New PSN Terms of Service Forbids Class Action Lawsuits

[Guest]

So instead of fixing their business processes and providing quality service so that no one ever wants to sue them, they just write a clause in their TOS that prevents anyone from suing so they can go about with their poor business practices?

What an absolutely garbage company. Really glad I haven't invested into any of Sony's products.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Sadly it is legal at-least to the US standards. You can pretty much sign away most of your rights. Credit card companies for example have the terms so you cannot sue them but rather only take them to a third party company in which they choose and basically that company judges who is in the right and wrong. You are also limited to the damages done and nothing more if you win. Of course good-luck "winning" no matter how right or how much evidence you present.Face it corporations are more powerful than human rights and the governments of the world these days.[/citation]
13 year old kid buys a Playstation, has his personal data stolen in an attack, OK maybe not credit card but you can still have debit cards and they could be stolen.

You join a class action suit against Sony and they argue that the T&C says you can't do it and the T&C is a binding legal agreement.

13 year old kid points out he is a minor and cannot enter into legal agreements.

Sony contines to be sued.

Moral of the story is if you want a Playstation, lend the money to your kid and get him to buy it on his debit card, then let him register and agree the T&C and if it all cocks up at Sony's end you can use his underage status to sue Sony successfully.

 

[hoofhearted]

Seems almost like getting someone to sign something saying that they will work for less than minimum wage.

 

[cmg5217]

[citation][nom]garyshome[/nom]Seems like a good way to cut out the LAWYERS. The problem is not Sony the problem is money hungry starving lawyers. I'm all for it, it says that the issues will be settled on a one to one basis. You all think corporations are the Problem, NOT. Get rid of the lawyers and everything will be much cheeper, this will be a better world.[/citation]

Yes, because no corporation would screw over it's customers if there wasn't a way for them to retaliate. All corporations want to do is make our lives better and not take all of our money...

 

[theshonen8899]

Sony is not forcing users to sign away right to defend themselves, only that they have to do so with traditional first party lawsuits. Class action lawsuits allow the members of the class to divide the cost of the lawsuit amongst themselves making it cost nearly nothing in exchange for possibilities of enormous gains. What ends up happening is that anyone can jump in on the Sony lawsuit and pay nearly nothing to contribute while Sony has to pay their legal fees all by themselves. Class action lawsuits are still a phenomenon in America and are rarely adopted in other parts of the world.

With this change in the ToS you can still defend yourself in case of fraud, however you will need to back the legal fees yourself. This ensures that you truly believe you were wronged and that you can win the case, instead of just jumping on a bandwagon for free money.

 

[overclockingrocks]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]13 year old kid buys a Playstation, has his personal data stolen in an attack, OK maybe not credit card but you can still have debit cards and they could be stolen.You join a class action suit against Sony and they argue that the T&C says you can't do it and the T&C is a binding legal agreement.13 year old kid points out he is a minor and cannot enter into legal agreements.Sony contines to be sued.Moral of the story is if you want a Playstation, lend the money to your kid and get him to buy it on his debit card, then let him register and agree the T&C and if it all cocks up at Sony's end you can use his underage status to sue Sony successfully.[/citation]

Bingo Sony will get ripped a new one if something like this were to happen. Though I can bet the companies lawyers would argue that since the kid's parents or an older relative bought him the PS3 that THEY are the ones entering the CAL

 

[cookoy]

just say no to PSN and do away with all these legal BS

 

[bak0n]

They can write it all they want but it doesn't make it legal. Not in this country at least.

 

[Guest]

I'm really getting sick and tired of Tom's Comment mechanics. I submitted a comment, was required to log in and after doing so my comment doesn't show up, it's just dumb! Tom's DO NOT ALLOW people to type in comments unless we're logged in if we're not capable of keeping what we typed previously to being logged in, it's a pain in the rear.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]overclockingrocks[/nom]Bingo Sony will get ripped a new one if something like this were to happen. Though I can bet the companies lawyers would argue that since the kid's parents or an older relative bought him the PS3 that THEY are the ones entering the CAL[/citation]
I did say the kid should buy it on his debit card, legally covered there...

 

[Guest]

For Sony to force customers who bought a PS3 to waive their rights by accepting the PSN Policies is like Sony waiving it's obligation to support the PS3 device and the services attached to it for the people who purchased the PS3. If Sony doesn't want to take any responsibility for their products, then they sure as hell better not have any rights in controlling a product such as the PS3 post purchase if they decline the new PSN policy. If people refuse to update their PS3s and crack the code on their console it's their right, as Sony with this new policy is refusing to service people who decline. So there we have it, if you decline the Policy this should be proof of acknowledgement that Sony has waived its legal rights when it comes to the limiting the use of PS3s that are not able to use PSN.

 

[garyshome]

Just remember that without Corporations you would not be using this forum. Where would you get all your stuff from. Just because Obama says corporations are bad does that mean that they are? It's funny that this is all Sony's fault, I SEE NO TALK ABOUT THE HACKERS THAT ATTACKED SONY in the first place. So who's guilty here? If you don't like don't sign! If you want to hurt Sony DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.

 

[Skippy27]

Yes this is legal. It has been challenged in court and our corporate loving government systems have all given the OK.

The SCOTUS have put the nail in the coffin of the consumer once AT&T wanted it.
http/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars

 

[LORD_ORION]

The government should be worried. Bank mismanagement, corporate fraud, totalitarian surveillance society? Who cares...

But screw us on our right to sue to play video games? You better go hide in your bunkers, we're coming for you now...

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]Skippy27[/nom]Yes this is legal. It has been challenged in court and our corporate loving government systems have all given the OK.The SCOTUS have put the nail in the coffin of the consumer once AT&T wanted it.http/arstechnica.com/tech-policy [...] -suits.ars[/citation]
we need another JFK or else were screwed

 

[xrodney]

[citation][nom]overclockingrocks[/nom]Bingo Sony will get ripped a new one if something like this were to happen. Though I can bet the companies lawyers would argue that since the kid's parents or an older relative bought him the PS3 that THEY are the ones entering the CAL[/citation]
Not gonna happen unless you are required to sing it at time of buying.
The One that is using stuff and confirm CAL is responsible.

 

[rantoc]

And fools will still buy it... they will be the end of the world when a clause sais "The company is hereby allowed to dump nuclear waste on your courtyard if you want to keep product x". Bet way to many would sign without even reading it... sadness!

 

[orionite]

PSN never worked well enough for me to actually use it.
I find this practice of including text in your T&Cs and EULAs that restricts rights of consumers deeply disturbing. I do not know enough about US law (although it does seem to favor corporations) but for example in German law, to my knowledge, such a passage would not be valid, as it goes against the German Commercial Code (Handelsgesetz).
If your legal documents do not conform to the law, then they themselves become unlawful. To me this seems an obvious and logical conclusion.

 

[christop]

Total bs that will not fly.

 

[phate]

It all depends on the circumstances of the actual lawsuit. They can't actually prevent you from filing, but the judge may dismiss or alter depending on the whether the clause in the contract violates due process.

In certain circumstances you can contractually waive rights. In other circumstances your rights will supercede any contractual obligation.

For instance, you cannnot become a slave in the US even if you willingly signed a contract.