×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EA's New User Agreement Bans Lawsuits

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the what's-the-eula-equivalent-to-jury-nullification dept.

The Courts 273

An anonymous reader writes with this snippet: "Electronic Arts has updated its Terms of Service Agreement for the Origin platform. Following Sony's steps, and taking it even further, EA has added a new clause that prevents users from suing them in both class action and jury trial forms."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

Suing a game manufacturer? (1, Flamebait)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500940)

Outside of the game causing your console to overheat and burn down your house, why would anyone sue a game manufacturer? Outside of the Atari 7800 Impossible Mission fiasco, I've never even been all that upset with a game.

Am I missing something? I probably am, since I also miss why adults sink so much money into games. Don't you people have children? Don't you drink?

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500948)

Oh, sorry, let me add this: I'm not trolling, I really don't know - so if anyone can point me to something (outside of really obvious "your server got hacked and now all of Slouchistan is using my credit cards")

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

smaugy (50134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500964)

Content triggering epilepsy. Virus or malware on the DVD. There are probably other scenarios.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (2)

Torinir (870836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501220)

I think it has something to do with the debacle over Origin's data mining clause recently, and with it being on the heels of the Sony security breaches, bank on EA trying to cover their assets as much as possible.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501412)

Content triggering epilepsy can't be sued against. All games have a pretty large epilepsy warning in their manuals even if the game in question doesn't have a lot of strobe or flashing lights.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (4, Informative)

BlindMan101 (2454776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501252)

Everyone is speaking of the Sony server hacks but the first thing that came to my mind was when Sony installed a rootkit on your PC with their music CD's a few years back. I can see EA doing all sorts of things along these lines or at least trying to.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500958)

The whole credit card incident with Sony has already slipped your memory? Fraud of many sorts. Destruction of your personal property, both physical and electronic.

There are plenty of reasons.

If there weren't, why would they bother with this?

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501124)

Gee! I thought EA had already figured out a way for Apple to accept the EULA! I almost felt happy for 5 seconds.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37500974)

This TOS is essentially for EA's equivelent of Steam.

They obtain your personal and credit information for transactions.

This clause ensures that, no matter how poorly they take care of your personal data, they cannot be sued in any real court.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501158)

"This clause ensures that, no matter how poorly they take care of your personal data, they cannot be sued in any real court."

I don't know the USA legal system but I suspect not even it will allow for free ride clausules in a contract you didn't have the abilitiy to negotiate. They can ask for your first-bron in their EULA but it won't make it any more sustainable in a trial.

But, hey, they migth get with the real value of such clausules: making you, not being a lawyer, not considering even to sue because of it (kind of Dr No PR tactics).

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501376)

In this case, and if this hold any water in a court, a security breach is almost certain.

Reason:
Security is an expense without the chance of ever generating profit. What it does is to reduce the chance of a loss. If there is no chance of the loss occurring, a company will not spend the money necessary to ensure security. The only other negative effect of a data leak would be bad press, which has been shown time and again to be irrelevant to sales and profit.

In a nutshell, one side stops fighting. Who wins the war?

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500986)

Game companies take your money and provide a service. Transactions involving money go wrong once in a while.

As for why adults play games? They're fun. You like fun right? No kids here, and plenty of booze. Makes for great gaming. Try it.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501014)

Outside of the game causing your console to overheat and burn down your house, why would anyone sue a game manufacturer?

Considering the quality of EA's games I wouldn't be surprised if it upon installation crashes the HDD and trashes all that work you had done, effectively causing you a weeks worth of work in damage. (Since you take backups of important files on at least weekly basis.)

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501038)

Outside of the game causing your console to overheat and burn down your house, why would anyone sue a game manufacturer?

Suppose a game manufacturer starts adding extra charges to your credit card? Or one of their third party partners. There's nothing stopping them from doing that now. They can bone you like they own you without fear of anyone holding them accountable until it gets so criminal the State Attorney General has to get involved.

Click through EULA's have gotten entirely out of hand. There's no place to object to the terms or write in the margins, like you can on a real contract. Those margin notes have saved my financial butt many times.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501040)

Game characters can have an awful lot of time and real money invested in them (buying special items with real $$$).

