This isn't legal, is it? Is it? Please tell me that this isn't legal.

That clause does not appear constitutional. You can not waive your rights to a trial by jury even if you want to.

Oh BTW this is VERY NICE NEWS. Congrats to Blues for finding this type of stuff.

Is that even legally binding?

^D^

[VG]Reagle wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 21:10:
That clause does not appear constitutional. You can not waive your rights to a trial by jury even if you want to.

Actually, I believe you can, but not before charges are brought up against you.

This strikes me as bullshit. Another reason I don't trust EA.

From what I've read from the legal eagles the SCOTUS decision doesn't really apply here as they were talking about a particular case that should have went to arbitration before going to court. Also consumer law guarentees that consumers have a "reasonable expectation" of protection under the law. So even accepting the agreement doesn't entirely shield them from possible litigation. It seems this is a move to A) help unclog the courts B) save the corps legal bills by forcing things to arbitration first.

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

It does sound like bullshit to me. Take an issue to a higher court (High Court of Australia for example) so see how far that little missive holds water.

Quboid wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 21:10:
This isn't legal, is it? Is it? Please tell me that this isn't legal.

It's illegal in Canada. I can tell you that right now. You can't force someone to waive their rights by contract or ToS or EULA it violates the fundamental rights you gain under the charter here.

I kind of doubt that this would ever hold up in court.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm almost poistive this wouldn't hold up on a State level much less a Federal or International lawsuit.

It's part of the binding arbitration clause, and it's an enforceable way to prevent you from having a judge or jury trial thanks to Congress passing the Federal Arbitration Act. It also helps prevent class actions thanks to the AT&T Mobility v Conception SCOTUS decision.

EA is doing what's in their natural interest. If you don't like it, you need to motivate your Congressman to introduce a bill to abrogate the FAA.

This comment was edited on Sep 23, 2011, 22:30.

Its not even legal in Europe, you can not waive your constitutional rights here, even if the TOS says it owns your soul should you sue, you can sue, and they won't own your soul.

And you know what, they'd never let this get to the European Courts, they will shower you in money if it means to keep you from suing them over the TOS.

And EA wants us to use their portal, LOL!! yea right EA, good luck with this shit.

Hhahahhahahahhahahaha....ohhhh man thats good stuff....yep glad i have no inclination to play bf3 or any other EA incarnation

Worst part of this, are they going to try to use this on tOR?

This is a MAJOR REASON TO HATE ORIGIN....

[VG]Reagle wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 23:00:
This is a MAJOR REASON TO HATE ORIGIN....

Not that we need yet another one.

Its the same thing Sony did to their TOS though ;p

This may be legal here in the states, at least in some of the states. You hear buzzwords like Tort reform (which is largely a republican agenda because it's a big business agenda). Tort reform allows businesses to put clauses in contracts which restrict the right to bring lawsuits against said company. You find such clauses everywhere these days whenever you sign a contract.

Now I'm not a lawyer so I cant say if class action lawsuits count when it comes to this, though I do know it counts in civil trials and trials by jury. Unfortunately such contract clauses are incredibly popular today and yea, like a lot of things, completely unconstitutional but nobody has created enough buzz to stop it. It's just one more tool business's have to fuck over the American peoples.

Fion wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 23:20:
It's just one more tool business's have to fuck over the American peoples.

EA may see litigious customers as the same, trying to fuck them over. We live in a society that strongly believes the government solves their problems so this hostile back & forth is the natural result, no?