Don't even try to sue Sony...

[mmntech]

...if you ever want to use PSN again. Sony's changed the PSN terms of service to include a "don't sue us" clause. Basically, by agreeing, you're now forced into binding arbitration should you have a dispute with any Sony entity.

Other than those matters listed in the Exclusions from Arbitration clause (small claims), you and the Sony Entity that you have a Dispute with agree to seek resolution of the Dispute only through arbitration of that Dispute in accordance with the terms of this Section 15, and not litigate any Dispute in court. Arbitration means that the Dispute will be resolved by a neutral arbitrator instead of in a court by a judge or jury.

Of course you can opt out, by doing things the good old 1950s way.

RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.

It's pretty sneaky for them to bury this at the bottom of the TOS. That whole security breach really stirred up a legal hornet's nest so looks like they're trying to cover their asses. Naturally, this is the likely result of the class action that emerged after all those credit card numbers were stolen.

This is a good example of the problem with EULAs. Long winded, convoluted contracts that people are expected to "sign" without really understanding what anything in them means. I know what binding arbitration is. (A neutral person is hired to hear the dispute. That person makes a decision, which is the final word. All outside the courts and off the public record.) How many other people do though?

Mind you, this won't effect most people using the service. It just seems a tad unethical to sneak things through like that without first consulting consumers. As if Sony needed a legal advantage if they screw up, with their high priced lawyers.

 

[American Gunner]

Good ole Sony.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Meh. If Xbox Live kills and eats your family dog they only have to pay you $5:

16. LIABILITY LIMITATION.

You can recover from us for all successful claims only direct damages up to a total amount equal to your Service fee for one month. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, special, indirect, incidental, or punitive damages and lost profits.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/livetou

 

[Bman123]

Lmao its all in the fine print

 

[ImpulsE69]

Nothing is ethical once the lawyers get involved....

 

[shortylickens]

And they wonder why people pirate & only buy used.

 

[mmntech]

Forbes is calling it a PR blunder.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...in-new-psn-terms-of-service/?partner=yahootix

 

[BD2003]

Is that even legal?

 

[Malak]

And they wonder why people pirate & only buy used.

How does this in anyway justify pirating? Pirates will find any excuse to do something they had every intention of doing no matter what.

 

[BD2003]

How does this in anyway justify pirating? Pirates will find any excuse to do something they had every intention of doing no matter what.

You just answered your own question.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Further evidence that corporations have far too much power in this country. They have very nearly effectively succeeded in removing the ability of ordinary citizens to take these massive corporations to court for any reason, virtually insulating them from the rule of law itself.

It's clearly wrong. How can you be effectively forced to give up your right to sue? Isn't access to the proper courts, a constitutional right, that cannot be given up or signed away?

And yet, the courts themselves, have chosen to side with the corporations!

 

[Sonikku]

 

[Barfo]

Fuck Sony.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's more common than you realize since no one reads the fine print. Your credits cards probably have this in their terms as well.

They can make you do this because using their service is voluntary.

 

[mmntech]

It's more common than you realize since no one reads the fine print. Your credits cards probably have this in their terms as well.

They can make you do this because using their service is voluntary.

That's definitely true. However, that doesn't make it right, even if the service is voluntary.

Corporate binding arbitration is a bit like allowing a convicted criminal to hand pick the judge and jury for their own sentencing hearing.

Now I'm not going to go all tin hat here. I think the court rulings are mainly to prevent frivolous suits that have plagued the tort system in recent years. They choke up valuable court resources. However, letting sensitive financial data get stolen, then not notifying customers for days is a very serious matter. That's why you cannot have umbrella policies that allow all or none. Fixing this issue is a whole different story. Like any serious issue, particularly with flawed laws, there's no political will. Even if it protects vulnerable consumers, tort reform is just not sexy.

 

[marino.DV]

I hate how ppl when they know ppl are enjoying a product they explore the most of it....

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I hate how ppl when they know ppl are enjoying a product they explore the most of it....

WHUT???

 

[nitromullet]

I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone can explain to me how something like a EULA can legally strip you of your rights as a consumer and legal resident of the U.S. (I am assuming the EULA is regional).

 

[cantholdanymore]

My previous job had a clause saying that I couldn't sue them "Until The End Of Time" . No kidding here and that was a medium size technology firm

 

[Axon]

I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone can explain to me how something like a EULA can legally strip you of your rights as a consumer and legal resident of the U.S. (I am assuming the EULA is regional).

It's not iron clad, but arbitration agreements often are enforceable.

Of course, that leaves the inevitable question - how, and why, are such terms enforceable? The real reason - and this is not to enter into conspiracy theory territory - is because corporations strongly back judicial candidates who are strongly pro corporation in the state appellate courts. They also strongly back helpful policy, such as the federal arbitration act. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sup_01_9.html The justification for such legislation is because you're BUYING something and not being directly injured by Sony through no act of your own.

Now, arbitration does two things that everyone likes: (1) it takes the burden off of Courts, which are really under the gun, and (2) it stops with all the ridiculous appellate BS. That's good for most people and for most corporations.

However, Corps love arbitration mainly because they have a heavy say in who the arbitrator actually is. If they didn't, they wouldn't give a shit about sticking in these clauses.

 

[shortylickens]

I hate how ppl when they know ppl are enjoying a product they explore the most of it....

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[Sonikku]

Considering the miserable success rate of class action lawsuits in this business, it seems curious why they need to go so far so as to shield them from such things. Unless they think they're going to drop the ball in the near future again and are getting their ducks in a row ahead of time anyway.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Further evidence that corporations have far too much power in this country. They have very nearly effectively succeeded in removing the ability of ordinary citizens to take these massive corporations to court for any reason, virtually insulating them from the rule of law itself.

It's clearly wrong. How can you be effectively forced to give up your right to sue? Isn't access to the proper courts, a constitutional right, that cannot be given up or signed away?

And yet, the courts themselves, have chosen to side with the corporations!

Haven't you heard? The people who have been running this country for the past 50 or so years think that the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

[child of wonder]

Our country is hilarious. Just because a company adds some text in fine print they can get away with almost anything.

"Company reserves the right to rape, kill, and eat your first born son. We are not responsible for any comprehensive, direct, indirect, or punitive damages."

 

[Genx87]

These opt out clauses dont always hold up in court.