If somebody hacks your account you can lose all that. ...or many other scenarios. Sorry to break the news but you don't have much imagination.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501074)

It's for when EA's system gets hacked and everyone who orders Battlefield 3, Need For Speed and whatever else is coming out this fall that needs Origin and their (likely) security hole-riddden battlelog and racelog facebook-like systems get compromised.
 
If the EULA wasn't going to cause a boatload of controversy, why did they bury the story in the trash by updating the EULA on a Friday afternoon? Journalists are hung over on saturday morning and the news releases for the weekend have already been mapped out through monday. Nerds will rage, but journalists will only skim Reddit over the weekend.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501088)

Buy a game. It does not run. You can not return it because it is open. How about "Not suitable for it's intended purpose" or "warrant of merchantability." All you can sue for is damages or a multiple of damages, so from $50 to $150 only. Not worth the time, (and legal fees) unless you get a class together. Woops... No class action.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501108)

Thanks for the replies - and, no, the Sony server hacks hadn't slipped my mind. They just don't apply to me. I'm not opposed to fun, I'm just not seeing how I could justify spending gobs of money on it (however, I suppose in a few more years my boys will be gaming and I'll have a reason) and so I don't really follow the scene.

It had totally slipped my mind that online games charge monthly fees (I'm slow this morning).

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501274)

In the UK you could easily spend £50 on one night out, whereas a game costing the same would provide several days' pleasure at least without the hangover or any other hassles.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501306)

In the UK you could easily spend £50 on one night out, whereas a game costing the same would provide several days' pleasure at least without the hangover or any other hassles.

If your hangover doesn't last several days, it wasn't much of a night out.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501392)

If your hangover lasts longer than an hour after waking up, you need more booze in the house.

Re:Suing a game manufacturer? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501394)

Outside of the game causing your console to overheat and burn down your house, why would anyone sue a game manufacturer? Outside of the Atari 7800 Impossible Mission fiasco, I've never even been all that upset with a game.

Am I missing something? I probably am, since I also miss why adults sink so much money into games. Don't you people have children? Don't you drink?

Because they want money. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, maybe. Loss of consortium.

Oh no! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500942)

Oh, no! I've sued them! Now they are no longer obligated to adhere to the contract!

Re:Oh no! (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501096)

The prohibition against class actions has already been tested in court. It worked. For cases of small damages, that is the only way to make it feasible. Now they can screw 10,000 people for $50 each with relative impunity.

Re:Oh no! (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501212)

While I'd like to see the class action laws amended, this doesn't mean there is no recourse. A little organization and a mass of suits in small claims court would prove quite expensive for them. Hmmmm, I just got a web site idea :)

As an aside, I think that class action suits are fundamentally flawed in their current form. The settlements are generally a joke for the class, with the lawyers picking up most of the benefit. Frankly, the companies benefit from it more than they are hurt by it in it's current form.

Re:Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501350)

The prohibition against class actions has already been tested in court. It worked. For cases of small damages, that is the only way to make it feasible. Now they can screw 10,000 people for $50 each with relative impunity.

In the US maybe. In Europe we have much harsher consumer protection laws, any they simply can't be waived away just because EA, or Sony or dick hary sally said so. Whats next, you can use Origin if EA expects to get your first born son ? ROTFL.

Re:Oh no! (1)

happylight (600739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501210)

I know right?

I think this is kind of already a given. If I were providing some service to you and you sue me, your shits will be cancelled before you can say "LAWSUIT UP."

I can already refuse service to anyone for any reason. Being sued is certainly a good reason.

Horsecrap indeed (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500944)

Nobody can 'prevent you from suing them'. Especially through EULAs.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500970)

Why not? Arbitration requirements seem to work pretty well in ToS agreements. Why not EULAs too? And really, the way gaming seems to be going, it's as much of a service as it is a product now. They may as well call them terms of service instead of end user license agreement.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501198)

I think that was a case involving two businesses though, where both, presumably had comparable negotiation power.

There are generally laws that protect the consumer from unfair contracts, based on the practical realisation that consumers aren't able to negotiate effectively, and can't afford legal representation. When these laws are vague, the courts often interpret them in favour of the individual rather than the corporation.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501218)

Now, now, this is what you don't seem to understand about lawyers. It's all about the talent. The legal system is quagmire, a mess of jumbled legal spaghetti. Taking that mess, and coming up with an argument that doesn't just make sense, but by God IT'S THE LAW, is what a talented lawyer does. Look, these EULAs are just scarecrows that keep the general public and armies of idiot drones that pass the bar out of your cornfield. Should a weapons grade attorney happen into this particular field of low hanging fruit, he's going to quietly get showed the exit with his wheelbarrow of hush money. But the very nature of lawyers and the system is what makes this work. Weapons grade attorneys don't dabble in something this "ambulance chasing", hence the companies would at worse have to deal with "attack of the drones".

