-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft is asking AC: Unity customers (+ families) to waive their rights to sue them.
- Thread starter Alienous
- Start date
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Not every one. Not every single one of these is exactly the same.
Hah, someone predicted this.
faceless007
Member
Yes, it's becoming standard in most software license agreements. No, that does not mean outrage against it is misplaced at all.
Customers should be outraged at these clauses.
Customers should be outraged at these clauses.
CopperPuppy
Member
This refers to others who may otherwise acquire or inherit the right to maintain such a lawsuit through you, such as a decedent or assignee. It does not purport to give you power over another's rights, only those which belong to you that may be passed to others.
CrimsonCrescendo
Banned
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
Excellent lol.
Omg I nearly died laughing.
Direct your rage at something enforceable.
Yes, this is just as shady whether it's standard or not.
PaulExcellent
Member
Suck my ass.
*buys watch_dogs*
*buys watch_dogs*
Just like X-men days of future past even your dna is not save for your future's childeren childeren..childeren.
ahnslaught
Member
But the problem is they portrayed it as a goodwill gesture to make up for the busted game, and not as a payment in exchange for no lawsuits. And that's also should play into whether the clause itself holds up if it gets to that point, too.
Just doesn't seem right that they pitch the games offer as a make good, when this is probably the real reason.
Vermillion
Banned
lmfaooo
Legally this is %100 percent legit. Ubisofts only obligation is to make those that bought the Season Pass "whole" again. Offering a $59 in exchange for $49 is a more than fair offer. If you don't want any of those games, you can ask for your money back. If they refused, you could then sue.
It'd be a dick move to take the game as compensation then turn around and sue them. You'd look like an ass because you were already made "whole", and you wouldn't win shit anyways.
They're just protecting themselves against sue happy jerks.
It'd be a dick move to take the game as compensation then turn around and sue them. You'd look like an ass because you were already made "whole", and you wouldn't win shit anyways.
They're just protecting themselves against sue happy jerks.
faceless007
Member
Supreme Court appointments are chosen by Presidents. Election's in two years. Nothing is permanent.
Wha... Huh?
thelastword
Banned
That put things in perspective, so timely with the current case being discussed in killzone shadowfall. This is the route Publishers will take, no accountability on their end, sadly, there are some gamers who heavily oppose the customer who believed that he was within his rights to sue Guerilla.
It's time to stop believing that all these companies are our white knights, support good products and good practices, agitate for new standards for this gaming industry or it will be a dirtier place in a few years. The fact that Ubisoft believe it can release a broken product and bypass any level of accountability is not strange to me at all. I knew this is where we were heading.
It's time to stop believing that all these companies are our white knights, support good products and good practices, agitate for new standards for this gaming industry or it will be a dirtier place in a few years. The fact that Ubisoft believe it can release a broken product and bypass any level of accountability is not strange to me at all. I knew this is where we were heading.
faceless007
Member
Oh, you're under the impression these agreements aren't currently legally binding? Why do you think they only started showing up within the last few years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Mobility_v._Concepcion
I don't think any agreement where you're agreeing to something on behalf of you potentially unborn children can be legally enforceable. Certainly not in the UK at least. Even if you agree to something in a contract, if a court rules it as unfair (which this most certainly would be) then it's declared void.
If it was, this agreement would seem to indicate that you would never be able to sue Ubisoft for anything, ever. So they could pretty much do anything that you could normally sue someone for but wasn't strictly a crime, and you couldn't touch them.
Genius.
If it was, this agreement would seem to indicate that you would never be able to sue Ubisoft for anything, ever. So they could pretty much do anything that you could normally sue someone for but wasn't strictly a crime, and you couldn't touch them.
Genius.
ss_lemonade
Member
They're not binding.
And I'm not sure the election/SCOTUS really has much to do with it.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
yup, this isn't a Ubisoft thing so much as a 'standard business practice' part of a service agreement
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
This is the best, bravo!
