| Hakim Boukellif |
|
While I doubt this is legally enforceable (imagine if robbers started forcing their victims to sign a contract to not press charges), I don't really understand how this is in Sony's favour. Wouldn't a single lawsuit for a thousand people be favourable over a thousand individual lawsuits, normally? Or is my thinking too simple?
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Jeffrey Crenshaw |
|
|
"states users cannot enter into a class action lawsuit against Sony unless Sony agrees to the initiation."
This is getting ridiculous. Okay, here goes. "Reader of this comment agrees, by reading or not reading (in which case reader is merely exister and still covered by this comment because it says so) that arbitrarily arranged semantic symbols (text, such as in comments or contracts) have the potential to hold the power to bind reader/exister to paying Jeffrey Crenshaw one hundred billion dollars or the entirety of their bank fund if they have less than one hundred billion dollars, and beyond having the potential to do so do in fact do so in this instance. Reader may not avoid payment unless Jeffrey Crenshaw agrees to the avoidance. Reader can write a letter to Jeffrey Crenshaw within thirty days to request avoiding payment but it is unadvisable as the request will be turned down. Reader acknowledges that they can opt out of reading this comment; or, in the event that reader is merely an exister (one who exists but does not wish to partake in reading this comment), exister acknowledges that they can opt out of existence to avoid payment through their preferred means of suicide. Reader/exister also agrees that any conceptual manifestation (including but not limited to: armchair legality whining, conservative corporate kneejerk defenses, and any of the regularly emergent internet back-and-forths that get no one anywhere such as contract satire, hypocrisy notwithstanding) disregarding this comment is moot. Times infinity. In the event that this comment is found to be illegal or unenforceable, this comment will supersede the law; because who's to say one arbitrary arrangement of semantic symbols holds power over another? I am. And this one does." I can't wait to retire. Don't worry, the wealth will trickle down as I see fit to my slav- er, employees. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Mark Kilborn |
|
|
Unenforceable. They can put it in their EULA if they want, but any sane judge will toss it right out.
|
|
|
| Adam Sullivan |
|
Supreme Court: AT&T can force arbitration, block class-action suits
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbit ration-block-class-action-suits.ars (2011) |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Matt Cratty |
|
If this actually works....
|
|
|
| Pierette Winter |
|
Correct me if I'm misreading this, but are they basically saying that people can't press a certain kind of lawsuit without their okay? So basically they're protected from any class action lawsuit ever because they can veto charges against them? So... they've just made themselves immune and people have to agree to this to use their services?!
I hope this gets declared... unethical or illegal I'm not sure on the proper word to use here, but I'd like to hope any court worth its salt would tell Sony they are nuts for trying to enforce this. Although it sounds as if you can not have to follow this clause if you write Sony about it within 30 days? Maybe that's the magical loophole that'll make it legal... not a smart move on their part if you ask me, though. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Roman Eagle |
|
A) They shouldn't be able to exclude class action suits
B) Instead, they should put their time and money into securing their Sony Network. They had an overly simplistic security system which enabled a hacker to steal all of my identity and credit card information. For that, they should remain liable. C) Sony has really lost their edge. I used to ONLY buy Sony, but now that the Network is an identity theft landmine and the new flatscreen TV I bought shuts down after I hit the channel up button three times, I'm done with them (unless they can prove otherwise, they've lost my loyalty). |
|
|
| Pawel Sasko |
|
|
This move will only change opinion about Sony in audience's eyes from netural/slightly unfavorable to bad. True masterminds.
|
|
|
| Kevin Reilly |
|
Unfortunately, this type of arbitration clause in an EULA is enforceable in the US after the Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts state contract law (California specifically) and compels arbitration even in customer contracts of adhesion, where a state court would find it unconscionable. I am not suprised SCEA took this step, but I am not sure it would help them in large scale data breaches if a State AG decided to prosecute them for failing to secure the data in the first place or comply with local data security laws. |
|
|
| Neil Sorens |
|
|
Class action lawsuits are typically not a very efficient means of providing relief, anyway. The primary plaintiff and the lawyers make bank, and everyone else get free credit monitoring and a $5 coupon.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Heather Hummons |
|
This is what is call Tort Reform in the legal community. Yes it's very legal and they can do it. Just keep in mind that the reason companies put these clauses in their contracts is NOT to stop frivolous lawsuits but to protect their own pockets and interests by limiting your right to damages and to fairly hold them accountable if somehow their goods or services cause you some harm. There's a really good documentary out there that I recommend people watch if they want to know more about Tort reform called "Hot Coffee". I was one of those user impacted by the security breach. No I didn't sue but if I was harmed as result of the breach I would like the option of being able to sue in a court of law where things will more likely be fair versus going to a private mediator of the companies choice to decide if I have a claim or right to damages.
|
|
|
| B Smith |
|
IANAL, but I seem to recall that unfair contract terms can't be enforced, specifically the sort that infringe upon your rights - such as the right to bring suit against someone (ie Sony) that has wronged you.
|
|
|
| Nick Marroni |
|
|
Shameful.
|
|
|
More: Console/PC, Social/Online, Business/Marketing