Support NeoGAF

[kinggroin]

100% of all interactions you have with major corporations will require this from now in perpetuity as long as courts uphold these waivers. Including Sony. Including Valve.

Do you do legal things

 

[maabus1999]

And if we're still using Xbox Live we already agreed anyway. It sucks, but at this point it's standard operating procedure until courts or congress put the foot down and prohibit these clauses, or render the terms of use entirely invalid.

Not going to happen for at least 5 years, if not longer. Need the current 5 conservatives in the SC to not be the majority opinion for matters like these.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Any confirmation from Microsoft yet on whether the actual Xbox One hardware can be resold? Or are we saving that headline for another bad news day later?

Haven't heard anything with that or what happens if you move to a separate supported area.

 

[Heretic]

Any confirmation from Microsoft yet on whether the actual Xbox One hardware can be resold? Or are we saving that headline for another bad news day later?

You should start printing out fliers and getting your speech ready for this. THERE'S NO TIME TO WASTE!

 

[PBY]

This is the only news that hasn't surprised me.

This... Is neither news nor surprising.

This is being taken without context and perspective and twisted to suit a narrative.

There are a lot of things to be mad at MS for. This isnt the thing.

 

[Valnen]

Yea this isn't surprising. They updated the terms on the 360 to include that long ago. So did everyone including Sony. Hell I want to say it's even in Nintendo's terms now but can't remember. Every company under the sun has included it now.

Think even most MMO's have it too. There is no escaping it if you pay games.

 

[CambriaRising]

Not really anything new here. I await the day this gets destroyed in court.

 

[The BS Police]

I don't think that effect's Canada.

 

[careless mango]

Good thing it's meaningless in EU.

Being an EU citizen, I'm thankful of this as well. Every single major company in the US is putting this in their Terms of Service. MS did in 2012 for Xbox Live IIRC. Like the mod said above Valve, Sony and everyone else is doing it. Standard business practice now.

 

[GoofsterStud]

This... Is neither news nor surprising.

This is being taken without context and perspective and twisted to suit a narrative.

There are a lot of things to be mad at MS for. This isnt the thing.

Sorry but this wasn't combined with a required kinetic before.

This is a different ballgame.

 

[maabus1999]

Do you do legal things

Ok the cognitive dissonance on GAF lately is getting crazy if people are challenging this.

Or everyone shocked by this is European with no clue how Corporate law now works in the United States (it blows).

 

[PBY]

Being an EU citizen, I'm thankful of this as well. Every single major company in the US is putting this in their Terms of Service. MS did in 2012 for Xbox Live IIRC. Like the mod said above Valve, Sony and everyone else is doing it. Standard business practice now.

Where this EU statute/case? I'm legit curious

Sorry but this wasn't combined with a required kinetic before.

This is a different ballgame.

explain.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Think even most MMO's have it too. There is no escaping it if you pay games.

Your slip is showing.

Edit: Also, it's discouraging to see all of the 'duh, this is how it is' posts in this thread. A lot of people's first exposure to the lopsided nature of our current system is happening now that it is directly affecting an industry that younger people care about. Let's put it in the open, let people reflect on it, and then hopefully speak out about it and push for change.

 

[Tallshortman]

Yeah everyone does this, pretty disgusting. Hopefully the supreme court reverses their decision in my lifetime when it's not filled to the brim with corporate apologists.

 

[gngf123]

Didn't Sony already do this with PSN on PS3?

Correct.

Luckily, it doesn't stand in Europe. We have a law that prohibits ToS agreements that place restrictions on consumer rights.

 

[2San]

The Supreme Court SANCTIONED these waivers.

That's pretty hilarious in a very sad way.

Based on? Source me something.

Dunno about EU but Dutch law it's "blacklisted" to ban someone from taking legal action in the ToS.

art 6:236BW

Bij een overeenkomst tussen een gebruiker en een wederpartij, natuurlijk persoon, die niet handelt in de uitoefening van een beroep of bedrijf, wordt als onredelijk bezwarend aangemerkt een in de algemene voorwaarden voorkomend beding
a
dat de wederpartij geheel en onvoorwaardelijk het recht ontneemt de door de gebruiker toegezegde prestatie op te eisen;

 

[PBY]

Correct.

Luckily, it doesn't stand in Europe. We have a law that prohibits ToS agreements that place restrictions on consumer rights.

Okay. NOW I need to see this EU law. Because I don't believe what's in your post. Or at least that it is that broad.

 

[faceless007]

This... Is neither news nor surprising.

This is being taken without context and perspective and twisted to suit a narrative.

There are a lot of things to be mad at MS for. This isnt the thing.

