Valve: "We forbid class action suits against us."

[Deleted]

Valve updated their EULA with several important changes, among other things they are openning EU offices in Luxembourg!

But what is more interesting is that they are changing their EULA and you are now signing under Valve's new policy of disallowing class action lawsuits against them. You can still sue them in small claims court though but no class action (lawsuits where individual plaintiffs didn't suffer much damage but when you get few thousand of them together, suddenly there's a multimilion lawsuit).

http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523/ (3rd and 4th paragraph)

Also worth noting that this is only for Americans, their Supreme Court rulled in 2011 about AT&T's EULA doing the same being legal and within the rights to protect your company against frivolous lawsuits.
In Europe you can't just waive your right to something by signing a piece of paper from a private company so they can't enforce it here nor will they try.

What do you think? Sony with PS3 did the same some time back and it created a shitstorm, Sony allowed people to sign the new EULA without this clause, Valve doesn't seem to allow that, at least not now. To me it seems that the good ol' Valve whose Steam became a solid monopoly over the years is getting some pretty "high fence" protecting them against customers.

edit, to make sure people see it: US Supreme Court approved of this in April 2011 for AT&T, this is not above the law in the US and holds up in court there. No need for some "testing".

[rigoremortis]

im no expert on Valve, but has there ever been a class action suit against them? i wonder why they decided to change their EULA like this, odd wording.

[Deleted]

They can't simply put themselves above the law.

[Twoflower]

I dont wanna say it, but... only in america...

I think such a thing would even be illegal in europe. Too bad that the supreme court kinda set a precedence with their 2011 ruling. I guess that will take EULAs into a whole new direction ^^

They can't simply put themselves above the law.

Yes they can, The supreme court said so. YOu may wann read the thread before replying.

Infracted

[Jeleh]

Will a court actually uphold that? It seems highly unfair and an attempt at making themselves immune to certain legal repercussions.

Edit, didnt read the link, supreme court are idiots, support the corporations more, will this hold up in the EU however?

[Torched]

Most class action lawsuits only work out great for the lawyers anyway, your class action might get millions, but if you are with tens of thousands of people in on it... you won´t get that much back, the lawyer on the other hand.... lets just say he gets payed for it.

I live in EU anyway, so this does not concern me at all.

[Deleted]

im no expert on Valve, but has there ever been a class action suit against them? i wonder why they decided to change their EULA like this, odd wording.

One could say that they are realising they are becoming pretty giant and are the only major player on their market so they are protecting themselves for the future.

If, for example, some publisher wanted to leave Steam with all their games then Valve could just delete the game(s) from your account and not give you your money back. Or force you into some way of compensation that's most comfortable for them (here are your $60, spend them only Valve's games).

And in the case I mentioned there could be a class action lawsuit where all the affected people would get some really good lawyers and they would obviously win. In one case, all together. But with these new conditions you can only sue them in small claims court (individually) which costs you a lot of time and you (individually) probably won't have enough money for a good lawyer while I am sure Valve has many corporate sharks from top schools. And, more importantly, you probably won't even bother with all this on your own which is a double win for Valve.

[rigoremortis]

Will a court actually uphold that? It seems highly unfair and an attempt at making themselves immune to certain legal repercussions.

Edit, didnt read the link, supreme court are idiots, support the corporations more, will this hold up in the EU however?

probably not in EU as they said its ONLY for the US.

[Bolson13]

I assume they can't actually take away your right to a class action lawsuit. And EULA's or any other contracts aren't binding if they have things in them that are not legal.


However, they do give you a good alternative:
"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. "
regarding small claims court.


It is probably to avoid class action lawsuits that are often damaging to the reputation of companies. But I doubt they can truely deny a group the right to it.

[Twiddly]

Who cares, good for them. Frivolous lawsuits give a company a bad name (Thanks to the idiotic press "VALVE SUED BY HUNDREDS OVER X! THEY ARE EVIL AND BAD!!!) and cost them millions, if not tens of millions.


Read the EULA. If you do not and sign it or check the box that said you read it? To bad. Not valves fault you are to lazy to read.

[rigoremortis]

One could say that they are realising they are becoming pretty giant and are the only major player on their market so they are protecting themselves for the future.

If, for example, some publisher wanted to leave Steam with all their games then Valve could just delete the game(s) from your account and not give you your money back. Or force you into some way of compensation that's most comfortable for them (here are your $60, spend them only Valve's games).

