Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

September 15, 2011 -

If you are a member of Sony's PlayStation Network, chances are you were greeted with an email from the company this morning telling you that that the terms of service for the network are about to change. The big change, in case you haven't received that email yet, relates to your ability to sue them. From section 15 comes this wonderful new clause:

"ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011."

In laymen's terms, it means that if you feel the need to sue Sony or any of its associated companies that work in concert with PSN, you'll have to go through what's commonly referred to as "mandatory arbitration." You agree to mandatory arbitration on an individual basis when you log onto the network, the new ToS asserts.

Basically you agree to go before a third party if you have a dispute with Sony. Generally these third parties are hired from companies that specialize in corporate arbitration and - most of the time - side with the company that used their services because they want the repeat business. Also, these third parties are not bound to follow the law.

Lovely. You can read the new terms of service here (PDF). The good news for consumers, if there is any at all, is that if you sued prior to August 20, 2011 this change in the ToS has no affect on that action.

As an aside, if you haven't watched the documentary, Hot Coffee, you should because it explains how corporations like Sony have turned "frivolous lawsuits" into a buzzword to mean greedy consumers who want to sue for the dumbest of things.. like getting burned by a cup of hot coffee from McDonald's. We have all heard that story before but when you see the elderly women who filed the lawsuit and how badly it burned her, it shows you that corporations have fooled society into thinking anyone that sues is just out to make a quick buck off of minor complaints. You can watch the trailer to your left.


Comments

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

Japan why?

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

I just saw the documentary: it was gut-wrenching.

There is no such thing as a successful frivolous lawsuit.

Living in Canada is awesome. We enjoy the universal healthcare and gun-free environment of a European country while getting all of our games released at the same time as the US.

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

Technically, you can not sign away any of your rights.  (Unless, of course, you join the military.  Then you sign away certain rights to protect the rights of others.)  However you can be legally held to accept arbitration.

Funny thing, tho, is the article does not state that you can decline the arbitration clause.  I've read the update changes and included in Section #15 is a clause that tells you how to decline arbitration.  You must do it in writing & within 30 days of accepting the changes online.

 


Ruger is coming out with a new and intimidating pistol in honor of Senators and Congressmen.  It will be named "The Politician."  It doesn't work and you can't fire it!

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

Typical: sign away your rights with a click, jump through hoops to keep them.

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

See, the fun thing is ToS have no power to break the law. So if something is illegal, legal, a right, etc., it'll stay so. However, the not so fun thing is that many people fall for it and think that whatever is in a ToS actually binds them :(

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

Is this even enforceable?  We need to hear from that one lawyer that used to do commentaries on videogame-related law.

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

Generally, arbitration clauses are enforceable as long as the conflict stays within certain bounds, so the answer is 'usually, but not universally'.

Re: Sony Adds Mandatory Arbitration Clause to PSN ToS

I wonder if there's going to be a class action lawsuit over this.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician