Sony sued over 'don't sue us' Terms of Service

squatch on 19 Dec '11 said:

lol. Classic

gmcb007 on 19 Dec '11 said:

So...much...irony...

It's wrong for a company to to have a 'shut up or f**k off elsewhere' policy. I'm suprised they're even allowed to do it anyways to start with!

El Mag on 19 Dec '11 said:

Then somebody sues him for suing over not being able to sue.

Then somebody else sues the man that sued the other man who sued Sony for not being able to sue.

Then somebody.....finally says no I'm happy, I won't sue. Here's some chicken and a cold beer, now let's go play on Mario Kart 64, winner stays on. No suing if you lose. Man up.

Mandatory Grape on 19 Dec '11 said:

Then somebody.....finally says no I'm happy, I won't sue. Here's some chicken and a cold beer, now let's go play on Mario Kart 64, winner stays on. No suing if you lose. Man up.

Prime example of Notch (creater of minecraft) when he challanges bethesda to a game of Quake 3 over them trying to sue him over the use of the name "scrolls" for a game.

alan666 on 19 Dec '11 said:

hope the guys wins.

Papzotic on 19 Dec '11 said:

Since its america, that man will be awarded 100'000's of dollars

NEO_SUPERMAN on 19 Dec '11 said:

Well isn't this just the worst year Sony have ever had.

EVER!

Bless em.

Agent75 on 19 Dec '11 said:

That's what I love about the US, so much scope to drag someone or a company to court. Sounds like the guy has a good case. I've always wondered about these clauses. But if Sony lose, they'll make gamers pay for it like when they lost the case about the motors in their Dualshock controllers. Odd how PS3 controllers more than doubled in price (compared to PS2 controllers)...

am_gers2K8 on 19 Dec '11 said:

I know it doesn't sound fair, but the terms added by Sony are in no-way illegal. All their doing is protecting themselves from minor cases. This is just another cash grab imo. You can't argue that you paid for PSN when you bought a PS3 as it is a service that's available on other platforms as well, such as the PSP and Vita, and I doubt the court would accept there being multiple prices for the one service via the same provider.

only_777 on 19 Dec '11 said:

This guy doesn't have a chance. I mean when Sony actually raped every PS3 owner of their consumer rights earlier this year (and no one done anything about it apart from Anonymous), they got away with that quite well.

Changing the ToS, and getting away scot free should be a walk in the park.

jm3811 on 19 Dec '11 said:

I found this ruling by the SC regarding AT&T. Not that I like it, and I'll look for further sources. April 2011.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T—and indeed, any company—could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as "unconscionable."

The particular case at hand, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, stemmed from a California couple (the Concepcions) that had been charged sales tax on mobile phones that AT&T had advertised as "free." The couple believed the charges were unfair and constituted false advertising and fraud on the part of AT&T. They filed a lawsuit against AT&T, which was later promoted to class-action status. AT&T attempted to have the case dismissed on the grounds that its service contract requires individual arbitration and bars "any purported class or representative proceeding."

AT&T and others have similarly tried to have class-action cases dismissed on these grounds, though state supreme courts in both California and Washington have held that contractual waivers for class arbitration or litigation are "unconscionable" and therefore void based on those states' consumer protection laws. Using this reasoning, courts have allowed class-action lawsuits to proceed despite the contractual requirement for individual arbitration.

AT&T appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, though the court noted that section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act states that arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." Since California consumer protection laws allow "unconscionable" contract clauses to be vacated, and the FAA includes the provision that arbitration agreements could be ruled unenforceable if law provided for the revocation of the contract, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the class-action case could proceed.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the purpose of the FAA was designed to promote arbitration over more costly and lengthy litigation. Quoting an earlier ruling by the court, Scalia explained that "[a] prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve ‘streamlined proceedings and expeditious results,'" and that requiring the class-action litigation to proceed would be at odds with the intent of the FAA and the benefits that arbitration agreements ostensibly provide.

Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, noted that the saving clause in the FAA left ground for individual states to determine how a contract or its clauses may be revoked. "[R]ecognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California's law, not to strike it down," he wrote.

