Electronic Arts Revises TOS to End Lawsuits

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Tearing a page out of Sony’s playbook, EA has rewritten and updated its TOS agreement to exclude the possibility of users from suing Electronic Arts by both class action suits and jury trials. EA has basically played one-upmanship on Sony and hamstrung users from taking any legal action against the company.

By entering into this Agreement, you and EA expressly waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action. This agreement is intended to be interpreted broadly. It covers any and all disputes between us.
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand how a EULA can exclude any sort of law suit... Even limiting to arbitration etc. Just seems to be a way to avoid the legal system, even just civil system.

If it't that easy why doesn't everything have a eula excluding any lawsuits... hamburgers, building entrances etc etc.
 
Sovereign said:
Curious: What's the legal precedent for "click-wrapper-waive-right-to-sue?"
Click to expand...

It's been upheld in court. I remember reading about it awhile back, some company said 'you can't sue us, you have to go through an arbitration company OF OUR CHOOSING.' The person tried suing them anyway, and the court told them the EULA was valid - they'd waived any and all legal rights they had.
 
Kinda scummy, but legally sound as far as I know. Not that it matters a whole hell of a lot, it's not like gamers were suing EA left and right to begin with.
 
dandirk said:
I don't understand how a EULA can exclude any sort of law suit... Even limiting to arbitration etc. Just seems to be a way to avoid the legal system, even just civil system.

If it't that easy why doesn't everything have a eula excluding any lawsuits... hamburgers, building entrances etc etc.
Click to expand...

Why would ANYONE want to exclude hamburgers? :D

wimpy-hamburgers-i-will-gladly-pay-you-tuesdsay-for-a-hamburger-today-whimpy-sad-hill-news1.jpg
 
People who think there's too much litigation in our society and hate lawyers should love this stuff. Great way to solve the problem.
 
It doesn't stop All Lawsuits:
"The only disputes that are not covered by this Section 17 are the following:

1. a claim to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of your or EA’s (or any of EA’s licensors’) intellectual property rights;
2. a claim related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, or unauthorized use;
3. In addition, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent either party from initiating a small claims court action."
 
It was held up by one judge in one case this will end badly for all involved and us likely going to be overturned by the next judge
 
Class action suit can't be carried out but individual suits still can.
EA is trying to prevent the $500M class action from the people/lawyers who seek to cash in or take down companies.
If EA ever decides to close it doors, that the only scenario were I see users will get shut out of a class action.
 
Pin-Bot said:
It doesn't stop All Lawsuits:
"The only disputes that are not covered by this Section 17 are the following:

1. a claim to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of your or EA’s (or any of EA’s licensors’) intellectual property rights;
2. a claim related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, or unauthorized use;
3. In addition, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent either party from initiating a small claims court action."
Click to expand...


This will go badly...... instead of handling 1 case for 10,000 plantifs in a class action they are going to need 10,000 customer services managers to represent themselves all over the country.... most small claims courts don't allow lawyers to represent either party; the are gonna either settle for what ever you ask -or- be running their asses off :D
LOL!!!!!!!
 
They just need to get 99% of their customers to agree to this so they can then inform them that they sold all of their info including CC info to the russian mob.
 
(dang edit button)

I mean why should hackers be the only one getting rich off THIER customer info
 
-Dragon- said:
They just need to get 99% of their customers to agree to this so they can then inform them that they sold all of their info including CC info to the russian mob.
Click to expand...

Well that is the dumbest thing I've read all day....
 
Everyone with EA stuff should stop using it, refuse to accept the new terms and demand a full refund.
 
I get the feeling they are doing this because they're afraid that SWTOR might not go as well as they'd hoped. Plus they want to limit server access when it releases and they don't want to be sued for doing so.
 
Cannydog said:
I get the feeling they are doing this because they're afraid that SWTOR might not go as well as they'd hoped. Plus they want to limit server access when it releases and they don't want to be sued for doing so.
Click to expand...

If this was only about TOR the clause would be in TORs EULA not the Origin one.
 
EULA have not really been tested in court properly AFAIK. There was 1 case where a judge said someone was bound by the EULA of a particular company, but I don't think that case ever went back to actually argue that the EULA (or sections of it) was non binding. The Judge basically said the EULA was a contract and you agreed to arbitration.

