Steam Subscriber Agreement Update

[GullyFoyle]

Updated Steam Subscriber Agreement
- Valve 19:49
Every so often we need to update the Steam Subscriber Agreement (“SSA”) and Valve’s Privacy Policy. These documents are the terms to which you (and all Steam users) agreed when first creating an account. Whenever we need to make changes to these agreements we like to bring the changes to your attention and explain why they’re necessary. The next time you log in to Steam you’ll be asked to read and agree to the new terms.

This time around there are a number of changes reflected in both documents including the opening of a new Valve office in Luxembourg to better serve our EU customers and partners. If you live in the EU, your SSA will be with our Luxembourg subsidiary Valve S.a.r.l. and the SSA has been amended to reflect additional terms specific to our EU customers. We've added other terms related to the Steam Wallet and Steam trading to accommodate new features and capabilities of Steam.

We’re also introducing a new dispute resolution process that will benefit you and Valve. Recently, a number of companies have created similar provisions which have generated lots of discussion from customers and communities, and we’ve been following these discussions closely. On Steam, whenever a customer is unhappy with any transaction, our first goal is to resolve things as quickly as possible through the normal customer support process. However in those instances in which we can't resolve a dispute, we've outlined a new required process whereby we agree to use arbitration or small claims court to resolve the dispute. In the arbitration process, Valve will reimburse your costs of the arbitration for claims under a certain amount. Reimbursement by Valve is provided regardless of the arbitrator’s decision, provided that the arbitrator does not determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable.

Most significant to the new dispute resolution terms is that customers may now only bring individual claims, not class action claims. We considered this change very carefully. It’s clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers. In far too many cases however, class actions don’t provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims. Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities. We think this new dispute resolution process is faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a whole.

Thanks for reading through our thoughts on these updates and for your continued use of Steam.

Source

I agree that class action lawsuits primary benefit the lawyers (What? They get $3 million dollars and I get a coupon for $5.00 my next purchase!), but can they really tell limit your legal remedies?

 

[Railgun]

It`s saying you agree to the process and follow it, not start a class action suit. It`s another case of "Don`t like it? Don`t agree to it," and be on your way. Seems pretty reasonable. It would suggest there`s more work on their side in adhering to this.

And I can`t imagine what class action there would be against a SW distributor, in particular a GAME SW distributor.

 

[cytoSiN]

I agree that class action lawsuits primary benefit the lawyers (What? They get $3 million dollars and I get a coupon for $5.00 my next purchase!), but can they really tell limit your legal remedies?

Yes, as long as the terms aren't ambiguous (there's always room for argument here) or unconscionable (harder to prove this one, but still possible). Essentially the entire Steam agreement is an adhesion contract, and US Courts are generally willing to listen to arguments as to why those should be deemed unenforceable. So the short answer is "yes, they can," but the nuanced answer is that "you can probably challenge with a decent likelihood of success."

It`s saying you agree to the process and follow it, not start a class action suit. It`s another case of "Don`t like it? Don`t agree to it," and be on your way. Seems pretty reasonable. It would suggest there`s more work on their side in adhering to this.

And I can`t imagine what class action there would be against a SW distributor, in particular a GAME SW distributor.

I can think of at least one major potential class action -- Steam closes up shop and provides ZERO compensation to its subscribers for the billions (yes, billions, with a "b") that they've spent on games that they can no longer play. Now, this is EXTREMELY unlikely to occur, but in the event something like that occurs, I can pretty much guarantee that this new arbitration/no-class clause will be deemed unenforceable and you will see at least one major class-action suit proceed past the class-certification stage.

That said, I agree that this is really much ado about nothing. They're basically trying to prevent greedy, unethical lawyers (yes, there are other kinds) from viewing the massive Steam community as a meal ticket and bringing frivolous claims for nonexistent "injuries" that will make the lawyers rich, but leave the community holding nothing but $1 coupons (or literally nothing).

 

[Texashiker]

I agree that class action lawsuits primary benefit the lawyers (What? They get $3 million dollars and I get a coupon for $5.00 my next purchase!), but can they really tell limit your legal remedies?

You can get around the class action issue by suing steam in small claims court.

 

[cytoSiN]

You can get around the class action issue by suing steam in small claims court.

Not if the total damages sought by the class exceeds the limits for small-claims court, which is usually the point of class-action suits...big money for a large group. And technically speaking, you can't certify a class in smal- claims court. Lots of people, however, can bring similar/identical small claims, which has a similar effect.