The decision, which fell precisely along ideological lines, could have far-reaching effects on consumers' ability to challenge corporations in court over future disputes. In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... -suits.ars

TheCrimsonFenix on 19 Dec '11 said:

It isn't illegal, it isn't underhanded. This guy will be made a laughing sock if he doesn't quickly re-read the T & Cs. Anyone who reads the new terms will see it isn't in anywhere near as bad as a lot are making out. Read the terms, don't bite on CVG's bait. This was all cleared up the moment the new conditions came into effect.

shadow king on 19 Dec '11 said:

mircosoft will get sued as well then because they also done that dont sue us in their terms of service

dont beileve me?

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/late ... t-2011127/

ign also covered it as well

shadow king on 19 Dec '11 said:

Since its america, that man will be awarded 100'000's of dollars

nah more like 1 million and the court fee will be $990.000

Zubee on 19 Dec '11 said:

Hmm this guy better have some beasty lawyers. But people need to realise tos agreements don't trump actual laws.

Barca Azul on 19 Dec '11 said:

Thing is, I can see this and others failing on the Xbox too. You buy the machine, its yours forever, unless you lose or sell it!

However, you have a choice, you can register the said machine using a license thats free (ish if its 360 silver or gold) and then abiding by the terms and conditions you can access the PSN or Live or Itunes or just about any software application.

Just about every software license has waivers as long as your arm as well though. You know, the huge 20 pages of text that you never actually read and just click accept, it probably says somewhere hidden in the vast amounts of pages that you agree to lending your girlfriend or mother to them whenever they ask, but you got bored after the first five lines, so you will never know, until they ask!

It just seems to be that Americans have it in for Sony? Its funny that you dont hear them kicking up a fuss over US products like Apple or Microsoft for similar things? Racists, or this site doesnt fan those fires with these articles as well?

slick loose on 19 Dec '11 said:

Not sure why everyone is getting so worked up for, I had no intention to take SONY to court...did you guys? That ToS thing maybe bad...but it doesn't effect me in the slightest.

People need to calm down a touch.

wtfbbqchiken on 20 Dec '11 said:

Well isn't this just the worst year Sony have ever had.

EVER!

Bless em.

sarcastic? the last case against them got laughed out of court!

Windowlicker79 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Why is this article posted under "3DS news"?

TheDragonDoji on 20 Dec '11 said:

The distinction is that you cannot sue Sony as a GROUP and make it one case. You'd be required to sue them as your individual self also as one case...which Sony know for a fact would ruin your life by costing an insane amount of money, which they have to spare and you do not.

Long. Live. p**s Takery.

billysastard on 20 Dec '11 said:

i'm sad that he has no chance of winning, i would have loved to have seen ea and microsoft join sony in the dock for this latest anti consumer act.

(i'n truth i always like seeing sony in the dock because its costing them money and the more money it costs them the better as far as i'm concerned)

voodoo341 on 20 Dec '11 said:

i'm sad that he has no chance of winning, i would have loved to have seen ea and microsoft join sony in the dock for this latest anti consumer act.

(i'n truth i always like seeing sony in the dock because I'm a massive fanboy)

Fixed.

jm3811 on 20 Dec '11 said:

I have to be fair with Sony. If they say that they can do it because AT&T have done that only means that they can legally do it. I am not aware of Sony endorsing AT&T's business but if you do...

I look at the UK today and I compare two disputes that I may have: one is with my lettings agency and one is with Sony, for whatever reasons. As long as there is an arbitration scheme with Sony and that I know how it works and what I can do to make it work, I have some good chances to get a complaint through. If I have a dispute with the agency on the other hand, the only thing I can expect is to waste my time at the CAB and furthermore be sodomized in court.

The US laws and the way consumers or citizens can expect to get things right are quite laughable really. Most people over there expect to win the lottery in being hit by a minor incident in order to sue for a gigantic compensation. It's a bit like living in North Korea, only with more money (not for everybody though). So I think that Sony are quite right to do like any company do.

What should be looked at more closely is the will of both the companies and the customers and also the fairness that prevails in such arbitration. Last time I read the news Jeremy Clarkson was still living in the fast lane whilst there was a poor guy who was to spend four year in jails for inciting other people to riot.

