Valve Modifies Steam Software Agreement to Prohibit Class-Action Suits

[SKYMTL]

Once again, it seems like the rights of gamers are being effectively thrown out the window.

However, since this isn't EA, I expect the outrage will be quite a bit less....as usual.

You can read the whole News post HERE @ HWC. Otherwise, here's a section of the post:

In the wake of EA offering to settle a class-action claim regarding its Madden NFL and NCAA exclusivity deals, Valve has modified Steam’s Subscriber Service Agreement to effectively prevent a class action suit from being leveled against the company.

“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,” Valve argued in a press release. “Instead [class action suits] impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims.”

[Vinas]

The law doesn't work that way (at least in the US). Here, an entity cannot force people to not sue. So even while it may be in their software agreement, I doubt it means anything in the real world.

[Sparky]

The law doesn't work that way (at least in the US). Here, an entity cannot force people to not sue. So even while it may be in their software agreement, I doubt it means anything in the real world.

This. But I also agree with Steam in a sense. Class action suits mostly just give the lawyers money and rarely do anything for the people affected. As part of a class action settlement with Hughesnet (crappiest satellite internet ever) my dad got 5 bucks lol. By the way he never actually went in with the class action lawsuit, he didn't even know it had happened. The terms were they would pay out X dollars split evenly between all their past subscribers within a certain timeframe, which my dad fell under. We just laughed about it, mused about how much the lawyers made from the lawsuit, and then I think he bought lunch or something

[SKYMTL]

Using a VPN, I created a US-based Steam account. The passage referenced is contained within the agreement. So Valve is obviously putting this out to ALL regions and it would be used in defense against any class action lawsuit regardless of the region.

Personally, I think removing people's right to an adequate defense against company accountability is absolutely disgusting. There is absolutely NO reason for it.

[naokaji]

Personally, I think removing people's right to an adequate defense against company accountability is absolutely disgusting. There is absolutely NO reason for it.

If you look at it from the companies point of view then there is a very good reason, class action lawsuits can end up incredibly expensive, so it does create some peace of mind for the companies accountants if they find a way to prevent them.
So it is understandable why they do it, certainly doesn't make it right though from a customer point of view.

[[XC] Lead Head]

I'm not a lawyer, but for the most part doesn't the plaintiff usually end up getting paid more in small claims court?

Nearly every single Class Action Lawsuit I've seen ends up with the defending company paying millions, the lawyers getting a huge chunk of that, and the plaintiffs getting a few bucks a piece or a coupon/rebate. It's a loose-loose situation to me.

I'm not even sure what you'd need a class action lawsuit against Steam/Valve for?

[SKYMTL]

I'm not a lawyer, but for the most part doesn't the plaintiff usually end up getting paid more in small claims court?

Nearly every single Class Action Lawsuit I've seen ends up with the defending company paying millions, the lawyers getting a huge chunk of that, and the plaintiffs getting a few bucks a piece or a coupon/rebate. It's a loose-loose situation to me.

I'm not even sure what you'd need a class action lawsuit against Steam/Valve for?

Class action lawsuits provide a venue for the millions (or billions) of people who do not have the money, time or knowledge to defend their rights in a court of law. Taking that away is (in my opinion) draconian and runs against the ideas our justice system was founded upon.

As for what someone would sue Steam for...well, here it is off the top of my head as all have already happened in this industry: not delivering on purchase agreements, installation of secondary applications without the customer's knowledge, mining of data without the customer's consent.....etc.

[K404]

Because everyone has the option of screwing up.

Not a cool move. If you screw up, you take responsibility for it.

[zanzabar]

I'm not a lawyer, but for the most part doesn't the plaintiff usually end up getting paid more in small claims court?

Nearly every single Class Action Lawsuit I've seen ends up with the defending company paying millions, the lawyers getting a huge chunk of that, and the plaintiffs getting a few bucks a piece or a coupon/rebate. It's a loose-loose situation to me.

I'm not even sure what you'd need a class action lawsuit against Steam/Valve for?

yes small claims is generally better. valve is also based in washington so they are not allowed to put that in anyways (the same with MS.) i would guess that they had to put it in for insurance or they have a lawyer who thinks that they need it since everyone else has it now.

[EvilOne]

The law doesn't work that way (at least in the US). Here, an entity cannot force people to not sue. So even while it may be in their software agreement, I doubt it means anything in the real world.

Isn't the whole class-action thing an american thing anyways? Nether really heard of it in the UK apart from when a big US company gets hit with one, via the news.

Very strange NDA change if they are trying to ban an american legal manover, that isnt leagal to be banned in america lol.

[zanzabar]

Isn't the whole class-action thing an american thing anyways? Nether really heard of it in the UK apart from when a big US company gets hit with one, via the news.

Very strange NDA change if they are trying to ban an american legal manover, that isnt leagal to be banned in america lol.

it is a TOS (terms of service) not an NDA (non disclosure agreement)

[NEOAethyr]

I don't want there "service", just there games lol...

Take ex., l4d2, can I play it without steam?, nope...
Almost went and bought it from a retail store locally, only to see that was steamed baised too.
I buy it locally, can't play it, yay.
I really hate steam...
But I have a few buds that like it...