Talent > armies of idiot drone lawyers, bench warming judges, nose picking juries, etc...
Talent = the "big money", which is why the rich get their way.

weapons grade lawyer= talent+ reputation

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501402)

I don't know about the US, but in my country anyone can sue anyone over anything. Getting a verdict you're happy with is a different matter, but in theory I could drag you to court for your nose looking funny. Most likely it would be thrown out in the screening process (and I'd have to pay my and your lawyer), but suing isn't the problem.

Winning the suit is.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500978)

Sure they can. In fact, the Supreme Court [theatlantic.com] has upheld clauses forcing you into binding arbitration. Such clauses would be tossed out as unconscionable in almost any other country in the world, but in the US unconscionable is business as usual.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500998)

This is the sort of thing I think of when people in magasine interviews say they want to move to Holywood: They probably don't know how well they have here in Sane World, what with our consumer protection laws and health systems.

If you want to be a star on Broadway (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501090)

This is the sort of thing I think of when people in magasine interviews say they want to move to Holywood

They probably see that demand for labor matching their skills is concentrated in one place in the world. As CronoCloud put it [slashdot.org]: "if you want to be a star on Broadway, you're going to have to go to New York City."

Re:Horsecrap indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501130)

but... but... I'm special! I'm the most attractive/charismatic person in my middle-of-nowhere town, therefore I am clearly destined to be a famous movie star.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501106)

Also, the clause prohibiting class actions has been tested as well. That scares me more, as it makes small fraud (under $500) essentially a free ride. Can't hire a lawyer for that.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501136)

the supreme court said you can sue if you have suffered serious damages even if the contract said arbitration. something like this is not that serious. i've had CC cards hacked and it's not that big a deal to fix the problem.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501300)

the supreme court said you can sue if you have suffered serious damages even if the contract said arbitration

So now corporations across the country can steal small sums from millions of people, and none of them can sue because they individually haven't suffered serious damages, and can no longer pool their resources as a class.

What it boils down to is that the Superman III/Office Space scam is de facto legal now. If you're a major corporation, that is.

Re:Horsecrap indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501186)

I don't see anything banning a mob with fire and pitchforks in the new EULA.

Biting off more than they can chew I fear (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500954)

At some point, someone will challenge the legality of this practice of blocking legal recourse. The fact of the matter is, the legal system is government and is in place to help guarantee peaceful resolution of disputes between parties.

When companies seek to remove these avenues from the people, there will come a point at which injured parties will seek other remedies.

So one of two things will happen: 1. The lawsuit dam will break once the practice is successfully challenged and they will be flooded beyond their capacity to handle it. 2. Parties will trash the business using other means not the least of which will include vandalism, destruction of property and releasing private information of the company and its leadership.

The courts system is there for THEIR benefit as well as that of their customers.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501004)

I'm sure THEY'RE still allowd to sue you. Just not the other way around...

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501432)

So sue me. If you piss me off enough for me to release the information where your kids go to school and how they spend their time, who their friends are and where to best kidnap them, yes, I'll go to court.

If someone is even more pissed than me... god help your kids.

There are some things laws cannot regulate. Didn't terrorism teach us anything? If people are pissed enough that they don't care about the consequences, the law becomes essentially irrelevant.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501126)

A lot of it has been tested. (Binding arbitration, prohibition against class actions) It was found to be enforceable. And I guess part 2 of your premise is Anonymous and Sony.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501284)

Considering it's illegal pretty much everywhere to do this except the US if you're going to go that route. All someone would have to do, is make a proxy route via VPN and then state "I was here" and accepted it from this location.

I mean the music industry sure does seem to take stock in IP addresses as the beginning and end doesn't it?