 

[Texashiker]

Lots of people, however, can bring similar/identical small claims, which has a similar effect.

My point exactly.

A lot of companies are trying to get around the class action lawsuit issue, so people are resorting to small claims court.

 

[BFG10K]

This really highlights one of the main problems of DRM, specifically cloud based DRM. Licenses can be retroactively changed for past purchases, and there’s nothing you can really do about it.

It’s like changing a contract after the money’s changed hands.

The pirates don’t care, though. I partially follow their example by running cracked versions of my legitimate games. As a legitimate paying customer, I shouldn’t be molested by any form of DRM.

 

[cytoSiN]

My point exactly.

A lot of companies are trying to get around the class action lawsuit issue, so people are resorting to small claims court.

Agreed. But it requires a more concerted personal effort, since big-money class-action lawyers are unlikely to get involved when damages are so limited. It works well when there's a real problem, like landlord-tenant shit where the tenants are really getting screwed and have a vested interest in a favorable result, but it's harder to coordinate and follow through on when you have a diverse population like the Steam community. It's possible, but unless Steam closes up shop and walks away with all of our games (in which case I'm betting there's a class-action suit irrespective of the new language), I can't imagine a situation where enough people want to get involved in small-claims court.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

What happens if steam legitimately went bankrupt? I mean, for whatever reason, revenue flow stops, for example, a competitor service arising and all the developers distributing their new games through them instead of steam? Steam could literally run out of money and then, even if you could go through with a class action suit, you wouldn't be able to recover enough money from them to make up for the lost games. Wouldn't the best case scenario in that situation be that either the bankruptcy court, or the class action court, appoints some other third party to administer the steam servers so that people can continue to access their games? But...who is going to pay that third party? There's still going to be costs.

 

[cytoSiN]

What happens if steam legitimately went bankrupt? I mean, for whatever reason, revenue flow stops, for example, a competitor service arising and all the developers going distributing their new games through them instead of steam? Steam could literally run out of money and then, even if you could go through with a class action suit, you wouldn't be able to recover enough money from them to make up for the lost games. Wouldn't the best case scenario in that situation be that either the bankruptcy court, or the class action court, appoints some other third party to administer the steam servers so that people can continue to access their games? But...who is going to pay that third party? There's still going to be costs.

In short: insurance. But they'd have to sort out the creditors, and the order in which they are entitled to recover, if at all. Hence the need for a class for the community. If every individual Steam user had to independently seek restitution, it would get ugly in a hurry. If they "legitimately went bankrupt," which seems impossible at the moment but I suppose could happen in a bleak, post-apocalyptic future, they might WANT the class so they don't have to deal with prioritizing individual users' claims.

 

[imaheadcase]

For every good lawyer who makes a EULA a better one can get around it.

 

[cytoSiN]

For every good lawyer who makes a EULA a better one can get around it.

^ This. 1000x this.

 

[Railgun]

I can think of at least one major potential class action -- Steam closes up shop and provides ZERO compensation to its subscribers for the billions (yes, billions, with a "b") that they've spent on games that they can no longer play.

True, but that would essentially nullify this agreement anyway.

 

[AlexAL]

from arstechnica:

"Unlike other companies who've issued language to prevent class-actions, Valve has granted users a weird bit of compensation in the new SSA. Anyone who elects to use individual arbitration to resolve any Steam-related disputes can expect to have their cost of arbitration paid for entirely by Valve, no matter the final decision. However, for this offer to stand, the claim must be under $10,000, and the arbitrator must not "determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable."

All such arbitration cases would be administered by the American Arbitration Association, a non-profit organization with offices throughout the United States. Users can also elect to submit claims to a small-claims court instead, but they can't expect compensation from Valve when going that route."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/valve-to-steam-users-no-class-action-suits/

 

[Sho'Nuff]

It`s saying you agree to the process and follow it, not start a class action suit. It`s another case of "Don`t like it? Don`t agree to it," and be on your way. Seems pretty reasonable. It would suggest there`s more work on their side in adhering to this.

And I can`t imagine what class action there would be against a SW distributor, in particular a GAME SW distributor.

Gamestop was involved in a class action lawsuit a while back that was initiated by a customer who was pissed when GS gave him a used copy of a game, but represented that it was new and charged him the "new" instead of "preowned" price.

They were also involved in a class action suit re: downloadable content.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/04/10/gamestop-settles-california-used-games-class-action-lawsuit