Class Action Suit Filed Against Sony's Anti-Lawsuit Provision

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It is funny that a ToS update aimed at preventing class action lawsuits has resulted in one.

The suit says Sony buried the clause section describing the changes near the bottom of a 21-page form viewable through the PS3 and neglected to post an easily accessible version of the form online, even though it had done so with past user agreement updates. While the suit notes that Sony allowed an opt out from the class-action provision, the only way for consumers to do that was to contact the company in writing (no emails, phone calls, or online forms accepted) within 30 days.
Click to expand...
 
I actually talked to my business law professor (who was a lawyer for around 20 years) about this. Apparently the reasoning behind allowing an anti-class-action rule is that every customer is not harmed in the same way. In the case of the PS3 service outage/security breach you had some people that were free customers and lost service, while others were paying monthly. You also had some people that became victims of identity theft from it, and some people that were not. Even the identity theft victims were all harmed in different ways.
 
The suit says Sony buried the clause section describing the changes near the bottom of a 21-page form viewable through the PS3
Click to expand...
And? Tell me a company with a ToS agreement that does not or would not do this. Sony had to put the clause somewhere, were they legally required to put it at the beginning, middle? RTFToS folks, if it was there, it was there, the location of it is IMO inconsequential. I can only imagine the holy hell they would be getting if the clause was completely missing but they were trying to enforce it, in which case I can see a lawsuit. No offense but this lawsuit needs to be tossed out until stupid charges like this can be removed and the real meat of the lawsuit alone be there.
 
I kinda see their point when you have to sign a TOS and its 40 pages long and all in legal language that nobody knows what the fuck its talking about. I know its lawyers and their rampant lawsuits that have cause this, but I dont think a company should be able to hide behind a book of legal speak saying "you signed it, you knew about it".
 
It'd be interesting, given that sony lets you cache the password, to try the tactic that they can't prove I clicked the agreement. If your 12 year old kid signs a contract for you, is it legally binding?
 
ir0nw0lf said:
RTFToS folks, if it was there, it was there, the location of it is IMO inconsequential.
Click to expand...
In civilized countries, a person cannot waive their legal rights, no matter what a contract says.

Sony's terms cannot be described as anything other than one-sided. What other legally guaranteed rights do you believe they should be allowed to strip from you for pressing a triangle button or whatever?
"By agreeing to this TOS, we hereby claim your house"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree to become indentured to us for a period of not less than twenty years"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree that we may search through your personal effects and papers at any time of our choosing"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you forfeit your right to be represented by an attorney"?

Where do you draw the line on what legally guaranteed rights that a corporation can force you to waive for using their product?
 
What really really pisses me off though it that you can ignore this update for a little while and still use services like Netflix. But then Netflix will conviently do a "patch" which doesn't seem to change anything except that the new patch requires your PS3 to be fully up to date in order to work. Which means in order for you to continue using the device you have to accept the rules and regulations.
 
It's same premise as putting the ToS in the box until you open it to view the ToS, but in the ToS/EULA it says that by opening the box, you have accepted the terms implicitly.
 
The very fact that this new class action lawsuit exists is proof that Sony needed to put an anti-class action lawsuit protection into the EULA.
 
I don't know what the huge obsession with class action lawsuits are. They do usually next to no good for the people involved, and gets nothing like what the people wanted. They do get to pay some lawyer thousands and thousands of dollars and get $2 each in return. But still, slightly different in this case, but I never get all these people that go all "class action lawsuit" over a game. It's a game, not a chemical plant pouring shit into your garden. Leave the courts open to important stuff, not lawyers getting paid to champion your potential $2 financial gain. Everyone seems to view class action as some lottery ticket getting rich scheme. You can only really gain what you lost going in.

raz-0 said:
It'd be interesting, given that sony lets you cache the password, to try the tactic that they can't prove I clicked the agreement. If your 12 year old kid signs a contract for you, is it legally binding?
Click to expand...

Technically I suppose you, by giving them access to your console allowed them to sign it in your name.
 
Probably required the opt out be done by mail because there's no way for the sender to prove they ever actually opted out.

I can envision a huge trash can at sony that says "Opt Out" on it.
 
This is why all Tos/EULA should be a guideline for all users and NOT held up as a law.
 
fattypants said:
In civilized countries, a person cannot waive their legal rights, no matter what a contract says.

Sony's terms cannot be described as anything other than one-sided. What other legally guaranteed rights do you believe they should be allowed to strip from you for pressing a triangle button or whatever?
"By agreeing to this TOS, we hereby claim your house"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree to become indentured to us for a period of not less than twenty years"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree that we may search through your personal effects and papers at any time of our choosing"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you forfeit your right to be represented by an attorney"?