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501230)

Well in the case of number 2, I doubt their EULA says that EA can't bring their own customers who accepted the EULA to court (criminal or civil). For some reason I wonder how many customers will be pissed enough to get themselves sued by a major company, or get time in jail.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501236)

erroneus: At some point, someone will challenge the legality of this practice of blocking legal recourse. The fact of the matter is, the legal system is government and is in place to help guarantee peaceful resolution of disputes between parties.

That depends entirely on who's controlling the government during that cycle, and who that government decides needs the greater protection, doesn't it?

What we're seeing these days is a continued skewing of rights and privileges away from employees and "small" customers, toward employers and "large" customers. I'm surprised it hasn't trickled into the userspace sooner, frankly.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501266)

At some point the government, and especially the courts system will have to face the reality that this practice is literally disassembling the functioning and design of the government.

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501360)

That depends entirely on who's controlling the government during that cycle, and who that government decides needs the greater protection, doesn't it?

I'm pretty sure the (US) govt has been in the "controlled by money/business interests" side of the cycle for several decades. I don't think we can call it a "cycle" anymore. More like a "shift in power".

The best way to view these sorts of "terms" is that you can put almost anything in a contract you want to, (with a very limited specific set of exceptions) but that doesn't guarantee they'll be enforceable. But that usually requires a court challenge, and even if it's proven to be unenforceable, it still won't prevent anyone from continuing to include it in their terms. (unless another exception is created for that specific application, which does happen from time to time) Usually the exceptions created require a party to include specific bodies of text in an agreement, affirming that the other party has specific rights. (for the best example, read the fine print in your credit card agreement)

The "best" solution here is to make it an offense to place unlawful waivers of rights in an agreement. But that's unfortunately not likely to happen. (due to the phase of the "cycle" we are stuck in)

Re:Biting off more than they can chew I fear (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501418)

It seems to me that this has been tested in the real world. I believe many of the products we buy have arbitration only agreements. These agreements require the injured party to travel to the home of the firm that supplied the defective product and state the case, often in front of a mediator that the injured party has no ability to insure is truly neutral, not to mention that arbitration has to equate the value of person to the value of what is often a corporation.

In principle I have no problem with mediation agreements. It is a free market solution to something that government should not be involved in, i.e. regulating and limiting the judicial process. I don't know why conservatives can't see that a constitution that sets up three coequal and separate branches would prevent the legislative branch from arbitrarily limiting what private citizens do on the judicial side.

The EULA said that? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500960)

Call me when this holds in any court of law in the EU (except England - they always do weird stuff there).

Re:The EULA said that? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37500976)

Quote from the EULA:

This provision applies to all consumers to the fullest extent allowable by law, but expressly excludes residents of Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union.

Hence Europeans can feel safe.

Re:The EULA said that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501000)

The Quebec exception.

I used to think it had something to do with them being french speaking, but it has a lot more to do with Quebec operating under it's own laws, and since they don't speak english as a first language, can't be held to english-written EULA.

This is why Canadian market games come with a second booklet in french, even if the game is english only.

Re:The EULA said that? (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501050)

A nice discrimination according to place of residence :)

You either need balls or conceive a lack of responsibility to higher powers to put this kind of stuff in writing.

Oh I forgot, you especially need to have total disregard for (the rights of) your customers.

Re:The EULA said that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501084)

This is because Quebec has very strong consumer protection laws, this kinds of shenanigans is illegal here.

Maybe you should petition your local government for something similar.

Re:The EULA said that? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501232)

Good luck with that. This is America we're talking about, where the people and government bend over for corporations to f*** them - and then say thank you afterwards

Re:The EULA said that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501268)

Well, in France, for instance, there is no class action as in the US. Or it is quite complex, as you should first create a kind of non-profit organization bringing together the plaintiffs, then you have a little chance to go in court (aber es ist nicht gewonnen :):):) )

Re:The EULA said that? (1)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501028)

"This provision applies to all consumers to the fullest extent allowable by law, but expressly excludes residents of Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union."

Doesn't apply.

So how do I get out? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501112)

So are "Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union" taking refugees from the broken legal systems of United States and anglophone Canada?

