online services to Sony Network Entertainment International, and PlayStation Network members are being asked to agree to an updated terms of service document to reflect that change, but they're agreeing to much more than a new global Sony Entertainment Network.
[B]They're agreeing to not take any Sony Entity to court[/B] regarding any Sony online services or the use of any devices sold by a Sony entity to access those services. It's right there in section 15 of the document:[release]Other than those matters listed in the Exclusions from Arbitration clause (small claims), you and the Sony Entity that you have a Dispute with agree to seek resolution of the Dispute only through arbitration of that Dispute in accordance with the terms of this Section 15, and not litigate any Dispute in court. Arbitration means that the Dispute will be resolved by a neutral arbitrator instead of in a court by a judge or jury.[/release]
In summary, in order to use the PlayStation Network, you must agree to settle any dispute with the company outside of court.
That's not all. There's also a class action waiver in section 15, which states that those agreeing to the terms of service are also agreeing to setting their disputes with Sony entities one-on-one. That means they cannot participate in a group action, unless that group action was set in motion before August 20, 2011.
It's a rather sneaky move on the part of Sony's legal department, though it isn't quite as nasty as it sounds. I mean,[B] they did give us a way to opt-out of the agreement[/B]:[release]RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.[/release]
[B]Ah, written notice, the pleasant way to say, "Fuck you, buy a stamp." It's an inconvenient[/B] out, but it is an out. Otherwise you're not only bound for the duration of your agreement, but until the end of time, thanks to the continuation clause at the end of the section.
[B]So your options are send a letter, deal with it, cancel your PlayStation Network account, or wait until such a time as a judge deems this illegal or unenforceable, which I can't imagine will take too long.[/B]
I've contact the PlayStation folks for comment, and will update the post should they respond.[/quote]
Judge will rule it illegal no doubt.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
Not really important as Steam/Origin does the same, but now every single mention of "purchase" has been crossed out and replaced with "license" in the new ToS (in regards to buying PSN content) [url]http://www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/SEN-legal-docs/TERMS_OF_SERVICE_AGREEMENT-EN.pdf[/url]
A class action waiver is legal, that opt-out clause however is in violation of consumer laws in most countries.
Get ready to be sued for trying not to be sued, Sony. Hope you get reamed up the ass with fines and shit too.
Im gonna sign a contract with myself that nobody can sue me.
What kind of bullshit is that
-snip-
[QUOTE=Swilly;32302078]So you're saying every service does this :v:
Which means Sony was late to the party. And just like EA and everything it does, the only reason why people are butthurt is because its Sony.
Great job you vindictive assholes.[/QUOTE]No.
I was only talking about referring to the purchases as "licenses", "entitlements" or "subscriptions" which Sony, EA and Steam does respectively.
No one has a "you can't sue us" clause except Sony right now.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32302121]No.
I was only talking about referring to the purchases as "licenses", "entitlements" or "subscriptions" which Sony, EA and Steam does respectively.
No one has a "you can't sue us" clause except Sony right now.[/QUOTE]
Might wanna clear that up then...
[QUOTE=Swilly;32302183]Might wanna clear that up then...[/QUOTE]It's perfectly clear.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32302015]A class action waiver is legal, that opt-out clause however is in violation of consumer laws in most countries.
Get ready to be sued for trying not to be sued, Sony. Hope you get reamed up the ass with fines and shit too.[/QUOTE]
From what I can see, their ToS can easily be put aside by the courts.
Sony what the fuck are you doing
How about they just not store account details in text files and step up security, you know actually improve their quality of service.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;32302121]
No one has a "you can't sue us" clause except Sony right now.[/QUOTE]
From the Steam Subscriber Agreement (section 11):
[release]You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription or any related content, or any User Generated Information, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account... This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.[/release]
too legalese; didn't read: you can't sue Valve to hold them liable for anything.
Another summary from someone else:
[quote]This is the section where, even though Valve assumes as little liability as it possibly can have (at least in the realm of common law), it cements its position by saying that you agree to let them do what they like, the little scamps. By indemnifying them from liability, it’s pretty much making you seem like the one who gave them permission to do what they like. Because you did.[/quote]
I didn't agree to the terms of service
WHAT THE FUCK NOW SONY
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32302300]From the Steam Subscriber Agreement (section 11):
[release]You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription or any related content, or any User Generated Information, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account... This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.[/release]
too legalese; didn't read: you can't sue Valve to hold them liable for anything.