Where do you draw the line on what legally guaranteed rights that a corporation can force you to waive for using their product?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is: does it matter WHERE in the ToS the clause in question is? They are claiming it was purposely buried in the ToS. That charge in the lawsuit really needs to be tossed out. I think the clause should not honestly be in the ToS to start with, but if it stays, why does it matter where in the document it is?
 
ir0nw0lf said:
I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is: does it matter WHERE in the ToS the clause in question is? They are claiming it was purposely buried in the ToS. That charge in the lawsuit really needs to be tossed out. I think the clause should not honestly be in the ToS to start with, but if it stays, why does it matter where in the document it is?
Click to expand...
Because there's a case against purposefully obfuscating information to confuse customers. It's not as bad as what credit card companies were doing before the CARD Act, but burying it under many pages of legal text is still one of the tactics.
 
ir0nw0lf said:
I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is: does it matter WHERE in the ToS the clause in question is? They are claiming it was purposely buried in the ToS. That charge in the lawsuit really needs to be tossed out. I think the clause should not honestly be in the ToS to start with, but if it stays, why does it matter where in the document it is?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't matter. If their argument is that they missed something important at the end, then whatever it was would have been missed at the end.
 
fattypants said:
In civilized countries, a person cannot waive their legal rights, no matter what a contract says.

Sony's terms cannot be described as anything other than one-sided. What other legally guaranteed rights do you believe they should be allowed to strip from you for pressing a triangle button or whatever?
"By agreeing to this TOS, we hereby claim your house"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree to become indentured to us for a period of not less than twenty years"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you agree that we may search through your personal effects and papers at any time of our choosing"?
"By agreeing to this TOS, you forfeit your right to be represented by an attorney"?

Where do you draw the line on what legally guaranteed rights that a corporation can force you to waive for using their product?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing ironwolf's point. The lawsuit is about where the clause was inserted and Sony's probable attempt to make their customers miss it. It's a silly argument which implies that nobody wants to read the TOS.

The lawsuit should be about REMOVING that clause from the TOS, not about where it's located in the TOS.
 
DeathPrincess said:
I don't know what the huge obsession with class action lawsuits are. They do usually next to no good for the people involved, and gets nothing like what the people wanted. They do get to pay some lawyer thousands and thousands of dollars and get $2 each in return. But still, slightly different in this case, but I never get all these people that go all "class action lawsuit" over a game. It's a game, not a chemical plant pouring shit into your garden. Leave the courts open to important stuff, not lawyers getting paid to champion your potential $2 financial gain. Everyone seems to view class action as some lottery ticket getting rich scheme. You can only really gain what you lost going in.



Technically I suppose you, by giving them access to your console allowed them to sign it in your name.
Click to expand...

It's not over a game. It's over PSN's gross abuse and negligence of their customer's financial, personal, and identity information.
 
Azhar said:
I think you're missing ironwolf's point. The lawsuit is about where the clause was inserted and Sony's probable attempt to make their customers miss it. It's a silly argument which implies that nobody wants to read the TOS.

The lawsuit should be about REMOVING that clause from the TOS, not about where it's located in the TOS.
Click to expand...
Well it might be that too.
The suit alleges that Sony engaged in unfair business practices by forcing consumers to either give up their right to file a class-action lawsuit or give up access to the online gaming network they effectively paid for when they purchased the hardware.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, it's not a very informative article but from that paragraph and the one following it, it seems like he's covering both components. Bad clause and misleading customers.
 
Azhar said:
It's not over a game. It's over PSN's gross abuse and negligence of their customer's financial, personal, and identity information.
Click to expand...

Read sentance one before. :p

But in that instance, there still hasn't been anyone with solid proof over how they were effected, (so if it had been taken to class action, they would have got a big share of $0 and still have to pay overpaid lawyers thousands). Unlike the hundreds of people every week who have their live accounts used for fraud. Like my bestest friend, who had their live account stolen and used to buy 3 $20 somethings yesturday, even though they don't have an xbox (used it once 9 months ago to buy viva pinata on PC). Filed a claim immediately but they are still waiting for live support to get in touch...36 hours later...
 
TechLarry said:
Probably required the opt out be done by mail because there's no way for the sender to prove they ever actually opted out.

I can envision a huge trash can at sony that says "Opt Out" on it.
Click to expand...

I imagine Delivery/Signature Confirmation would help with that. Though I imagine Sony could just reject any mail with those conditions attached and would still be able to claim they never received your Opt Out letter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top