Also, I know this would never hold up in court anyways, but can you even waive your relative's rights? Why would my brother be able to waive my rights?
CopperPuppy
Member
Please stop spreading misinformation. Covenants not to sue are generally enforceable. Discussion of exceptions to this must be on a case-by-case basis and the determination is delicate and certainly subject to more nuance than your posts wrongly suggest.
I understand this. Wholly. I'm a lawyer- altho I admittedly don't practice in the field.
You're right- it is nuanced. But in a situation like this, where both parties aren't sophisticated, it's a form contract that the parties haven't negotiated, and it's a fine print/litigation waiver- it's not going to be enforced.
faceless007
Member
The opinion of the Supreme Court is that they are, or at least, can be. Absent a test case challenging such provisions, why should I assume their judgment will not be upheld?
Sony, for one, explicitly said it did:
you guys are thinking of arbitration clauses, in which the consumer agrees that disputes will be handled by private arbitrators rather than the court system. That's what was the deal in the AT&T and Sony stories you are linking.
This is very different -- you are agreeing to give up all claims or suits everywhere--court, arbitration, etc. Since you are receiving consideration or payment in return (the free season pas), this is essentially a settlement agreement.
I meant a future change in the court. This decision builds on basic contracting common law principles.
But you're point is taken- conceivably a change in SCOTUS could affect a hypothetical future decision where this is relitigated. Anything is possible. I'd just say it's improbable here.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Not sure what the big deal is.
CopperPuppy
Member
This is not necessarily the case. Standard form contracts are generally enforceable, which would cover boilerplate like this. Unlike you say, however, one of the parties here is, in fact, sophisticated. In such cases this language can be considered a contract of adhesion, which is subject to special scrutiny. That said, a term has to be outside of reasonable expectations, among other things, to have any hope of being challenged. I'm very skeptical that a court would accept this, now that such form language is near-ubiquitous and has been litigated as nauseam.
I am still vastly over-simplifying and leaving out complicated jurisdictional and procedural issues that would cast further doubt on successful challenge.
funkystudent
Member
Fucking hell.
When I posted "I wonder what else Ubisoft will screw up this week" after the 40gb patch stuff I wasnt laying down a challenge.
When I posted "I wonder what else Ubisoft will screw up this week" after the 40gb patch stuff I wasnt laying down a challenge.
I think were in agreement?
What did they screw up here?
TetraGenesis
Member
Hahahaha, this is a brilliant edit.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Apparently doing something legal, commonplace, and not enforceable is "screwing up."
Captain Tuttle
Member
There's your problem, corporations don't engage in "goodwill", everything is defined by profit and loss (and Regulations).
In short, these companies don't give a shit about us or about spreading goodwill, this is all damage control
Edit: hell this is common, the US Government did it when they made payments to the families of the victims of 9/11, they had to agree not to sue
CopperPuppy
Member
No. You said, "They're not binding" and "It's not even enforceable." In doing so, you cite an exception to a general legal rule as if it were the rule itself. That is not how I would frame discussion of legalities.
The "next of kin" thing isn't as big a deal as people think. You aren't giving up your kids rights to sue Ubi if they also bought AC.
What you are giving up is 1) your right to sue, win, but then die and have your kids collect the money owed to you on behalf of your estate, or 2) your right to die, then have your kids sue Ubi in the name of your estate.
Source: IAAL
What you are giving up is 1) your right to sue, win, but then die and have your kids collect the money owed to you on behalf of your estate, or 2) your right to die, then have your kids sue Ubi in the name of your estate.
Source: IAAL
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks for clarifying this.
By they're I meant clauses like this. Not just all standard K clauses. And yes, as with all things legal there's a sliiiight chance a judge would enforce it. But id said it's so slim and we've- as you said- litigated so many cases like this, that yeah, it's unenforceable.
Similar threads
- Locked