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

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameAndrew: Im not sure Im the one to be explainging this really, Im not sure im articulating it right07/31/2015 - 9:20pm
Big PermI got to around 30 in tera before giving up. I liked my sorc, but I need better motivation to grind07/31/2015 - 9:14pm
Andrew EisenAh TERA. I made a video about TERA censorship. One of my more popular ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO26h9etTbw07/31/2015 - 8:52pm
Goth_SkunkI've been playing TERA all day. Just took a break to barbecue some chicken. :3 And Andrew: I'm using Cabal to suggest a group of people secretly united in some private views or interests within a community.07/31/2015 - 8:50pm
Andrew EisenI'd love to but I'm at work. But once I get home... I'm going to work out for a while. But after THAT... I'm going to shower. Then eat. Then prep tomorrow's meals. And THEN play video games! YEAH!!!07/31/2015 - 8:38pm
Big Permlol, ya'll are still going back and forth? Take a break and play some video games07/31/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Are you using "cabal" to describe a group of writers or to suggest they all worked together in secret to publish those articles?07/31/2015 - 8:30pm
Andrew EisenMatt - That doesn't disprove the general premise of the various articles as that's not what they're about. Unless, again, he's talking about a different batch of articles.07/31/2015 - 8:28pm
Goth_SkunkThe difference between one voice being offensive and a cabal being offensive.07/31/2015 - 8:22pm
MechaCrashFunny how "you're offended, so what" flips into "we're offended, retract everything and apologize."07/31/2015 - 8:18pm
MattsworknameIts not the only argument he points out ,its just one of them07/31/2015 - 8:06pm
Mattsworknameidea that Gamers as the articel puts it, the "White male sterotype are dead, essentially was compltely false07/31/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameThe video actually shows that the shaw study actually disproves the Premise of the artices by showing that the "Gamer" dentity, has no actual meaning to thsoe who use it other then "I play games", its not connected to race, gender, or orientation. So the07/31/2015 - 8:01pm
Andrew EisenWith the exception of a brief mention in Golding's Tumbr post. Even so, he's talking about gamer identity, not desire for diversity in gaming.07/31/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenI'm not calling his examination of the Shaw study into question. I haven't read the study nor seen his video. All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the Gamers Are Dead articles I've been referencing for the last year.07/31/2015 - 7:49pm
MattsworknameSome times sargon just goes off on tangents but in this case he was pretty direct and went through teh research in detail, did the whole first video about the shaw study itself07/31/2015 - 7:45pm
Andrew EisenWell, unless it's disingenuous twaddle but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.07/31/2015 - 7:42pm
Andrew EisenGotta be. The argument you describe makes no sense otherwise.07/31/2015 - 7:40pm
MattsworknameThat is a possibility, they looked like offical articles but its possible they are different from the articles you mentoin07/31/2015 - 7:28pm
Andrew EisenNot unless he's referring to a completely different set of Gamers Are Dead articles.07/31/2015 - 7:19pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician