New xbox 360 tos seeks to Block class Action Lawsuits.

[DragonBorn]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3...n_Lawsuits.php

Mimicking Sony's move to block class action lawsuits from PlayStation Network users, Microsoft updated its Xbox 360 terms of services to prevent U.S. owners from taking the company to court.

In its major dashboard update rolled out for Xbox 360 yesterday, Microsoft amended the TOS that all owners must agree to before using the console, adding new language purporting that they are giving up their right to file lawsuits against the platform holder.

The new TOS section reads:
"If you live in the United States, you and Microsoft agree that if you and Microsoft do not resolve any dispute by informal negotiation ... any effort to resolve the dispute will be conducted exclusively by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedures in Section 18.1.7.

You understand and acknowledge that by agreeing to binding arbitration, you are giving up the right to litigate (or participate as a party or class member) all disputes in court before a judge or jury.

Instead, you understand and agree that all disputes will be resolved before a neutral arbitrator, whose award (Decision) will be binding and final, except for a limited right of appeal under the federal arbitration act."

[pantherx12]

Fortunately for the end user no matter what a TOS says you can't sign away your rights : ]

( In this country for certain anyway)

[DragonBorn]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Fortunately for the end user no matter what a TOS says you can't sign away your rights : ]

( In this country for certain anyway)

looks like m$ playing law games with its gamers on its 360

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by DragonBorn

looks like m$ playing law games with its gamers on its 360

Any why not, it isn't illegal for them to do so the vast majority of people when told " well you agreed to it in our terms of service" will be like "okay :["*insert relevant meme picture)

So it saves them a bunch of hassle.


Not saying it's the right thing to do but it works.

A bit different but in the UK a lot of companies make you pay for the postage when you're returning an item under RMA*, how ever law stipulates that if you pay for it to be posted back they have to reimburse you.


* States this in their terms of service.
How ever they won't unless you ask them

Cheeky buggers.

[DragonBorn]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Any why not, it isn't illegal for them to do so the vast majority of people when told " well you agreed to it in our terms of service" will be like "okay :["*insert relevant meme picture)

So it saves them a bunch of hassle.


Not saying it's the right thing to do but it works.

A bit different but in the UK a lot of companies make you pay for the postage when you're returning an item under RMA*, how ever law stipulates that if you pay for it to be posted back they have to reimburse you.


* States this in their terms of service.
How ever they won't unless you ask them

Cheeky buggers.

To me it just looks like all the big dev,s m$/sony are saying to us gamers now is WE have no rights at all this looks like Bad PR to me.

[DannibusX]

Eventually all of these anti-classaction suit ToS changes will be challenged in court. Whether they stand or not is the question.

[DannibusX]

Hmmmm....interesting...

[JrRacinFan]

Oh ok, so being as an individual, they are taking away the right of fair judgement which is unconstitutional?

[yogurt_21]

interesting ruling by this supreme court.

I have my doubts on whether this will stand long term but in the mean time the supreme court is looking dangerously corrupt. this is not the only ruling that comes in massive favor of corporations while going against all lower court rulings.

[Easy Rhino]

That South Park episode about Kyle being enslaved because he accepted Apple's ToS agreement is becoming more true every day.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

Hmmmm....interesting...

WAAAH?

Why hasn't everyone kicked up a massive fuss over this?

[AphexDreamer]

A female employee signed a contract to work with Halliburton.

In said contract she was to go to Iraq to work their and was promised a good place to stay.
She ended up be put in a place with all guys and got raped by the lot of them.

She went to sue but it didn't stand cause she signed an arbitration clause.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151452...kwtxd&rd=1&t=8

Our right to sue is slowly becoming a privilege of corporations.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

A female employee signed a contract to work with Halliburton.

In said contract she was to go to Iraq to work their and was promised a good place to stay.
She ended up be put in a place with all guys and got raped by the lot of them.

She went to sue but it didn't stand cause she signed an arbitration clause.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151452...kwtxd&rd=1&t=8

Our right to sue is slowly becoming a privilege of corporations.

there is something missing in that story. if she was promised a safe place to stay and was not provided one then she has a case. now if they never guaranteed her safety then yea she would have no case. she still however can file criminal charges against the men that raped her...