And in the case I mentioned there could be a class action lawsuit where all the affected people would get some really good lawyers and they would obviously win. In one case, all together. But with these new conditions you can only sue them in small claims court (individually) which costs you a lot of time and you (individually) probably won't have enough money for a good lawyer while I am sure Valve has many corporate sharks from top schools. And, more importantly, you probably won't even bother with all this on your own which is a double win for Valve.

i get what you're saying and thats all fine and dandy......but what reason would there be to sue a game company? lol

[Tackhisis]

It is only logical that in business of selling computer games the maximally possible damage is the cost of a product sold. Any attempts to gain something more from it, are frivolous (or outright fraudulent). The companies have a right to protect themselves from it.

[Deleted]

YOu may wann read the thread before replying.

I have already read the information posted and even articles not mentioned here. Thank you for your concern.
BTW: Fix your grammar.

[Deleted]

Hmm, this article http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...tion-lawsuits/ says:

"Further, this attempt to prevent class action lawsuits by Valve won’t be taken seriously until – funnily enough – someone attempts a class action lawsuit against Valve. Chapman explains, “Perhaps most significantly is that if there is any possibility that this term could be challenged then the first thing a litigator would do is to bring a class action to challenge the validity and enforceability of the contract term (or to do so as part of the class action itself). The effect is the same, namely that a claim would be brought against the party relying on the terms and that party would have to defend the claim or settle it. It would just so happen that the first part of the claim would deal with enforceability.”

So in the end, like most of what’s written in a EULA, it’s more about what the company hopes will be law, rather than what actually is. And as ever, until such inclusions are legally challenged, no one has any idea if they’re at all enforceable. Which in Valve’s case will take a group starting a class action lawsuit against them. Law, eh?"

[rigoremortis]

It is only logical that in business of selling computer games the maximally possible damage is the cost of a product sold. Any attempts to gain something more from it, are frivolous (or outright fraudulent). The companies have a right to protect themselves from it.

this is how im reading that article not "doom and gloom! valve denies lawsuits so they can screw over all their customer base.....news at 11!" like the OP, lol

[Deleted]

Hmm, this article http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...tion-lawsuits/ says...

They asked a lawyer from the UK though. As I said in the OP, this wouldn't hold up in the EU.

But American Supreme Court allowed this last year to AT&T and since then this clause is valid and holds up in court. The guy (the "expert lawyer" they asked) doesn't even seem to be familiar with the Supreme Court's rulling I talk about (linked in the OP), because that is pretty much what he says Valve needs to do. Except someone else did it already and it held up. No court will rule against the Supreme Court now, any company can put it into their EULA and it holds up without any individual tests.

[levandor]

probably not in EU as they said its ONLY for the US.

You cant do that kind of lawsuit in EU (at last in germany) anyway, as we have no such form of lawsuit, some people might tell you otherwise, but those guys just watch to much TV.

We "only" have something simmilar to it, but there are still tons of differences, the only simmilarity is, that more persons have indivdual cases against the same person or company, but as mentioned, it works complettly different to the class action lawsuits in the US

[Deleted]

I understand what reve is saying, the point about developers leaving Steam is a good one, but, even in the very unlikely event of that happening, I'm sure Valve would probably work something out so that people that own the game are still allowed to use it on their account. Failing that, I would assume they would be given a refund for either the original price they paid or the current price of the games on the store.

I can't really think of many people I know that would be SO anally retentive that they would even think of attempting to sue Valve because they had some of their games removed from their steam account. If anything, I would be impressed that I got given a refund. I'm sure a lot of other companies (*Cough* EA *Cough*) would be quite happy to just leave you in the dark about why you suddenly have 5 games missing and have no refund at all.

Lets face it, no big developer is EVER going to leave Steam unless there's some massive, incredibly massive shitstorm. We're talking shitstorm of the century kinda thing. There's far too much profit in Steam considering it pretty much owns 99% of the digital download market.

[rigoremortis]

ya, but people file lawsuits because they were maimed or horribly injured, permanently disabled, disfigured, had their lives ruined, etc, a video game company makes games to entertain you, the only real argument u can make for sueing them is "the game ruined my life!" but that wont hold up in court anyway, because its not the games' or the companies fault that you're just a lazy piece of shit that wants to blame a video game for your downfalls in life, lol

[Liara]

This would never hold up in certain legal systems (yes, I read that the US Supreme Court deemed it legal). Here, for example, any clause in a Standard Form contract that limits the consumer's ability to make use of legal channels will be abolished, and the contract will be as if that clause never existed.

Legality aside, this is a pretty dickish move on Valve's part. If they don't want to be sued, they shouldn't give a reason for a lawsuit (yes, some idiots will try anyway, but frivolous lawsuits usually end up costing the plaintiff the money, as he's charged with both sides' legal expenses).

Finally, the fact that the US court allowed it doesn't mean too much. The US legal system can overlook or even reverse precedents.