I hereby request that the title be changed to something a little less troll-worthy (Seriously, wtf mod(s).)
I fixed that myself, since apparently the moderator/admin who split the thread lacked the time or willingness to do so.
So am I reading this right, this whole stink is over Steam putting some language in their terms of use (That thing few people ever read before clicking OK) that would block certain class action lawsuits? Given how sue happy people are and the sheer number of lawyers in this country with nothing better to do that is hardly surprising.
Again, I've yet to find a case of gratuitous litigation against the video game industry that would actually be prevented by this type of change to EULAs and subscriber agreements. By contrast, a very brief Google search turned up four class-action cases (three from within the eighteen months and all filed by customers of the companies sued), won or settled favorably for the claimants, because the defendant company was in the wrong. Individual lawsuits would likely not have brought about similar results, because anyone in the affected class, unable to bring a lawsuit of their own, would have had no means of recourse.
As such, and given that individual precedents carry weight, it is always the better choice to enter into a separate lawsuit.
From the EU study that I pointed you toward, earlier:
Collective redress mechanisms do not produce disproportionate costs for consumers but may be very costly for representatives. Whilst court fees are not normally disproportionate, and degressive fee systems usually work in favour of collective claims, lawyers’ fees can be very high in Member States where they are freely negotiable, so that mass litigation on small claims is too expensive. Also, the internal costs for the collection of claims, the management of the file etc. can be high, and indeed a barrier to take action, where this is in the responsibility of the representative.
...
Collective redress mechanisms have an added value to consumers’ access to justice in all Member States where they exist, even in those where individual litigation and ADR is easily accessible. The added value of different collective mechanisms depends to a significant degree on the type of claim. Collective representative actions and/or opt-out group actions seem to be most useful where substantive law does not provide for individual claims, or such claims are difficult to prove, or the value of the individual claims is too low to motivate consumers to participate, as is the case in large-scale low- or very low-value claims. Opt-in group actions and traditional representative actions seem to be mainly viable above a certain threshold amount of the individual claim, but are then suitable mechanisms to lower litigation costs for consumers and to reduce financial and psychological barriers to taking action. Importantly, the use of collective redress mechanisms seems to attract much higher media coverage than individual litigation and ADR; which is an incentive to out-of-court settlement and also produces a preventive effect.
(Emphasis mine.)
Many (I'd even go so far as to say most) consumers do not have the means to enter into an individual lawsuit. Class-actions/collective redress allow someone with the means to get the ball rolling on behalf of
all affected parties. This ensures that the court can hold the defendant in the action accountable for the total effect of their transgressions, rather than just the effect on those who can afford to bring their own, individual case to the court.
[truncation]
"Steam is evil because they forbid CA lawsuits"
"I disagree with what Valve has done to the SSA," does not equal, "Steam is evil."
If you're unwilling to accept even that, then I'm ****ing done, because no image of reality will penetrate the fanboy goggles.