OK the Facebook guy is ugly but chances are that if he owns a PS3 I have done some coops with him on GTA4.

Also I think that I am going to sue CVG because the website looks weird in Seamonkey.

only_777 on 20 Dec '11 said:

i'm sad that he has no chance of winning, i would have loved to have seen ea and microsoft join sony in the dock for this latest anti consumer act.

(i'n truth i always like seeing sony in the dock because I'm a massive fanboy)

Fixed.

What is your problem Voodoo? Just felt like trolling tonight or something? I say I prefer the PS3 over the 360 as I think it's a better machine with better games, I'm a Sony fanboy. I say that Sony raped peoples consumer rights and then I'm a 360 fanboy.

I suppose it depends on which fanboys backside I just slaped last.

Barry316 on 20 Dec '11 said:

billysastard is a massive fanboy, go look at his post history, it's full of hate for one particular company. Voodoo wasn't trolling, just taking the p**s out of an angry man.

solamon77 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Good. These "don't sue us" clauses are BS.

Terranova1 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Microsoft have done the exact same thing for their T&Cs for Xbox live so Sony are not the only ones, the guy will get no where with his law suit except wasting his money trying, the only person winning out of this is lawyers and idiots like this guy fall for it every time

only_777 on 20 Dec '11 said:

billysastard is a massive fanboy, go look at his post history, it's full of hate for one particular company. Voodoo wasn't trolling, just taking the p**s out of an angry man.

Are you having a laugh? it's me he's mis-quoting.
I'm a 360 fanboy one week when I slag off Sony for breaking the law, then a Sony fanboy the next when I say how much better the PS3 IP's are.

Can no one make up their mind!?!

Barry316 on 20 Dec '11 said:

If it's you he's quoting then he's gone wrong somewhere, it says billysastards name in the quote not yours. And the billysastard comment he replied to is one above his. Maybe check your eyes out.

kirankara on 20 Dec '11 said:

Only in America is such idiocy possible.
A) you don't buy the psn services when you buy a ps3, its something they offer to you free, but on their terms and conditions,b, there was way to opt out of this aster you agreed anyway,c,I can't see why Sony should leave themselves open to idiotic court cases for providing a service. If people don't like it, go ps3 for xbox live, which now also has same conditions, so, oh dear, what next??????

only_777 on 20 Dec '11 said:

If it's you he's quoting then he's gone wrong somewhere, it says billysastards name in the quote not yours. And the billysastard comment he replied to is one above his. Maybe check your eyes out.

My god, I'm a nob.
Sorry to both you and Voodoo, it's early and I thought Voodoo had fiddled with my message earlier. It sorta looked the same but messed around a little.

Barry316 on 20 Dec '11 said:

No harm done fella.

Just there's a lot of bashing and hate thrown around here lately, and for two regulars such as yourselves to fall out over nothing would be a shame.

slick loose on 20 Dec '11 said:

WHERE IS THE CHRISTMAS SPIRIT!

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/UGC/Holiday%20pets_071217/Holiday%20pets_071217_UGC%20UPLOAD/Berg_Erin/071219_76365_sophiechristmas_ug.grid-6x2.jpg

El Mag on 20 Dec '11 said:

Mine went after spending the night in the local police station...

http://www.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/12/forum_3f0f495b_drunkSanta.jpg

Seems not everybody likes Santa!

Augustus_aka_AG on 20 Dec '11 said:

I think the real concern about the new ToS is that you have to accept it if you want to do a Firmware update via the internet. So if there is a cock up with the Firmware that kills your PS3 then you have already agreed not to sue Sony, therefore there is no real leverage to get Sony to replace it. Ever increasing reports are indicating that Update 4.0 might be doing just this, so as far as I'm concerned this isn't good news.

MPH on 20 Dec '11 said:

I think they should be called *sniggers*... 'Sueny'.

Bwuahahahahaha!

slick loose on 20 Dec '11 said:

I think the real concern about the new ToS is that you have to accept it if you want to do a Firmware update via the internet. So if there is a cock up with the Firmware that kills your PS3 then you have already agreed not to sue Sony, therefore there is no real leverage to get Sony to replace it. Ever increasing reports are indicating that Update 4.0 might be doing just this, so as far as I'm concerned this isn't good news.