This EULA or TOS change is completely different than the binding arbitration clause, this one is basically taking away your constitutional rights (the 7th amendment right to trail by jury even in Civil cases). That definitely needs to be tested in court to see if it is binding or not. This would basically be the same as saying "by agreeing to this you agree that your constitutional rights to the 13th amendment are void and are now my slave." No judge would every see that as an a valid binding clause in any EULA or TOS and IMHO the same should be true here, but then again IANAL and all that disclaimer stuff applies. Logically it is the same, if you can take away one constitutional right then you should be able to take any of them away through a click through EULA or TOS and I think that shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances.
 
As long as an EULA/TOS does not violate laws or lay down unrealistic terms I would expect it to hold up in court just fine.
 
Well, I don't buy any EA software anyway, so not such a big deal to me. I swore off buying anything from EA back when I heard about how badly they treat their employees. Just don't buy their stuff, and they can't screw you over. Plain and simple.
 
Cannydog said:
I get the feeling they are doing this because they're afraid that SWTOR might not go as well as they'd hoped. Plus they want to limit server access when it releases and they don't want to be sued for doing so.
Click to expand...

Not likely, since a game being not-good is not grounds for a lawsuit, neither is limiting quantities of your product. Yeah, some butthurt people could try and sue, but they'd get laughed out of court.

This is just a broad cover-their-ass measure. They've seen other companies get away with it, now they want to do it too. It's how this big corporate legal teams work.
 
this change doesnt mean anything in New Zealand, though we don't tend to sue at the drop of a hat. But you cannot contract out (either party) of your rights and responsibilities under the NZ Consumer Guarantees Act
 
Just refuse the tos and sue EA for forcing you to sign one in order to access a license you payed for. That's what I am going to do.
 
If you can prove damages the EULA violates your Seventh Amendment right to trial.

This policy of changing EULAs, changing how devices function, and what their capabilities are, while attempting to leave no recourse to the consumer is a very worrisome trend. All it will take is one or two judges who don't consider the full implications of their ruling to set precedents and turn all of us into de facto renters of companies' products. (Much like software licenses now but for hardware.)
 
jahcs said:
If you can prove damages the EULA violates your Seventh Amendment right to trial.

This policy of changing EULAs, changing how devices function, and what their capabilities are, while attempting to leave no recourse to the consumer is a very worrisome trend. All it will take is one or two judges who don't consider the full implications of their ruling to set precedents and turn all of us into de facto renters of companies' products. (Much like software licenses now but for hardware.)
Click to expand...

It already happened. The reason Sony and EA have made these changes are due entirely to a case where AT&T paid off the judge....I mean "fairly won" a lawsuit against them dealing with this clause in their contracts.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
More reason to not buy EA products.
Click to expand...

I dont think it's just EA. Soon enough all companies will be doing this until someone stands up to it. If congress/whoever made a law where you would benifit from something if you wore a red hat, everyone would be wearing red hats.

Still...class action lawsuits are still pointless bullshit that just gets a huge payout for a lawyer while customers get screwed. Until the legal system changes to look after the little guy over big corporations who look after politicians/judges, this changes exactly nothing,
 
And people wonder why I don't trust EA/Origin with my game library. The more time goes on the more I am convinced not using Origin and I would guess all future EA games, since they will prolly require Origin as well, is the correct decision for me.

Have the apologists already shown up with their, "this is going to be a standard practice for the others too", bull shit?
"Only if we let them!", is the only response I can give.
 
GORANKAR said:
And people wonder why I don't trust EA/Origin with my game library. The more time goes on the more I am convinced not using Origin and I would guess all future EA games, since they will prolly require Origin as well, is the correct decision for me.

Have the apologists already shown up with their, "this is going to be a standard practice for the others too", bull shit?
"Only if we let them!", is the only response I can give.
Click to expand...

So we should stop using Steam too than right?

A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
Click to expand...

11. INDEMNIFICATION

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. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter. This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.
Click to expand...
 
Derangel said:
So we should stop using Steam too than right?
Click to expand...

Yup. If these "I'm not buying from EA now!" stooges had any credibility or integrity, they'd uninstall Steam right now. But they don't.

As with most consumers, they lack a spine, and aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices to their personal convenience or amusement to stand up against something they believe is wrong.
 
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

- Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution
 
Draiko said:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

- Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution
Click to expand...

The initial right is not in dispute, but rather whether one can waive it. Legal precedent says yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top