Xbox One Terms of Service Contains Restrictions on Class Action Lawsuits

If you visited Microsoft's Xbox One Pre-Order Product Information you may have noticed three items in particular amongst its various requirements and restrictions:

•You must accept Xbox Terms of Use (including Xbox software terms and game license terms), Microsoft Services Agreement, and Xbox One 1-year limited warranty. Some games have additional license terms. •Terms include binding arbitration with class action waiver to resolve disputes. •Additional requirements will apply.

Basically it means you can't join in on a class action suit against the company if you have some disagreement. If you do have a complaint you will have to go before an arbitrator – which is hired by Microsoft to help settle disputes.

Of course it should be noted that this is the standard thing to do when it comes to class action lawsuits: Sony, Steam, and many other companies are doing the same thing.

The page also lists which regions Xbox Live will be available in at launch and that the games you buy in a particular region are only playable in those regions (in other words, the system is region locked.  For those keeping score, the PS4 is not).

Source: Microsoft by way of GameSpot


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    greevar says:

    Contracts shouldn't have the power to compel people to waive their rights when the consumer doesn't even have the option to make a counteroffer or otherwise negotiate the terms of the contract. Contracts are supposed to be a compromise between what the two parties want from the exchange. The way it is, they can take away any rights they like so long as they can get you to agree to the contract. From what I understand of contract law (and I'm a layman), contracts that don't allow the meeting of the minds and/or have unconscionable terms are not valid. This has both of these factors. The contract is skewed heavily in the vendor's favor and doesn't even consider the consumer's interests. How are such abusive and one-sided contracts enforceable by law?

  2. 0
    sqlrob says:

    The point is to punish the company for things that are too small to deal with individually. Yeah, the system could use some tweaks, but removing class action entirely (in effect) isn't the solution.

  3. 0
    prh99 says:

    That's not really surprising after such clauses got the ok from the courts. Not that there are many benefits to them, heck the lawyers are the ones who get rich on class action suits anyway.

  4. 0
    Imautobot says:

    This has become the thing for big corporations to do these days.  Seems like it started with cable companies, then mobile companies, and now it's anyone providing a service of mass appeal.  

    Gone are the days when a customer would threaten to take their business elsewhere, and a human being would jump out of shadows and resolve the problem.  These days they just removed your ability to create a ruckus by making your sign something upfront that removes your rights as a consumer.

    I remember back in the day when AOL would get sued when people couldn't connect over dial-up.  The reasoning there is that they charged people for a service they were unable to provide, and that's the crux of most of these complaints lodged against a service provider.  My view is that if you can't guarantee your service, or you don't compensate the customer for service shortfalls, then you have no business in that business.

    But then again, I'm a consumer, not a stockholder.

Leave a Reply