Surely you mean rumours? Otherwise I would love to see these 'reports'.

Barry316 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Reports = People on internet forums. Some of which will be lying just for giggles.

Jensonjet on 20 Dec '11 said:

"...a Northern California man has taken legal action..."

What a surprise!?!

Imaduck on 20 Dec '11 said:

Hahahahaahhahaah this is awesome, I hope the guy wins

Those "we are untouchable and never wrong as of today, accept it or lose your console" terms were total bs. MS should drop the s**t too or get sued.

Buddha on 20 Dec '11 said:

In spite of the fearful xbox fanboys in here Sony will continue to dominate this xmas.

Soviet1918 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Well isn't this just the worst year Sony have ever had.

EVER!

Bless em.

TBA its there own bl**dy fault they should never have put "Dont sue us" in there ToS
they kinda ask for it realy,

It would be brave person to take a job as a PR person for Sony this year.

Sammy_bham on 20 Dec '11 said:

the new terms of service user agreement had users to agree not to take Sony to court. Agreement is required in order to access the PSN.

But a Northern California man

I stopped reading.... here.

as soon as i saw the bloke was from america, it became a "non" story.

The_KFD_Case on 20 Dec '11 said:

I hope this northern California man wins. Such clauses are preposterous and have no place in transparent and ethical business practices...Guess that says a lot about Sony and the way it thinks and operates. The same goes for any other business that would try to use such a clause. Thankfully such nonsense is, if I'm not mistaken, barred from being legally binding in much of Europe (as it rightly should be).

jm3811 on 20 Dec '11 said:

Only in America is such idiocy possible.
A) you don't buy the psn services when you buy a ps3, its something they offer to you free, but on their terms and conditions,b, there was way to opt out of this aster you agreed anyway,c,I can't see why Sony should leave themselves open to idiotic court cases for providing a service. If people don't like it, go ps3 for xbox live, which now also has same conditions, so, oh dear, what next??????

Actually you do buy the PSN service when you purchase a PS3. The Sony website clearly says "enjoy free access to PlayStation®Network and more" and "PlayStation 3 has it all: High Definition visuals, eye-popping stereoscopic 3D and free online gaming" and also "as well as being able to access PlayTV™ and VidZone™ on the move". So when you get a Sony console you expect those things to work and I would ask from Sony the same quality of service as any other console manufacturer be it "free" or not. Otherwise Sony would be guilty of fraud in which case they would not be in a position to escape prosecution via their TOC.

If there was no guarantee that the PS3 comes with a network access nobody would buy one, almost. It is in the interest of Sony that customers trust the product that they purchase.

However the binding arbitration thing is certainly not a criteria that would make me choose to go for an xBox or whatever though (even if MS had not done the same. Mostly because as I've said I don't think that there's any harm done on the occasion.

Mmmmgrolsch on 20 Dec '11 said:

(i'n truth i always like seeing sony in the dock because its costing them money and the more money it costs them the better as far as i'm concerned)

Did they sexually assault you too? Or did they burn your house down and kill your parents? No wonder you hope they lose as much money as possible after they had such a dramatic effect on your life.

slick loose on 20 Dec '11 said:

(i'n truth i always like seeing sony in the dock because its costing them money and the more money it costs them the better as far as i'm concerned)

Did they sexually assault you too? Or did they burn your house down and kill your parents? No wonder you hope they lose as much money as possible after they had such a dramatic effect on your life.

I know, what's that about? I don't have a 360, so maybe I want Microsoft to lose all their money? But I don't...something must be wrong with me.

Either billysastard is a fanboy of epic proportions or he has a personnel grievance with SONY. Either way, he's coming off a bit of an idi...I mean MERRY CHRISTMAS!

voodoo341 on 20 Dec '11 said:

If it's you he's quoting then he's gone wrong somewhere, it says billysastards name in the quote not yours. And the billysastard comment he replied to is one above his. Maybe check your eyes out.

My god, I'm a nob.
Sorry to both you and Voodoo, it's early and I thought Voodoo had fiddled with my message earlier. It sorta looked the same but messed around a little.

lol no problem mate.