Sony Changes PS3 TOS To Avoid Class-Action Lawsuits

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Please raise your hand if you are surprised by Sony pulling a fast one to avoid class action lawsuits....someone will be along shortly to smack you in the head. :D Thanks to everyone that sent this one in.

ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL ACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011....
Click to expand...
 
im interested to see how they legally prove that you were the one to hit "accept" and not your 3 year old child, or your cleaning lady who wanted to get in on some gaming while you werent home, or your dog chewing on the controller...
 
I wonder if this is even legal. There are certin rights you are unable to wave. Puting a section in their TOS dosn't releave them of having to exibit due dilligance, and abide by US law. I think this is just asking for a law suit in itself.
 
This is already pretty much in every cell phone contract in the US, no?
 
hpglow said:
I wonder if this is even legal. There are certin rights you are unable to wave. Puting a section in their TOS dosn't releave them of having to exibit due dilligance, and abide by US law. I think this is just asking for a law suit in itself.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
It's legal in the US. "Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled on a very similar issue in the case of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Justices found that AT&T (or any company) could force customers into arbitration rather than class action suits – a decision that court observers said could hurt consumers' ability to challenge companies in court."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ms_Of_Service__Mountain_Out_Of_A_Molehill.php

Don't like it? Respond with your purchase dollars and vote for politicians with your brains (the guys who put Justices on the Supreme Court).
 
I'm surprised that companies can even get away with changing TOS for a product that hasn't changed. To me this is asinine unless the company is willing to reimburse me for the purchase of the product.

For example - Let's say I only bought my PS3 so that I can use Netflix on it and I agreed to the TOS for using the PS3. Then Sony comes along, changes their TOS and says they no longer allow users to stream media to their device and all devices that are caught doing so will be blacklisted. These new TOS's are not agreeable to me so I do not accept them however I am stuck with a product that no longer meets my needs for what I bought it for.

Either companies should not be allowed to change a TOS later to cover their asses or they should be subject to providing full value refunds to customers that bought a product and do not agree to the changes.
 
Hurry up and bring a class action suit now about not being able to bring up class action suits.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Hurry up and bring a class action suit now about not being able to bring up class action suits.
Click to expand...

guinness_brilliant.jpg
 
I don't see where any one suffered any monetary loss from the PSN incident and SONY offered very good compwnsation, besides class action only benifits lawyers who would get the bulk of any damage award , actual damages are probaly zero dollars anyway, but people will sue over anything .
 
makers of any product can change the function and allowed uses at will and the TOS Can be altered to reflect anything they choose , every product that has a TOS is subject to the whims of the maker and they bear no obligation to reimburse an end user .Ever read a MS TOS hyave to be a lawyer to understand them.
 
Sony's been irking me since their first run of 'start suing mp3 pirates' 12 someodd years ago, especially since I was one of their lucky recipients (accused of downloading Celine Dion, flipped my lid on them not for the piracy accusations but that they accused me of downloading Celine Dion).

This doesn't at all surprise me, nor does any of the sneaky behind the scenes crap they've been pulling lately (read: Cineva).

Atleast they gave us some goodies for giving away all our personal information :rolleyes:
 
More liberal propaganda. If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
 
I bet the lawyers really hate this since they are the ones who get the biggest payout from class action lawsuites.

Class actions for the most part end up with super crappy settlements for the people that participate in them. Oooohh look, I got a $5 off coupon for the company I sued.. yay! :rolleyes:

Class actions IMHO are for the dumb masses.

If you have a real need to sue some company, it is better for you to sue them personally.
 
Most are aware of what they "can do" - I work with very large contracts specifically based around Microsoft TOS agreements.... I'm just still surprised that they are able to get away with it.

Simply put - Users shouldn't sign the new agreement.

Specifically in the example below - If I do NOT agree with the new terms of service and do not sign off on them I am under no obligation to comply with them as based on my original agreement it is still bound.

The part that I find to be B.S. however (For playstation anyway) is that you are still trying to have them uphold the agreement that they first presented to you as you are not in agreement with their new terms.

If I were to click cancel, I should in no way lose any access to any services I originally had in the orignial agreement - IE - no loss of playstation rights, etc however we all know this isn't the case...as if you don't agree with the new TOS then you don't get into the playstation network anymore - this is the part that shouldn't be allowed. Based on the old agreement Sony should be required to uphold their end, it shouldn't be a one way enforceable contract. This is the part that I am surprised has allowed to be circumvented so far (IE Apple products and iTunes usage, Sony, ETC)
 
Sony must employ some of the dumbest PR/decision makers in the industry. It's like their entire goal is to look like giant a-holes to everyone while pissing off all their customers.

It's quite fascinating to watch.
 
piscian18 said:
More liberal propaganda. If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Um this has less to do about YOU doing anything wrong, this is about what rights you have if Sony does something TO YOU.
 
quimby999 said:
I don't see where any one suffered any monetary loss from the PSN incident and SONY offered very good compwnsation, besides class action only benifits lawyers who would get the bulk of any damage award , actual damages are probaly zero dollars anyway, but people will sue over anything .
Click to expand...

try being someone who had their information stolen and possibly posted online.....now you go be in their shoes and tell me you had no monetary loss.

I agree that in the end lawyers are the ones who make our in class action suits
 
While it may be the lawyers who end up making the most, the companies targetted can suffer large monetary - and reputational - losses. So although it may not be the best way to get rich quick off of a lawsuit for the plaintiffs (yes, the lawyers do make out), it is still a great deterrent for consumers, and a way to get a high powered legal team where an individual most likely couldn't get that type of representation.
 
