Sony sneakily changes TOS so you can't sue them

[Da6s]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393107,00.asp

Do you read every single user agreement with which you're presented or do you just hurry past and click with abandon to get to your music, video game, or Web site? Most likely it's the latter, but an updated agreement from Sony might cause you to think twice.

As first discovered by The Examiner, Sony updated its PlayStation Network terms of service on September 15 to ban class-action lawsuits against the company.

"Any dispute resolution proceedings, whether in arbitration or court, will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class or representative action or as a named or unnamed member in a class, consolidated, representative, or private attorney general action unless you and [Sony] agree to do so in writing," according to the updated terms.

Users do have the ability to opt out of this agreement, but it must be done in writing within 30 days of the date that you accept the agreement. That opt-out request must include your name, address, PSN account number, and a clear statement that you don't want to resolve any Sony-related issues via arbitration (mailed to 6080 Center Dr., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045).

So in order to use a service you purchased when you bought your console, you have to agree not to participate in any class action law suit against Sony. Neveryoumind the potential HUGE class action suit regarding the rampant identity theft that all PSN & SOE users are subject to now. Too bad 95% (probably higher) of the people who would benefit from such a suit will just blindly agree to the new TOS.

[Cain]

This wont fly in the UK.  Over here, you cannot waive or sign away your statutory rights

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You can't in the US, either.

[Cain]

So Sony just basically pwnd themselves, right?

[Triple Zero]

Not really, unfortunately. It's not simply they waive their right to sue Sony, but they waive their right to file a class action suit as a group, so they can still individually sue Sony, just not as a class action suit.

I'm not exactly sure what a class action suit is, but afaik it's something made so that you as an individual consumer at least have a tiny chance of getting your rights against a huge corp like Sony without spending huge loads of cash. It's meant for whenever every individual basically has the same case.

Discussion:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3004674

Someone said "The SCOTUS recently affirmed that not only are such clauses legal, but that individual States cannot pass laws to forbid them.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ "

However, other people in the discussion doubt whether such an agreement would hold in the EU or UK.




Personally, I don't really care since I don't play Sony games. And the whole "Valve" and "Steam" setups, while in some aspects really nice even for consumers stroke me straight from the beginning as giving the games companies operating them WAY too much power over their users.


(digression)
Let alone that spyware/rootkit anti-cheating shit where you basically have to install a program that monitors all your processes activity, especially for software that monitors and/or changes other processes, BUT it is also auto-updating. This basically means you place complete trust in the games company's goodwill because any own debugging/monitoring software someone could potentially use if they'd want to be certain it's not doing anything malicious is specifically blocked.
So, basically, theoretically, Sony could have been downloading all its user's passwords files, webbrowsing history and whatever harddisk contents and nobody could have even possibly found out, as long as they did it while they were playing games, because the moment someone even would fire up a debugger or network traffic monitor they'd get kicked out of the game. At which point the anti-cheating app could re-self-update into innocence and pretend nothing was going on.
Not saying they did, they probably do not. But it's totally possibly and the horrible thing is, they can do it and completely cleanly get away with it without anyone, ever being the wiser for it [unlike a games/software company injecting malicious code straight into their game which would get out pretty quickly].

Additionally, if anyone would hack that anti-cheating app auto update server, they'd have an invisible botnet made out of hyperpowered gamer computers.

[Triple Zero]

and relevant:

http://bash.org/?577451

<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell

[Bu🤠ns]

[Da6s]

Spoke with a good friend earlier. TOS agreement forced him to agree before he could use netflix on his PS3. He had no clue what he'd agreed to until I told him he needed to send a letter within 30 days.

Should probably have made it 99% of users in OP.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This is a more widespread phenomenon than just Sony. Apparently, corporations are in the process of eating class action suits, period:

If it seems easier lately for companies to add small fees on your bills and harder for you to get your money back, that's because it is.
 
A Supreme Court decision that was denounced as a "crushing blow to consumers" when it was announced in April has become exactly that, according to lawyers who argue on behalf of alleged victims of corporate cheating. The decision, which upheld corporations' right to enforce fine-print contact language that compels consumers to waive their right to file lawsuits, is being used to squelch legal cases across the country, they say.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/21/7863184-after-high-court-ruling-firms-divide-and-conquer-in-consumer-cases

[Faust]

Those automated TOS are very scetchy as is, Anyone in my house could have agreed to that just by turning on my console.

[Triple Zero]

EA joins the bandwagon:

http://www.ngohq.com/news/20584-eas-new-user-agreement-bans-lawsuits.html

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

You should always get someone who is either underage, mentally incompetant, or otherwise unable to enter into a binding contract to install all of your software and electronics for you.

[Triple Zero]

You should always get someone who is either underage, mentally incompetant, or otherwise unable to enter into a binding contract to install all of your software and electronics for you.

Nice try, but you're not touching my computer.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

You should always get someone who is either underage, mentally incompetant, or otherwise unable to enter into a binding contract to install all of your software and electronics for you.

Nice try, but you're not touching my computer.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You should always get someone who is either underage, mentally incompetant, or otherwise unable to enter into a binding contract to install all of your software and electronics for you.

Nice try, but you're not touching my computer.