No, this is absolutely something to be mad at MS about. Them and every other corporation in the U.S., unfortunately, so the effectiveness of that anger may be rather diluted, but I see no reason not to include this on the long list of "Things companies do that make them suck."

I'd love to know what context and perspective you think is missing though. The facts as stated are accurate.

 

[Tyrone_Biggums]

This is par for the course for MOST corporations today. Trying to spin it as exclusive to MSFT is laughable.

 

[liquidtmd]

If Live went down for a month and no offline play was allowed because of it, I wouldn't worry about legal action - there would be bad publicity and unholy hell with consumers on an unprecedented (partnership) scale.

Seriously. I don't think MS' gaming division would survive and you wouldn't need legal action to do it.

 

[MisterHero]

Yeah this is standard EULA stuff.

Is XBO doing anything illegal? What would the class action suit be based on?

 

[PBY]

No, this is absolutely something to be mad at MS about. Them and every other corporation in the U.S., unfortunately, so the effectiveness of that anger may be rather diluted, but I see no reason not to include this on the long list of "Things companies do that make them suck."

I'd love to know what context and perspective you think is missing though. The facts as stated are accurate.

People are spinning this into an Xbox one issue, when play station products have the same terms. Also, I'm not sure EU law works the way many posters here think it does.

 

[Alessandro]

I don't get this: If a company writes that I can't sue them I can't take them to court? Isn't that... illegal?

Totally ignorant about the argument, if someone could shed some light I'd appreciate it.
I live in EU (know even less how legal system works in the US).

 

[maabus1999]

That's pretty hilarious in a very sad way.

Dude, the several years has been a cluster**** for Corporations (great for them, horrible for individuals) in the United States. Citizens United case REALLY opened up the flood doors.

I know a lot of people worldwide don't like MSFT, but compared to a lot of other US companies now, MSFT really isn't bad at all (EU helped a lot here with some anti-trust actions).

 

[NullPointer]

This... Is neither news nor surprising.

This is being taken without context and perspective and twisted to suit a narrative.

There are a lot of things to be mad at MS for. This isnt the thing.

We're agreeing here, right? I think we are.

Yeah, we are.

Aren't we?

 

[Stumpokapow]

Yeah this is standard EULA stuff.

Is XBO doing anything illegal? What would the class action suit be based on?

The point is that if Microsoft does anything illegal with XBO--or Sony with PS4--or Valve with Steam--or any corporation from now on with any service they run (imagine, for example, that they illegally charge you more sales tax than they're supposed to; imagine, for example, that they have a software glitch that illegally eats your money when you go to buy something without giving you the content you bought; imagine, for example, that they double bill you for Live; imagine, for example, that they falsely advertise the price or content of something--and I'm not saying they are going to do any of those things), you would have to sue them individually after going through mandated arbitrartion. This will first and foremost make it not worth your time, and second of all ensure that they are never punished for doing wrong, merely forced to make it square if that.

I don't get this: If a company writes that I can't sue them I can't take them to court? Isn't that... illegal?

Totally ignorant about the argument, if someone could shed some light I'd appreciate it.
I live in EU (know even less how legal system works in the US).

They can't do what you just said, but they can force you to go to arbitration first (they get to appoint the arbitrator, as well) and they can force you to make sure any arbitration or subsequent lawsuit is done by you individually, not acting with other people who have also been harmed. This means that you have to waste a lot of your time and money for a harm that is likely going to be fairly small. Class action lawsuits are a way to tip the balance because each individual person can get their remedy without having to invest all the time and money required to go through the process.

 

[sflufan]

I don't get this: If a company writes that I can't sue them I can't take them to court? Isn't that... illegal?

Totally ignorant about the argument, if someone could shed some light I'd appreciate it.
I live in EU (know even less how legal system works in the US).

Yes, you can sue them as an individual plaintiff, but you cannot participate in a class-action suit as a member of a group (class) of plaintiffs.

 

[clav]

shocking news

 

[killer rin]

If you think thats bad, Look at the PSN ToU! The same damned thing.

 

[legacyzero]

It's even worse that Courts are allowing this shit :/

 

[maabus1999]

I don't get this: If a company writes that I can't sue them I can't take them to court? Isn't that... illegal?

Totally ignorant about the argument, if someone could shed some light I'd appreciate it.
I live in EU (know even less how legal system works in the US).

Read post #33 for a link to why this is actually standard in the US.

It sucks but it is currently the "supreme precedence of the land."

Also Google "Citizens United Supreme Court case"...and cry for us.

 

[malfcn]

This is standard.
I think all cellular phone contracts and other services have this in the fine print.

 

[Mondriaan]

One year is way too short for a warranty, given the terms owners have to agree to.

