Sony sued over new Playstation terms of service

In September, Sony changed the terms of service agreement for Playstation Network users. As part of the changes, Sony said that the tens of millions of users of the online game console service had to agree to not join any new class action lawsuits against Sony. Agreeing to the new terms of service was mandatory if users wanted to access the Playstation Network for their Playstation 3 or PSP consoles.

Now GameSpot reports that an unnamed Northern California man filed suit against Sony in late November over the new PSN terms of service. The lawsuit claims that Sony is forcing consumers to give up access to the online gaming service that was already paid for when users paid for the PS3 or PSP consoles. The lawsuit also claims that the company failed to post a version of the new terms of service online, as it had in previous changes of the TOS.

Finally the lawsuit claims that the only way to opt out of the class-action lawsuit portion of the TOS was to send a written letter to Sony within 30 days of accepting the new terms of service. So far Sony has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

Microsoft also changed its own terms of service earlier this month for its Xbox Live service with a similar non-class action lawsuit clause. It also provided a way for users to get out of that portion of the agreement via a written letter.

Thanks to MightyJordan for the link

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft and Nokia also thought about buying RIM

Next Story

Android 4.0 update for Nexus S phones paused

30 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I just do not know how constantly changing TOS is legal? Consumer buys product, agree's to TOS, invests great money into online service by buying games ect.... then company changes TOS that customer no longer agree's with but now consumer is stuck and company already has your money. It makes no sense how they get away with it.

Oh and one more thing .... the fact that the terms are agreed to in the first place means that people didn't care. And if they did, and they agreed, they're morons. Don't like it? Don't sign up!!!! God, this world is full of greedy, selfish, crazy ass***s.

Oh ... fu** ... No way. This is EXACTLY why the rest of the world calls the USA the Lawsuit country ... What an embarrassment. That guy better be careful ... he's going to have some hefty legal bills when a judge tells him to stick this up his ass.

What an idiot. Suing for the sake of suing at it's most disgraceful.

Spirit Dave said,
Oh ... fu** ... No way. This is EXACTLY why the rest of the world calls the USA the Lawsuit country ... What an embarrassment. That guy better be careful ... he's going to have some hefty legal bills when a judge tells him to stick this up his ass.

What an idiot. Suing for the sake of suing at it's most disgraceful.

He wont loose a dime, they will do it for free but in case (just in case) they win, the legal teams will get more money than him. ^_^

You would have to be an ass to support this. You also have to be an ass to buy Sony products. I've boycotted them since 1995. Sony is pathetic.

Good. This is a violation of Customer Rights. We are being striped of our rights bit by bit. Soon we won't have much rights anymore.

ozgeek said,
Good. This is a violation of Customer Rights. We are being striped of our rights bit by bit. Soon we won't have much rights anymore.

you mean any right anymore

Perfect. I hope it goes through and the clause gets reversed. Because even if you send a letter that you don't agree to that clause, everyone who didn't send the letter is still taken out and that weakens the suit.

Funny, Sony add a no class action clause to their TOS and get sued. MS does the same thing, nothing happens...

Xerxes said,
Funny, Sony add a no class action clause to their TOS and get sued. MS does the same thing, nothing happens...

Oh! I didn't know Microsoft had one too, where is theirs?

As Sraf said, it takes time to put the lawsuit together before it goes to court. Besides, if they (god forbid) lose the Sony lawsuit, there'd be no point spending on a futile MS lawsuit, so it makes sense not to do it in parallel to avoid doubling the cost of the failed lawsuits.

(Spork) said,
im shocked this has not happened sooner

These suits should have happened from day 1 when they started changing TOS or else lose access to PSN feature already paid for with the console purchase.

Simon- said,

These suits should have happened from day 1 when they started changing TOS or else lose access to PSN feature already paid for with the console purchase.
No it isn't, it is free. The money exchanged for the purchase of the console was for the console only and not for access to PSN. Signing up for a PSN account is what grants you access to it (and that is free). The only people who are paying for the PSN service are PSN+ Subscribers (and even then, that money is only for access to the premium features as the rest is already free). That is how I understand it works and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Xerxes, Dec 21 2011, 5:05am :

While these clauses are certainly stupid, as Xerxes said, you didn't 'pay' for the PSN when you bought your PS3. Why is it that people have trouble distinguishing between a good (PS3) and a service (PSN). Just because you bought the PS3, it doesn't mean you're now entitled to full PSN access.

Boxster17 said,
While these clauses are certainly stupid, as Xerxes said, you didn't 'pay' for the PSN when you bought your PS3. Why is it that people have trouble distinguishing between a good (PS3) and a service (PSN). Just because you bought the PS3, it doesn't mean you're now entitled to full PSN access.

I have to disagree with you. Online play is a feature of the entertainement package that is sold with the PS3. Also, it is not free, I can guarantee that the cost is embedded in console and game prices.

sviola said,

I have to disagree with you. Online play is a feature of the entertainement package that is sold with the PS3. Also, it is not free, I can guarantee that the cost is embedded in console and game prices.

It's a service. Like if you make a "lifetime" contract for an Internet connection, but if you break their rules you lose the service. Just because you paid it doesn't mean you own the service.

LOL I find this ironic. Sony changed their TOS so people can't sue them. Then people sue them for not letting user sue Didn't think about that did you Sony? What Sony should have done is writing a TOS that said users can't sue Sony for not letting the user sue X_X ... nvm this can go on forever....when does xbox tos suit come next?

flexkeyboard said,
LOL I find this ironic. Sony changed their TOS so people can't sue them. Then people sue them for not letting user sue Didn't think about that did you Sony? What Sony should have done is writing a TOS that said users can't sue Sony for not letting the user sue X_X ... nvm this can go on forever....when does xbox tos suit come next?

The clause prevents people from establishing class action lawsuits against them. It says nothing about individual lawsuits which is indeed. It doesn't violate the ToS. For all I know he may of not accepted the new ToS anyways since the clause doesn't apply until you do so.

Love to the hear the fanboy arguments defending Sony on this one. If they can get an honest day in court should be a no brainer on this point at least.