[Dragon]

Now that's unexpected. Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits against themselves is about the stupidest way this decision could go. Isn't there anything in the constitution against such things? Also, this still doesn't prohibit such a lawsuit from being filled in Europe (or Canada, for that matter).

[The E]

Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits against themselves is about the stupidest way this decision could go.

You may not be aware of this, but american courts (and especially conservative-dominated ones like SCUS) are predominantly pro-business.

[MP-Ryan]

Now that's unexpected. Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits against themselves is about the stupidest way this decision could go. Isn't there anything in the constitution against such things? Also, this still doesn't prohibit such a lawsuit from being filled in Europe (or Canada, for that matter).

Actually, it does.

The Canadian SSA contains the same wording.  Canada also has nowhere near the tort culture or tolerance of the US.  Class-action suits are quite rare here - most contracts are settled by arbitration or single-suit litigation and/or claims in small claims courts.

As for Europe, while a European resident could do so (based on the wording I'm seeing), an American resident could not file or join a class-action initiated in Europe AFAIK.

[Nuke]

free enterprise an all. a corporation can pretty much put anything in a contract and if you agree to it then they are technically in the right. of course there is probibly a limit to what they can get away with. hypothetically if they revised a contract and inserted an expiration clause, where no matter whether you agreed or not you loose the license to use a piece of software. that probibly would raise a stink, cause many a lawsuit (successful or otherwise) and ruin a company's reputation. forcing you to agree to tos reversions or loose your licenses (as steam has done) is something that id like to see go to court, just to see what would happen.

[Scotty]

Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits

You seem to not understand what Valve has done.  They've banned Class-action lawsuits.  That is not the only kind of lawsuit.  Nor is it the most effective kind of lawsuit.  If anything, it's the least effective kind of lawsuit.

Valve has done something much similar to stopping people from ****ing themselves over by filing a silly CA lawsuit where the lawyers get most of the money anyway.

[BloodEagle]

Valve has done something much similar to stopping people from ****ing themselves over by filing a silly CA lawsuit where the lawyers get most of the money anyway.

 

I had this here water brought in special for you. [/lol@fanboi]

[Akalabeth Angel]

Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits

You seem to not understand what Valve has done.  They've banned Class-action lawsuits.  That is not the only kind of lawsuit.  Nor is it the most effective kind of lawsuit.  If anything, it's the least effective kind of lawsuit.

Least effective?
It seems to me that in the matter of person vs corporations that there's wisdom in the saying "strength in numbers". Would you, as an individual want to sue microsoft? Sue EA? Sue bethesda? You'd get ****ing stomped by their law teams. 

Furthermore class action law suits generates the thing the corporations probably want the least, bad publicity. Valve is getting sued? Oh no! Get rid of that and suddenly you just have arbitrary which can  be quietly dealt with outside of the public eye.


And they haven't banned any thing, rather they've coerced their users into agreeing to not file such lawsuits. It's like a prenuptial agreement after you've already been married for 5 years.

[FireSpawn]

I am greatly disturbed by both the fact that they changed the contract after it has been signed, but also hold to ransom the goods you have purchased.  We all have to band together and let The Man know that we won't let ourselves become oppressed!

FIGHT THE POWAH!

[Klaustrophobia]

apparently the class-action lawsuit ban is catching on.  i received this email from microsoft today

We've updated the Microsoft Services Agreement, which governs many of our online services - including your Microsoft account and many of our online products and services for consumers, such as Hotmail, SkyDrive, Bing, MSN, Office.com, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Mail Desktop, and Windows Writer. Please read over the new Microsoft Services Agreement here to familiarize yourself with the changes we've made.

The updated agreement will take effect on October 19, 2012. If you continue to use our services after October 19th, you agree to the terms of the new agreement or, of course you can cancel your service at any time.

We have modified the agreement to make it easier to read and understand, including using a question and answer format that we believe makes the terms much clearer. We also clarified how Microsoft uses your content to better protect consumers and improve our products, including aligning our usage to the way we're designing our cloud services to be highly integrated across many Microsoft products. We realize you may have personal conversations and store personal files using our products, and we want you to know that we prioritize your privacy.

Finally, we have added a binding arbitration clause and class action waiver that affects how disputes with Microsoft will be resolved in the United States.

Thank you for using Microsoft products and services!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

note the three paragraphs of distraction before they drop the real reason for the email in a single sentence.

[FireSpawn]

Just what would the repercussions be if one decided to break contract and participate in a class action lawsuit? I'm just curious as to if the whole ban is even worth following if the **** hits the fan in a widespread way.

[NGTM-1R]

Just what would the repercussions be if one decided to break contract and participate in a class action lawsuit?

Depends on if you win.

[MP-Ryan]

Just what would the repercussions be if one decided to break contract and participate in a class action lawsuit?

Depends on if you win.

By which I hope you mean depends on if the judge reads the subscriber agreement, notes the binding arbitration clause, and doesn't toss your class-action filing in the shredder as non-valid, which is the most likely outcome in North America.

[Aardwolf]

...unless perhaps if the case is specifically brought up as a class action suit against the unfair addition of an anti-CSA clause?

[The E]

...unless perhaps if the case is specifically brought up as a class action suit against the unfair addition of an anti-CSA clause?

Since those clauses are legal according to SCOTUS, the only way to make them illegal again would be through legislation. Which has nothing to do with Class-Action Lawsuits, and everything to do with hiring lobbyists and convincing people to vote for such a blatantly socialist and anti-business regulation.

[Nuke]

but my bhisness is to make your buisness burn to ahses in thermonuclaer fire.

[NGTM-1R]

By which I hope you mean depends on if the judge reads the subscriber agreement, notes the binding arbitration clause, and doesn't toss your class-action filing in the shredder as non-valid, which is the most likely outcome in North America.

And win the case.

More than one obstacle.