Origin Adds Anti-Lawsuit Language to TOS [Sep 23, 2011, 8:59 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
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."
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 24, 2011, 12:16:
1) When a consumer buys a software product they do not have access to the EULA beforehand.
[...]
4) Even if you do disagree, there is a policy on opened software that prevents you from returning it for a refund.
That's a problem between you and the retailer who sells you the box. Given the circumstances, you could probably win in small claims if you returned a box containing a EULA you disagreed with.
Obviously that doesn't apply to PSN or Origin if you buy games direct from them as you can see the EULA on their site.
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.
In the USA they have. There's also a law over there called the Federal Arbitration Act that means if you agree to arbitration, you have to use it.
So, a EULA is considered a lawful contract and that contract contains a statement that you can't sue and must use arbitration.
The rest of your points about how EULAs are complicated and most people don't read them don't matter. Most people don't read their employment contracts, their insurance documents or any other legal thing that uses hard words. Complexity and length are only relevant if you're trying to argue the contract was misrepresented to you, e.g. someone sells you free cake for life but hidden in the small print there's a term that limits it to 6 months.
You guys seriously need to start organising for another revolution
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 12 July 2025, 10:21.