 

[damaph]

Doesn't every company do this? I remember there being a big deal about this but for something else. I could be wrong. Probably am.

Yea, all big companies require this from their consumers now. This is not surprising.

 

[GashPrex]

Freedom of contract etc.. etc...I think most people would be very surprised at their "consumer" rights they waive in TOS. I might look into it one day and do a lengthy post, but its hard to take GAF seriously on legal and business matters.

 

[maabus1999]

There is one bright spot about this thread:

Our EU and other international brethren get to see how bad things are for individuals versus (all) corporations in the United States right now.

 

[FoxSpirit]

Where this EU statute/case? I'm legit curious

explain.

There is no unified European statute for class action yet and is up to the jurisdiction of the individual member states. But you can generally not sign away your legal given rights in any kind of way within the European union.
The reason is that you could be pressured into it and it would therefore protect law offending parties in ways of blackmail.

I am actually amazed that it's legal to sign away your rights in the US.

 

[PBY]

There is no unified European statute for class action yet and is up to the jurisdiction of the individual member states. But you can generally not sign away your legal given rights in any kind of way within the European union.
The reason is that you could be pressured into it and it would therefore protect law offending parties in ways of blackmail.

I am actually amazed that it's legal to sign away your rights in the US.

The thing is, it isn't really legal in the US either. It's not that black and white, which is why I'm surprised it's so clear cut in the EU.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Okay. NOW I need to see this EU law. Because I don't believe what's in your post. Or at least that it is that broad.

Aren't you a lawyer or something? Do your own research. =P

ANNEX II

CONTRACT TERMS WHICH ARE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED UNFAIR

Contract terms, which have the object or effect of the following, shall be unfair in all circumstances:

(a) excluding or limiting the liability of the trader for death or personal injury caused to the consumer through an act or omission of that trader;

b) limiting the trader's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular condition which depends exclusively on the trader;

(c) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions;

(d) restricting the evidence available to the consumer or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with the trader;

(e) giving the trader the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract or giving the trader the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.

 

[MisterHero]

The point is that if Microsoft does anything illegal with XBO--or Sony with PS4--or Valve with Steam--or any corporation from now on with any service they run (imagine, for example, that they illegally charge you more sales tax than they're supposed to; imagine, for example, that they have a software glitch that illegally eats your money when you go to buy something without giving you the content you bought; imagine, for example, that they double bill you for Live; imagine, for example, that they falsely advertise the price or content of something--and I'm not saying they are going to do any of those things), you would have to sue them individually after going through mandated arbitrartion. This will first and foremost make it not worth your time, and second of all ensure that they are never punished for doing wrong, merely forced to make it square if that.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't considering possible future acts. With all that was going on with XBO, I kinda lost perspective on how current agreements don't really protect customers eiher.

 

[Koren]

Okay. NOW I need to see this EU law. Because I don't believe what's in your post. Or at least that it is that broad.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0013:EN:HTML

See e.g. Article 3 and Annex (q)

 

[Mr. X]

Class Action Suit waiver doesn't mean they can't be sued at all.

 

[sflufan]

The thing is, it isn't really legal in the US either. It's not that black and white, which is why I'm surprised it's so clear cut in the EU.

It IS black and white in the United States. Period. End of Story.

The US Supreme Court ruled that this sort of waiver is perfectly legal.

 

[faceless007]

People are spinning this into an Xbox one issue, when play station products have the same terms.

I don't see anyone doing that. People are discussing the MS clause because this is a thread about the MS clause. There was a thread about the Sony clause and people discussed the Sony clause there. We don't need every single instance of something to be named in the quest for "balance," that's just unnecessary.

In any case, making people aware who possibly were not aware of them before is a good thing.

 

[soundscream]

Didn't they already do this on 360 I remember something like that.

 

[Spat_triate]

This was completely expected. The future is bleak for consumers.

 

[szaromir]

I know you from somewhere... Gamersyde?

That's very likely, although I haven't posted over there for a long time now.

 

[Jake Tower]

The United States code needs to be updated to invalidate any contract term of use that waives legal recourse in commercial products.

 

[Perkel]

100% of all interactions you have with major corporations will require this from now in perpetuity as long as courts uphold these waivers. Including Sony. Including Valve.

Yes. Sony and Valve already does that.

Still it is EULA which means essentially nothing to real law. You may sign it but from law standpoint they can't disallow you to go for class action.

It is for them to make some people drop some claims like many other EULA bullshit.

Here is other case from EULA (valve)

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Fortunately not possible in EU, I am always puzzled though how something like that can be legal in the US.

Because we've allowed everything to be run by corporate influence, it's pretty much as simple as that.