I'll be sending in the opt-out letter even though I don't own a PS3... just for kicks!
 
Well this wont stand up in court in New Zealand... hope others have strong consumer protection laws
 
MeTaSpARKs said:
It's legal in the US. "Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled on a very similar issue in the case of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Justices found that AT&T (or any company) could force customers into arbitration rather than class action suits – a decision that court observers said could hurt consumers' ability to challenge companies in court."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ms_Of_Service__Mountain_Out_Of_A_Molehill.php

Don't like it? Respond with your purchase dollars and vote for politicians with your brains (the guys who put Justices on the Supreme Court).
Click to expand...

I don't like it, and I think they should have to refund the price of my PS3 if I don't agree with it, so since that didn't exist when I bought my PS3 and they will NOT refund my money, then I would agree I have a right to sue them in a Class Action Lawsuit.
 
The point of CAL's isn't suing because a few people lost a lot, that's what individual suits are, the point of CAL's is a lot of people lost a little. Lets say after ATT added their "no CAL" terms to their contract the next month they added a "LAWL YOU CAN'T CAL US AND WE WANT MORE MONEY SO GIVE US AN EXTRA DOLLAR A MONTH" fee to everybodies bill. It may only be a dollar per person but it adds up to millions for the company and if they refuse to refund now instead of one lawfirm taking on the case to help out everybody, each person has to individually sue for their dollar. CALs exist primarily to punish companies that try to screw over the little people just enough to keep them out of real legal problems, but enough to make tons of extra money. The fact that they're putting these disclaimers in and the courts are upholding them is disturbing at best from a consumer protection POV.
 
MeTaSpARKs said:
It's legal in the US. "Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled on a very similar issue in the case of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Justices found that AT&T (or any company) could force customers into arbitration rather than class action suits – a decision that court observers said could hurt consumers' ability to challenge companies in court."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ms_Of_Service__Mountain_Out_Of_A_Molehill.php

Don't like it? Respond with your purchase dollars and vote for politicians with your brains (the guys who put Justices on the Supreme Court).
Click to expand...

Yep you can thank the corporate friendly Supreme Court for this. Expect virtually every other corporation to do the same. :mad:
 
TwistedAegis said:
Might I recommend a book to the two of you:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Dict...9520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316214031&sr=8-1
Click to expand...

I was really gonna try and run with it but when people actually responded I couldn't actually fathom how people manage to keep those rants going. I got nothing. I don't EULAs/TOS protect Job creators!


On topic -

What really gets me about all this is (I'm looking at you EA) is these EULAs and terms of service are given to you after you purchase a product which in some cases may not even be refundable. Most places you can return a PS3, but what about the games. You have to update firmware to play some no? I know you do on PSP. So if you decide you can't agree to the EULA or TOS youre shit out of luck. There's need to be a customer protection law(s) that states if you have the right to a refund of a product with a EULA or TOS you can't meet and if the stores will not accept a return the publisher's distributor has to.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Why aren't the red flags and warning lights going off with US lawmakers on this? Sony just got through one of the biggest and most public personal information security breach internet fiascoes we've ever seen, now they are saying we have no right to take action if it happens again and we want to use their services?

How does crap like this hold up in court? Isn't this anti-consumer?
 
piscian18 said:
I was really gonna try and run with it but when people actually responded I couldn't actually fathom how people manage to keep those rants going. I got nothing. I don't EULAs/TOS protect Job creators!


On topic -

What really gets me about all this is (I'm looking at you EA) is these EULAs and terms of service are given to you after you purchase a product which in some cases may not even be refundable. Most places you can return a PS3, but what about the games. You have to update firmware to play some no? I know you do on PSP. So if you decide you can't agree to the EULA or TOS youre shit out of luck. There's need to be a customer protection law(s) that states if you have the right to a refund of a product with a EULA or TOS you can't meet and if the stores will not accept a return the publisher's distributor has to.
Click to expand...

Well it isn't only just that. It is the fact that after you purchase the product, and agree to the terms, they have the right to completely change the terms at will, and if you choose not to respect/honor the new terms you are left with no choice but a brick. It is bullshit that companies can force these EULA and TOS's on the consumer, and change them any time they feel like. and you are forced to agree or lose your investment. Why doesn't law protect consumers from this?
 
To me, it seems the only ones who really make out from CAL's are the lawyers.
Sure we may get a couple of dollars from a multi-million dollar CAL, but the lawyers are getting millions themselves.
 
When I switched watching Netflix from Xbox to PS3 my PS3 would not get on the LAN. I went through the utility, it wouldn't acknowledge the DHCP. However up in the corner was the little news ticker and it said a update was available. So I went to System Update, it downloaded the update despite not being able to "see" the network and made me accept a new TOS. Instantly all network connectivity was useable again.

Thats the only time I have experienced that, but it made me wonder if they lock you out if your not up to date with their conditions.

Genesis and NES days were so much easier. Still haven't had to patch Super Mario Bros 3.
 
When will these corporations learn that by simply stating "You can not sue us even if we bend you over and give you a good probing" does not actually protect them from anything?

Seriously? I laugh every time I get emails from people with the "This email is for official use only" disclaimer. It seems like these idiots are trying to take it to a higher level
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top