Is this even legal? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500966)

It seems that local, state, and federal law supersedes a mere EA user agreement. I mean, you can't make a legal contract that says you don't have legal rights.

all your bases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37500972)

You hereby agree to wave all your bases to us

Borg

My child clicked accept, not me. (1)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500990)

As far as I'm aware (in the UK at least), it must be proven that I have agreed to the contract.*

* IANAL etc

Re:My child clicked accept, not me. (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501204)

Aw, heck. I just use a Post-It not on the screen to modify the terms to my liking. They seem to always accept my modified contract when I offer it to them. ("Software vendor indicates acceptance of these modified terms by continuing the installation process after the user has pressed 'I accept.'")

I figure if unnegotiable, one-sided contracts are legally binding, then I should be the one to write them.

Re:My child clicked accept, not me. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501242)

Try making that argument when talking about online agreements for credit cards, loans or mobile phone contacts, and let us know how it goes...

Re:My child clicked accept, not me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501254)

Try making that argument when talking about online agreements for credit cards, loans or mobile phone contacts, and let us know how it goes...

You can at least see the agreement before you purchase. Retail game/software you can't do that as the stores don't have them and the boxes sure don't have the EULA printed on them. Wouldn't stand up in court.

illegal behavior (1)

el_jake (22335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501002)

This is hilarious. Thank god it is considered illegal in writing to force a person to accept a contract denying them to sue in case of conflict or other situation where legal actions are necessary . Now we can sue them for illegal EULA's.....

Yea, this is going to stand the test in court ... (1)

DannyTUK (2469406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501024)

The EULA clauses are unlikely to stand the test of a court case. People's statutory rights cannot be overwritten no matter how inconvenient it is for the manufacturer/supplier of a product.

Re:Yea, this is going to stand the test in court . (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501316)

RTFA! It does not apply in the EU and several other countries, because there you have proper laws protecting customers from BS like this.

This provision applies to all consumers to the fullest extent allowable by law, but expressly excludes residents of Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the Member States of the European Union.

Read more: http://www.ngohq.com/news/20584-eas-new-user-agreement-bans-lawsuits.html#ixzz1YsQpy5t2 [ngohq.com]

get used to it, kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501036)

This will soon be the norm in every industry. The supreme court has basically given corporations a get out of jail free card and you are a fool (or a libertarian, same thing really) if you think they aren't going to use it to get away with criminal acts.

Everyone requires you sign away your rights. (0, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501060)

It should be illegal to make people sign away their right for justice and a trial.

Halliburton raped a female worker in Iraq, locked her in a shipping crate under armed guard and when she tried to take them to court, haliburton informed her that as per her employment contractual agreements, she had signed away her right to do so.

She's been fighting for her right to take them to court, and finally has a court date.

FUCK EA. FUCK corporations.

Re:Everyone requires you sign away your rights. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501434)

That court date happened already -- and she lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones [wikipedia.org]
---------------
"On July 8, the jury returned a verdict that rejected all of Jones's claims, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual and therefore no rape had occurred, and that KBR did not defraud her."
---------------

But still, even though she personally lost her case, the precedent the case itself set seems a good one in general:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_women_won_the_kbr_rape_case [prospect.org]
---------------
"Whether Jones was assaulted or not, letting the very company she accused resolve the case seems problematic, to say the least.

The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court thought so too, finding that the binding arbitration clause did not apply to Jones' sexual-assault charges; her contract covered work-related disputes but "stopped at her bedroom door." In other words, rape is not a work-related injury."
---------------

mod doWn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501066)

also de4d, its you to join the than 7his BSD box, [amazingkreskin.com]

One thing I'd look upon rather dimly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501072)

Is a trial in which there is only judge, no jury.

Take this verbiage right here "...waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action..." yet they make no mention of small claims which is a single judge.

So you can snag them up to $2,500 in most states.

Done with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501078)

I've sold off my various consoles and games, and removed everything else from my PC except a few older games. I'm done with it. EULAs, online registrations, DRM - it's just gotten to be a chore and I don't find the newer games fun to play anymore. The gaming industry lost its soul somewhere.

You can't sue us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501132)

So THERE!!!

Oh well, it could bring down the concept of the one-sided "click to accept" EULA once and for all.

Nahhhh - who am I kidding?

Boycott? (1)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501142)

I wonder if anybody else will be boycotting games published by Electric Arts, even though the majority will not. It is a shame that most of the people here will play one of EA's new games anyway with the thought that "Oh, the courts will never allow it", forgetting that our courts are now stacked with pro-corporate goons who have jobs guaranteed in various industries if they ever lose their position.