Another summary from someone else:[/QUOTE]
So I was right.
[QUOTE=Swilly;32302330]So I was right.[/QUOTE]
It appears you were. Valve's wording actually makes theirs a lot more harsh than Sony's, but Sony's way of making opting-out difficult is legally grey.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32302300]
too legalese; didn't read: you can't sue Valve to hold them liable for anything.
[/QUOTE]
But of course that is only to discourage people suing them.
It can still, very easily, be put aside by the courts.
[QUOTE=Contag;32302341]But of course that is only to discourage people suing them.
It can still, very easily, be put aside by the courts.[/QUOTE]
Just like Sony's.
So this is actually what I originally thought it was and people being vindictive butt munches and going after Sony in the same way people go after EA for every little thing even though our beloved developers do the same thing.
GG guys.
[QUOTE=Contag;32302341]But of course that is only to discourage people suing them.
It can still, very easily, be put aside by the courts.[/QUOTE]
You've agreed to indemnify (protect against legal responsibility) them by using Steam. You can sue all you want, but then Valve can counter-sue for breach of contract.
I'm going to sue every game developer that does this clause.
I'll tell you when I get raped by legal shit.
Wait, is this even possible?
I mean this is the first time I've heard a "You can't sue us" policy.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;32302444]Wait, is this even possible?
I mean this is the first time I've heard a "You can't sue us" policy.[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen in those software agreements, its actaully pretty normal to have a "you can't sue us" clause.
aren't ToS agreements not legally binding though
so what is even the point
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;32302463]aren't ToS agreements not legally binding though
so what is even the point[/QUOTE]
If it's not in violation of any consumer laws, yes, it is legally binding.
[editline]00[/editline]
See: This [url=http://www.duanemorris.com/site/static/356_F_3d_393.pdf]court ruling[/url].
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32302360]You've agreed to indemnify (protect against legal responsibility) them by using Steam. You can sue all you want, but then Valve can counter-sue for breach of contract.[/QUOTE]
That depends on the law in the particular state/country.
The court can render an indemnity clause void if it is manifestly incompatible with common or statutory law. Subsequently, Valve would not be able to successfully counter-sue for breach of contract as the attempt to create the contract had no legal effect.
[editline]16th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=minilandstan;32302444]Wait, is this even possible?
I mean this is the first time I've heard a "You can't sue us" policy.[/QUOTE]
Most things tend to have a 'You can't sue us' policy.
We the customers of these software agreements should make our own EULA, in which it states " you can't sue us if we sue you" clause.
Fuck carrots.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;32302923]We the customers of these software agreements should make our own EULA, in which it states " you can't sue us if we sue you" clause.
Fuck carrots.[/QUOTE]
Wow if only we had thought of that earlier!
On a more serious note i do think customers should have an organization that sets boundaries with software developers drawing the line and protecting the investment rights of the customer.
We buy your software and support your business, then you turn around and stomp on our user rights.
In other words, if you fuck up, and it affects the customer, thats your fault and we should have the right to sue your ass for damages at the very least.
And there should be an organization out there that protects the user rights from ridiculous clauses such as these.
How can this even pass? I am sure this is illegal in Europe.
[QUOTE=Wormy;32302331]No PSN account i guess.[/QUOTE]
Nope because I can use my brother's account
so I win
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;32302494]If it's not in violation of any consumer laws, yes, it is legally binding.
[editline]00[/editline]
See: This [url=http://www.duanemorris.com/site/static/356_F_3d_393.pdf]court ruling[/url].[/QUOTE]
This would have been handy to know when some dumbass got in an argument with me when Blizzard was banning people for using trainers in SC2, claiming that the ToS doesn't matter because "it's not legally binding" etc. etc. Though it's clear they were just bein' a titty-baby because they might not be able to play a game anymore OH NO!
If I have to I'll sue anyway. I don't give a crap about the TOS, which is most likely going to be the reason I'd sue in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.