Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS

Electronic Arts has amended it's Terms of Service to include anti-lawsuit language, following a Supreme Court ruling that prompted a similar move by Sony. Kotaku outlines the new language:
"By accepting these terms, you and EA expressly waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BY THIS PROVISION, YOU AND EA ARE FOREGOING THE RIGHT TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL.

YOU AND EA AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING."
View : : :
53.
 
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS
Sep 24, 2011, 12:16
53.
Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS Sep 24, 2011, 12:16
Sep 24, 2011, 12:16
 
Flatline wrote on Sep 24, 2011, 11:52:
Bullshit. This is a crap move in the EULA, but "I didn't read the contract" is a bullshit defense. When you enter into a legally binding contract or agreement, you take a certain measure of responsibility. Ignorance is not a legal defense.
Okay, let's break this down.

1) When a consumer buys a software product they do not have access to the EULA beforehand.
2) The EULA is often excessively long and incomprehensible to a laymen. The EULA for Steam is over 5000 words long.
3) Every piece of software has one, so the combined reading wordcount of the EULAs for an average computer setup would range from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Clearly infeasible.
4) Even if you do disagree, there is a policy on opened software that prevents you from returning it for a refund.
5) At least 99% of people click 'Agree' without ever reading it. Common sense dictates that that cannot be legally binding, unlike a mortgage or loan agreement where is can reasonably be expected that people should read it but is also legally required that the person issuing it clearly explains to the customer what it contains and does not misrepresent it.
6) EULAs haven't been proven to be legally binding and are completely unrelated to the prenup of some random person.
7) EULAs cannot bury a clause about signing away legal rights. Any legal rights that are stripped away should be presented separately, and even then their validity is questionable.

If they want EULAs to be binding then they need to be fit for purpose. That means that they should be easy to read and understand to a laymen and should not be excessively long. There should be a bullpointed list that reflects what is included, which would be expandable to cover the exact implementation. The key points should not amount to more than a few hundred words.

I'm sorry but you're an idiot if you think that EULAs as they currently stand should be legally binding. They fly in the face of all the consumer rights that people have fought for over the centuries. They are a way for businesses to absolve themselves of legal responsibility. They are a way for businesses to make more money for their shareholders.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
Date
Subject
Author
7.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
9.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
11.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
47.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
54.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
66.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
67.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
68.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
13.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
17.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
18.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
19.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
20.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
21.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
27.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
 53.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
  Re: Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS
55.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
36.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
35.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
42.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
43.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
44.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
45.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
48.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
61.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
56.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
72.
Sep 25, 2011Sep 25 2011
59.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
52.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011
64.
Sep 24, 2011Sep 24 2011