Principles don't matter to consumers anymore.

Re:Boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501338)

No, they're going to be involved in the new Star Wars MMO, so the only people doing any boycotting will be the disaffected Star Wars Galaxies sandboxers, and they'd agree to selling their own mothers for open-world gameplay.

A sincere thanks to Sony and EA (2)

wwphx (225607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501148)

Holiday Shopping List:
--No Sony
--No EA

Stupid Corporations: Simplifying holiday shopping since 2011.

Re:A sincere thanks to Sony and EA (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501336)

So you'll probably end up buying products from companies just as or more corrupt. I'm not saying you shouldn't take morality into account when making your buying decisions, just don't fool yourself into thinking these two companies are exceptional in their corruption. The sad truth is that it's probably impossible to actually know whether you buy things from an ethical business.

I mean, you buy food, right? The evil of the food industry is like Bernie Madoff compared to the carnival-like shenanigans of EA/Sony. And then look at EA/Sony's main competitors: Activision/Microsoft respectively.

Perhaps if the U.S. gov't could actually put business on a leash like the E.U. does, we wouldn't encounter these problems. Writing to your congressman will do much more than boycotting EA and Sony products.

Re:A sincere thanks to Sony and EA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501450)

Oh, while they are definitely bad, look at the competition. MS and Nintendo are not much towards their customers, and I do not see Activision or Ubisoft caring too deeply about their consumers either. For fuck's sake, Ubi was the company that pushed always online DRM the most of all of them!

Don't think it will stand (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501174)

IANAL, of course, but I don't see this standing up in court. You cannot sign away basic human rights, and recourse to the courts would, I think, be ruled (especially by lawyers) as such a right. Especially if it were entered into by the usual semi-formal means of opening the packaging or clicking "I agree" rather than the more formal signing and dating of a document,. It might have some impact in assigning costs if you bypasses their conflict resolution process, and it were later shown that the process could have solved your problem. Assign from that, I see it as meaningless other than as a generator of FUD.

Re:Don't think it will stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501314)

Deny legal recourse, and the consumer will resort to extralegal recourse. You just traded your settlements budget for more petty thefts and vandalism, EA.

What rot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501190)

No business can ask a person to surrender assigned rights and responsibilities. It has been tried with a scam called Work Choices in Australia and failed.

EULAs alas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501202)

I doubt this EULA is legal at all. Today, merchants tend to impose their own laws, above the constitutional rights. If that's not enough they are actively lobbying
the governments to pass laws in their sole favor.

So, there is a very simple answer: do not buy or use

This clause is legal - ANYWHERE? (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501278)

By entering into this Agreement, you and EA expressly waive the right to a trial by jury ... It covers any and all disputes between us ("Disputes"), including without limitation ... claims arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between us, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory.

I'm pretty certain this is a ridiculously unenforceable and unfair contract term, at least in the UK. They are saying that after signing up for their game service, EA can misrepresent, hurt or outright scam you ... and you agree that you won't sue them, no matter what they've done.

Re:This clause is legal - ANYWHERE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501448)

Definitely not legal in the UK when it comes to criminal law and the exclusion of liabilities for death or injury caused by EA's actions. Besides if they only say trial by jury they can still be sued in the UK as the vast majority of civil cases in the UK never come anywhere near a jury.

this shit has to stop (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501322)

OK so i buy a new car, but the manufacturer has a clause in the paperwork which prevents me from suing. It catches fire and burns my family to death due to design defect.

You think that will stand up in court?

so now people at EA can do sex harassment and cour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501344)

so now people at EA can do sex harassment and now be able go to court over it?

If they want this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501396)

then they should offer the service for free. If they are charging money then they should not be able to add crap like this.

Meaningless Clause. (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501416)

This clause is unenforcable. You cannot enter into any agreement in which you give up your constitutional rights. If Sony harms you, you have a constitutional right to bring it before a court for judgement.

Aren't we missing the point? (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37501444)

EA (et al) wants your money, but can't be bothered to safeguard the means by which you give it to them. The are making it quite clear that they would rather spend a few bucks on lawyers, having them draft legalese that compels you to accept that bargain if you want to do business with them.

Given that we're talking about games, the proper course of action should be obvious.

Christmas is just around the corner... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37501446)

... and don't forget to write them a *letter* to let them know they missed out :-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...