Sony sued over "don't sue us" Terms of Service

[MightyJordan]

Sony has been taken to court over new Terms of Service that were added to prevent people from taking it to court. Funny, that.

Introduced in September, the new terms of service user agreement had users to agree not to take Sony to court. Agreement is required in order to access the PSN.

But a Northern California man has taken legal action against Sony for unfair business practices for forcing users to choose between giving up their right to sue or ceasing to use a service they effectively paid for when they purchased a PS3.

Filed on behalf of everyone who bought a PS3 before the new terms were added, the suit also alleges that Sony hid the new clauses down in the long document, and failed to make an easily accessible version of it available online as it had for previous ToS changes.

It'll be interesting to see if similar action is taken against Microsoft, who also recently added similar clauses to its Xbox Live ToS to prevent class action lawsuits.

[etempest]

Good News. I would like to see more laws or establishment of Laws (consumer protection) vs "Terms of Service / License".

Software is the one of the industries that makes no sense compared to other things people purchase.

[shakey]

This is a good suit and actually stands a chance. I hope this passes, and it would take away all those other companies messages who have tried to do as such.

[M_Lyons10]

Well, this was just bound to happen... lol

[FMH]

A lot of companies have that.

[SierraSonic]

If this loses in a court of the people...

[shakey]

If this loses in a court of the people...

Consumer protection will be officially dead.

[+ir0nw0lf Subscriber²]

the suit also alleges that Sony hid the new clauses down in the long document

Um, seriously? If that was the case, scores of Terms of Service agreements in the universe would be "illegal" because company xxx "hid" something way down in them. Not like sony is the first/last to do this... What do people expect, the first line of the ToS to show the new clauses? Don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere.

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

Um, seriously? If that was the case, scores of Terms of Service agreements in the universe would be "illegal" because company xxx "hid" something way down in them. Not like sony is the first/last to do this... What do people expect, the first line of the ToS to show the new clauses? Don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere.

Maybe you should read the rest of the sentence then?

failed to make an easily accessible version of it available online as it had for previous ToS changes.

Anyway this seems like a violation of consumer rights, so I hope this is successful.

[Stealthy_Singh]

Um, seriously? If that was the case, scores of Terms of Service agreements in the universe would be "illegal" because company xxx "hid" something way down in them. Not like sony is the first/last to do this... What do people expect, the first line of the ToS to show the new clauses? Don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere.

True. But if they did provide easily accessible versions prior to this and not this time then it could be argued that there is something they are trying to hide in these terms and conditions.

[stpark6985]

Test

[Hedon]

Yup, this needs to be dropped by these companies. With Sony (and now MS) doing stuff like this, they are trying to circumvent the legal system with a circular agreement. If that was the case, everything we buy would have a "you can't sue us" disclosure, and we would all be getting it up the tailpipe.

[tiagosilva29]

Don't sue me, bro'.

[shakey]

True. But if they did provide easily accessible versions prior to this and not this time then it could be argued that there is something they are trying to hide in these terms and conditions.

It isn't even about how it was available. It is about the clause written in it. There is no fairness for the consumer if they have no means to protect themselves from a company due to , " if you use this, even if it is our fault, it isn't our fault."

[Glassed Silver]

Oh yea, let them bleed for such a jacksh**.

Trying to get such TOSh*t through shall find a good example here.

Also, even for new costumers this shouldn't be valid.

Glad such BS doesn't hold a chance in the EU.

Glassed Silver:mac

[soniqstylz]

Except there's also an opt-out. Also, you can still sue Sony, just not as part of a class-action.

[Hedon]

Also, you can still sue Sony, just not as part of a class-action.

Still wrong though.

[CrimsonBetrayal]

Except there's also an opt-out. Also, you can still sue Sony, just not as part of a class-action.

Except opt out means you can't use the sony online service, which you paid for, and could before...

Lets put this into context.

You buy a TV, you have the ability to watch TV and programs on it, and should something go wrong with it when your watching tv through coax which set your house on fire and killed your family, you could sue the company which would also generally result in a recall of said product as it was faulty. So the company decides, we don't want to take that risk, so they change their ToS and say you can use our TV as long as you promise not to sue us if something goes wrong. If you don't like this, then you cannot watch tv through coax, even though you could before, but you're free to have the TV in your house. If you promise not to sue us if something goes wrong, then you can use the coax also.

This can most definitely be a class action lawsuit as it affects all PS3 users rights. No company should be allowed to change their ToS to remove your rights as a consumer. If their ToS remove your rights as a consumer, then this needs to be made clear ahead of time so you can make an educated decision on whether or not to use their product. If they change their ToS to remove your rights, you should be given of a refund as they have effectively changed their product to something other than what was advertised.

[Wolfbane]

Consumer protection will be officially dead.

Or you could, you know, use these things called "laws" to protect consumers, and have the Government enforce them, rather than suing people left right and centre.

Except opt out means you can't use the sony online service, which you paid for, and could before...

Lets put this into context.

