Microsoft Sneaks a No Sue Clause into Xbox 360 Update

15

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Kinetic

Hold up a second. Microsoft, since the Xbox 360's launch, has forced everyone to cough up $50 a year -now $60- to access multiplayer. Multiplayer. A free feature on EVERY other game system, including the PC via Microsoft's very own Games for Windows Live. And they make people pay this fee, to access a feature on the game they already bought. Which they'll play on the system they already own. Over an internet connection they already pay for. And this is what gets people upset? ... Wow...

avatar

Cregan89

 

That is an extremely misleading and flat out incorrect title. This TOS only attempts to block "class action lawsuits". These are the type of lawsuits you see TV ads for: "Have you or a loved one who has previously taken XYZ recently had a stroke, heart attack, or diarrhea? If so then please call this number so that you can receive up to $1 billion in damages!" at which point you receive a cheque for $2.41 in the mail while the lawyers pick up millions of dollars.

In no way what-so-ever do you give up your right to sue by agreeing to this TOS. As an individual you still have every right to take Microsoft to court for anything your little heart desires. The only thing this changes is that, for example, in the Sony PSN hack, each person has to take their damage claims to court individually as opposed to hopping on board a class action lawsuit bandwagon with 100,000 other people. And you'll win a lot more money in an individual court case then you would in a class action lawsuit.

All this does is ATTEMPT (because this probably would never hold up in court anyways) to prevent lawyers from gaining on the back of consumers. So again, the title of this article "Microsoft Sneaks a No Sue Clause into Xbox 360 Update" is nothing more than journalistic bullshit.

 

avatar

Carlidan

Your proabably right you will probably win more money doing it alone. But the question you have to ask? Do you think you have a hells chance of winning the lawsuit with the limited resources you have. I think Microsoft's lawyer will most likely kill you in court and you won't even get that $2.41 your talking about. With class action lawsuits, at least you have a fighting chance, you have more resources and better lawyers fighting theirs. But what do I know. Just ranting. 

avatar

unsunghero225

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but this is what I'm getting out of it.....

Microsoft essentially forces this new update on everyone (personally I dont like it at all but thats besides the point), and then they tell users that they can't use one of the xbox's core functionalities (xbox live, essentially anything internet related, and in some cases games that require an update), unless the users give up their right to take legal action???

Is that correct? If so, I don't understand why big corporations cant figure out why people hate them...

If like their mindset is "hey look at us with all this cool fancy sh*t, but you can't use it unless you sell us you're soul by signing an agreement thats been doctored in legal language so much that not even we can understand it ourselves"

 

Please reply to this and tell me if you agree/disagree or whatever

avatar

praack

though I agree that usually the only ones to reap a reward in a class action are the lawyers - the rational for class actions are sound- many of the changes (price fixing and other shenanagins) would never change if that legal truncheon had not been brought to bear.

so though I look at my latest class action notice with it's paltry 1.50 credit and laugh- the fact that in the future high fees will not be charged just to print a ticket is showing me that the system still works somewhat to the better of society

avatar

firefox91

Lets clear something up. The only winners in a class action lawsuit anyway are the lawyers. The customer sure as hell don't win anything as they end up getting a $5 coupon for something and no real cash claim. So really, you didn't lost much anyway by agreeing to this ToS.

avatar

SeloFile

Great, another service to boycott. Eventually I'll just have to stop using electornics all together.

avatar

nsvander

So if I dont agree to this, will they take away my ability to use X-box Live, and with it all the goodies like NetFlix, HuLu Plus etc.?  Well I dont agree to this new TOS, and I still want to use those features which were the reason I bought it, so that in of itself sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.

avatar

B_H

I agree that it's kind of dick-movery to sneak things in like this (why can't businesses be more transparent?), but it's a pretty standard response to seeing Sony's woes. For the most part, their terms of use and code of conduct is pretty reasonable. If you were to have an issue with the Xbox itself, or with your subscription, small claims court would, indeed, be the proper place to recover. If Microsoft somehow really screwed everyone over with an intentional tort of some kind, your responsibilities/abilities under any contract would be (I believe) void anyway and you'd be free to sue for damages either recovery or punitive. What this really protects from is a similar Sony incident where your personal information was scuttled. What I'd like to see rather than a no-class-action clause is some sort of certification or mark of proof for the level of protection that my consumer information is under while in the hands of Microsoft (and any other business).

I'll now put my Sherlock hat and pipe away, because I am really no expert of any kind (and I don't even own an Xbox).

avatar

Archangel1976

It's awesome how a CORPORATION suddenly has more rights than REAL PEOPLE.

So... Microscoft... which is.. what exactly? It's not a person. You could argue that it's a collection of people maybe. Yet, this entity seeks to strip people of their right to sue it?

Here's my suggestion for those interested.

1) Form an organization for a lawsuit against Microsoft. That org being "Sue the Pants off Microsoft". File any "class action lawsuit" with that organization.

2) Our community should be able to represent us. A district attorney should be able to file as a representative of the people.

This sort of thing though, makes me mad. Honestly... WHY AREN'T WE HAVING OUR DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES DOING THEIR JOBS AND REPRESENTING US IN TELLING MICROSOFT TO GO F*** THEMSELVES?

avatar

glamdring

A corporation is considered a legal entity meaning you would sue the corporation as a person.

Our officials have no say/responsibility for this, it is not political. They could make a another law stopping something like this, but typically it's best to just let it go to court and let the judge rule in favor or against. If I want to slap a stick on my door "By breaking the sticker you agree to hold me harmless for any action I due" I can do that, is it going to hold up in court when I jump on the guy a beat cripple him? No, but I can still put that sticker on my door if I want too. That should never change we live in America, it probably never will because you can put whatever you want up.

People need to stop freaking out, I can guarantee you this will never hold up in court you are just getting worked up for no reason. Understand the legal system and contract than get upset about hings.

avatar

Carlidan

Yes Corporation  have rights a person does by law. But how the F**CK  did happen is a better question. That should have never happened. 

avatar

glamdring

This is called a contract of adhesion, like break the read tape/open box and you agree to xyz, they typically don't hold up in courts. This one would severely struggle being it would completely stop the consumer from using the product in the intended way unless MS is will to hand out full value refunds.

avatar

ApathyCurve

Stupid lawyer tricks.  I review and negotiate contracts every day, and I can tell you that most states have protections in place against "waiver of rights" clauses and other such underhanded tactics in contractual language. Contrary to popular belief, (and what contract writers would have you think), simply signing something don't make it so.

They'd have a hard time making this stand up in court.  Not impossible, just unlikely.

avatar

SenTora

Really, Microsoft?  And you make it so that people can't opt out of this clause whatsoever?  I need to find a lawyer, but if you agree to it, it's the same as if you get arrested by the police and you give up your rights....

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.