[Scorpio[pt]]

here the SSA means jack it cant take away rights like that , EULA or similar are not above the laws and constitution , it doesn't matter to me

[El Mano]

They are right, I can see their reasons and I understand them, I'm even thankful for this: (go find the US version, point 12 of the TOS)

If you seek $10,000 or less, Valve agrees to reimburse your filing fee and your share of the arbitration costs, including your share of arbitrator compensation, at the conclusion of the proceeding, unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous or costs are unreasonable as determined by the arbitrator. Valve agrees not to seek its attorneys' fees or costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous or costs are unreasonable as determined by the arbitrator. If you seek more than $10,000, the arbitration costs, including arbitrator compensation, will be split between you and Valve according to the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and the AAA's Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes, if applicable.

which means they will help me exercise my rights even if subsequently I stand corrected; but despite all their good will and positive attitude, there is no way in hell they can convince me that giving up my rights plays in my favour.

And most of you are right: class action suits are normally a waste of time and money for everybody but the lawyers. Still, it's one of my rights. And Valve knows well enough that it's illegal to try and make me give up my rights.

I wanted to press the I DON'T ACCEPT button and then I thought about all the games I have on Steam. Something has changed forever between Valve and me.

[Greg83]

not that i mind being in the common wealth . we don't have civil law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...heWorldMap.png
well not most of us.

[NEOAethyr]

And to think that even I thought I was a little paranoid when it came to this stuff.
Everytime I come across a game that needs some junk installed just to get the game to run I think spyware and I check my ports.
Though lately some games here and there leave a port open regardless if you cracked it or not. :\

Seems like these days, that every pc game is spyware.
Console peeps are lucky, at least they can run the game without having internet, well that's not 100% true but still.

[EniGmA1987]

However, since this isn't EA, I expect the outrage will be quite a bit less....as usual.

Very true. But no company should ever try and pull this. I expect a lot of companies will be adding this type of thing to their policy soon, as EA did it and now Valve followed the same way. Gives and easy excuse for everyone to try this.

[cobra_kai]

Apparently it is legal to put this in an agreement, at least in the United States based on the 2011 Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. I'm certainly no lawyer so that's just what I am getting from wikipedia and some random blogs around the web.

[BrowncoatGR]

Apparently it is legal to put this in an agreement, at least in the United States based on the 2011 Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. I'm certainly no lawyer so that's just what I am getting from wikipedia and some random blogs around the web.

It's not illegal but rather an unenforceable clause

[Starscream]

It's not illegal but rather an unenforceable clause

Indeed, in a lot of countrys an EULA isnt a legal document. A company can put in it whatever they want but that doesnt mean its enforceable (unless ofc you meet an idiot of a judge).

For a contract to be binding it has to meet certain requirements and EULA's usually dont and ofc there is the entire thing where a contract cant have anything in it thats against the countrys laws.

Stil waiting for the first company to put something about first born son in their EULA just to point out how idiotic it is.

[Sparky]

Indeed, in a lot of countrys an EULA isnt a legal document. A company can put in it whatever they want but that doesnt mean its enforceable (unless ofc you meet an idiot of a judge).

For a contract to be binding it has to meet certain requirements and EULA's usually dont and ofc there is the entire thing where a contract cant have anything in it thats against the countrys laws.

Stil waiting for the first company to put something about first born son in their EULA just to point out how idiotic it is.

Some company actually did put something stupid in their EULA, something like the user granting them full access to their bank account or something ridiculous. I don't remember now who or what. They didn't actually push to go through with any of it but rather were simply making a point that nobody reads the EULA. It was funny when I read about it.

[panzerchaos47]

Once again, it seems like the rights of gamers are being effectively thrown out the window.

However, since this isn't EA, I expect the outrage will be quite a bit less....as usual.

You can read the whole News post HERE @ HWC. Otherwise, here's a section of the post:

You mean rights of lawyers making easy money. I see people comment about Netflix and Walmart lawsuit. They just laugh at it and say stuff like lawyers is only one that would gain from this. Don't bother you get 5 USD or some giftcard.

[El Mano]

It's still my right.
But there is more than this. The EU now grants their citizens the right to resell any software licence they have. This is fairly new, a couple months or so.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say, but people at SPUF say Steam's new TOS is an attempt to bypass this new regulation.

[SKYMTL]

You mean rights of lawyers making easy money. I see people comment about Netflix and Walmart lawsuit. They just laugh at it and say stuff like lawyers is only one that would gain from this. Don't bother you get 5 USD or some giftcard.

So what? Everyone has a law-given right to take action against something they feel is unjust.

[Greg83]

personally i think this is more a simple precaution on valves part.
for one they just noticed, we might sell games that rootkit people. are we accountable too ?
and another , is they force install a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. ownership checking taking up 16MB and i didn't yet even install the game. so its likely a rootkit, that i did not know was installed myself. having never installed the game
until i looked under steam \ tools just to see. (also will not un-install for me)

that alone is clause for class action. after seeing netflix just sued that way, it seems like a good way for bigger players to put an end to the origional internet distribution models we've come to like.