You buy a TV, you have the ability to watch TV and programs on it, and should something go wrong with it when your watching tv through coax which set your house on fire and killed your family, you could sue the company which would also generally result in a recall of said product as it was faulty. So the company decides, we don't want to take that risk, so they change their ToS and say you can use our TV as long as you promise not to sue us if something goes wrong. If you don't like this, then you cannot watch tv through coax, even though you could before, but you're free to have the TV in your house. If you promise not to sue us if something goes wrong, then you can use the coax also.

This can most definitely be a class action lawsuit as it affects all PS3 users rights. No company should be allowed to change their ToS to remove your rights as a consumer. If their ToS remove your rights as a consumer, then this needs to be made clear ahead of time so you can make an educated decision on whether or not to use their product. If they change their ToS to remove your rights, you should be given of a refund as they have effectively changed their product to something other than what was advertised.

They should have just said any PS3 purchased after the TOS change is subject to the new TOS, anything before keeps the old TOS.

[soniqstylz]

Except opt out means you can't use the sony online service, which you paid for,

stop right there as you are wrong at this point. PSN is a free service offered for connectivity, but the console itself does not perform any differently in it's main role (play video game and blu-ray software) if left offline. In other words, if you never connect your PS3 to the internet, and from there to PSN, you don't exactly get a refund because you can't or don't partake in the service. It's entrirely optional.

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

stop right there as you are wrong at this point. PSN is a free service offered for connectivity, but the console itself does not perform any differently in it's main role (play video game and blu-ray software) if left offline. In other words, if you never connect your PS3 to the internet, and from there to PSN, you don't exactly get a refund because you can't or don't partake in the service. It's entrirely optional.

And it's also a selling point. Plenty of people buy a PS3 specifically for online play. I'm sure you would be fine with it if tomorrow your computer manufacturer changed their terms of service and decided you were no longer allowed to have an operating system on your PC. I mean, you can still hit the power button and access the BIOS settings, right?

[comecon]

The problem is that you must agree to the new T&Cs to use the new firmware. Sony will eventually block PSN access from all those whom are not on the latest firmware as a method of reducing piracy/being ######.

Unfortunately it isn't just PSN that is affected.

Many new games require a certain firmware before you are able to run them or update older ones with patches.

In this case you are forced to waive your legal right to sue if you desired, and be able to use PSN, play new games, and patch older ones to resolve problems. If you don't agree to not sue you cannot use the PS3 as originally intended. It essentially becomes unfit for its purpose - something that I am sure trading standards and consumer protection laws in the UK would prevent...

To put it in more familiar terms, would you be pleased if Microsoft revised the EULA for Windows (that you had already bought and were using) that specified you couldn't sue them, and then in order to continue using Windows, the software running on it and updating Windows and said software, you had to agree with the new EULA? Otherwise your PC locked itself and your network connection was permanently turned off until you agreed...

Sounds like bribery tbh...

[Denis W. Veteran]

The entire section is buried halfway in the PSN Terms of Service, section 15. One of the clauses included in section 15 is the acknowledgement the entire section can be rendered invalid if the Class Action Waiver clause is struck down in court - which this case is trying to get done.

In the meantime, people can opt out in writing within 30 days... if they really care that is.

[CrimsonBetrayal]

stop right there as you are wrong at this point. PSN is a free service offered for connectivity, but the console itself does not perform any differently in it's main role (play video game and blu-ray software) if left offline. In other words, if you never connect your PS3 to the internet, and from there to PSN, you don't exactly get a refund because you can't or don't partake in the service. It's entrirely optional.

I am not wrong. Trying playing MW3 or BF3 online without the service, which are those games major selling points... oh wait... you can't. Then there is the need to update software and blu-ray keys. Will they let you do that? I'd wager not if you don't agree to the ToS. I am not wrong at all. This is a valid concern as it removes rights from the consumer which should never be challenged. At the end of the day, a product that is advertised with having a "free online service" is a major selling point for a lot of people. And now saying "free online service" as long as you dont sue us.So don't tell me I'm wrong because I care about my freedoms and rights as a consumer. Would you people give up your home too if it was written in a clause?? Jesus christ... :huh:

[soniqstylz]

I am not wrong. Trying playing MW3 or BF3 online without the service, which are those games major selling points... oh wait... you can't. Then there is the need to update software and blu-ray keys. Will they let you do that? I'd wager not if you don't agree to the ToS. I am not wrong at all. This is a valid concern as it removes rights from the consumer which should never be challenged. At the end of the day, a product that is advertised with having a "free online service" is a major selling point for a lot of people. And now saying "free online service" as long as you dont sue us.So don't tell me I'm wrong because I care about my freedoms and rights as a consumer. Would you people give up your home too if it was written in a clause?? Jesus christ... :huh:

Both of those games contain an offline campaign that works just fine. If it's a major issue, buy an XBox -- oh wait, it's in their ToS as well. Get'cha lawyer on, right? Well, what are you waiting for? You DO care about this issue, correct?

You can also update software and blu-rays w/o logging into PSN. You can still use internet connectivity, you just can't use apps like Netflix or surf the PSN Store.

And sorry, playing PSN that I do not pay for using servers I do not pay for ! = house that I do pay for. However, it is written into the terms of my apartment lease that those terms are subject to change.