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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenYou have to try to purchase something first. Pick a game, hit purchase and if your wallet doesn't have enough to cover it, you'll be given an option to "add exact funds" or something like that.09/23/2014 - 2:05pm
MonteI have seen no option for that on my 3DS; anytime i want to add funds it only gives me the option to add in denominations of $10, 20, 50 or 10009/23/2014 - 2:03pm
IanCWhat Andrew Wilson said. PSN is the same when you make a purchase over a certain price (£5 in the UK)09/23/2014 - 2:02pm
Andrew EisenNeither eShop charges sales tax either. At least in California.09/23/2014 - 2:00pm
Andrew EisenBoth Wii U and 3DS eShops allow you to add funds in the exact amount of whatever's in your shopping cart. If your game is $39.99, you can add exactly $39.99.09/23/2014 - 1:57pm
Infophile@Matthew Wilson: As I understand it, any regulations to force tax online would also set up an easy database for these stores to use, minimizing overhead.09/23/2014 - 1:30pm
MonteReally, the eshop just does next to nothing to make buying digitally advantagous for the customer. Its nice to have the game on my 3DS, but i can get more for less buying a physical copy at retail. And that's not even counting buying used09/23/2014 - 1:18pm
MonteIanC, The Eshop wallet system only lets you add funds in set denominations and the tax makes sure you no longer have round numbers so you ALWAYS loose money. A $39.99 game for instance requires you to add $50 instead of just $4009/23/2014 - 1:13pm
Matthew Wilsonbut thats just it those sites, even the small ones, sell all over the country.09/23/2014 - 11:12am
Neenekoeither that or it would follow the car model of today. big ticket items are taxed according to your residence, not where you buy them.09/23/2014 - 11:07am
NeenekoI doubt it would be the retailer that handles the tax in the first place. If it goes through it would probably be folded in as a service on the processor end or via 'turbotax' style applications.09/23/2014 - 11:05am
Matthew Wilsonsimple there are over 10k tax areas in the us for sales tax. it would be impossible for small online retailers to handle that.09/23/2014 - 10:55am
IanCWhats wrong with charging tax in an online shop?09/23/2014 - 10:47am
E. Zachary KnightI don't see why it would be that difficult to maintain one. Especially for a news outlet with multiple people on the payroll.09/23/2014 - 9:37am
Matthew Wilsonthey can, but will they? more inportantly will the traditional sites be willing to do the extra work to maintain the list?09/23/2014 - 9:02am
E. Zachary KnightSo how will it reduce the power of the traditional games press? They can create curated stores too.09/23/2014 - 8:39am
Matthew WilsonI think its a good thing, but it does mean traditional games press will have less power than ever before. To be fair most of the gaming press were never big on pc gaming anyways.09/23/2014 - 8:33am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, is that a bad or good thing?09/23/2014 - 7:43am
MechaTama31When you say "youtuber", I picture some sort of customizable potato...09/22/2014 - 10:48pm
Matthew Wilsonthis change will only give youtubers more power.09/22/2014 - 9:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician