A couple of weeks ago, Sony updated its terms of service for its PSN service to prevent its users from filing lawsuits against the company if anything were to go wrong again, as it did when Sony’s network was hacked and left 70 million Sony users’ personal information exposed. Now, EA has also followed suit and amended their terms of service for their online Origin digital download service to block similar action by its users if anything should go wrong.
In signing up with Origin, you agree to “waive the right to trial by jury” as well as “foregoing the right to sue in court,” and that you will only bring a claim against EA as an individual “not as a plaintiff or class member.”
“YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BY THIS PROVISION, YOU AND EA ARE FOREGOING THE RIGHT TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL.”
Implications for Users
By implementing these new changes, EA has essentially stopped any large payouts that could result from class-action lawsuits. This move was rolled out on August 25th. The implications for users are significant. By agreeing to these terms, users are giving up their right to participate in class-action lawsuits, which are often the most effective way for consumers to seek redress for widespread issues. Instead, users must resolve disputes through individual arbitration, which can be a more cumbersome and less effective process for the average consumer.
This change has sparked a lot of discussions and concerns among gamers and consumer rights advocates. Many argue that this is a way for large corporations to avoid accountability and reduce their financial liabilities at the expense of consumer rights. On the other hand, companies like EA and Sony argue that arbitration is a faster and more efficient way to resolve disputes.
Historical Context and Future Outlook
The move by EA and Sony is not unprecedented. In recent years, many tech companies have included arbitration clauses in their terms of service. This trend gained momentum after a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements that waive the right to class-action lawsuits. This ruling has encouraged more companies to adopt similar clauses to protect themselves from large-scale litigation.
For example, in 2014, Microsoft also updated its services agreement to include an arbitration clause. Similarly, companies like Google and Amazon have arbitration clauses in their terms of service. These clauses are becoming increasingly common as companies seek to minimize legal risks and control the costs associated with litigation.
However, this trend has not gone unchallenged. Consumer advocacy groups and some lawmakers are pushing for legislation that would limit the enforceability of arbitration clauses, particularly in cases involving consumer rights and employment disputes. The Arbitration Fairness Act, for instance, aims to make it illegal for companies to enforce arbitration clauses in cases involving consumer, employment, and civil rights disputes.
As the debate continues, it is crucial for consumers to be aware of the terms they are agreeing to when signing up for online services. Reading the fine print and understanding the implications of arbitration clauses can help users make informed decisions about the services they use.
In conclusion, while the updated terms of service by EA and Sony may protect these companies from large-scale litigation, they also raise important questions about consumer rights and corporate accountability. As more companies adopt similar clauses, the balance between efficient dispute resolution and consumer protection will continue to be a contentious issue.
Read more about the alterations over on the Kotaku website.
Source: Kotaku
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
