I guess not many bothered to read about this little supreme court decision when blue linked an news item about it when it happened last year and it got ZERO comments.
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/121147/evening-legal-briefs Anonymous wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 03:02:
That said, however, it's rather strange that companies can bypass our legal system by making it a term in a contract.
JohnBirshire wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 21:52:
I never really understood this. I can't put a sign in front of my restaurant that says "If you agree to eat here, you also agree not to ever sue for salmonella poisoning." So why, exactly, can these companies do it?
Overon wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 21:57:
Has there ever been a court case where such a "no class action" agreement for use has ever been upheld?
Closed Betas wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 23:11:
They make up all shorts of useless stuff in their agreements/policies.. Just remember, these policies are not law, and may not hold up in a court of law.
That would be because of the recent supreme court decision that upheld something like this for class actions. Why do you think everyone is adding this to their TOS recently?
Beamer wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 23:27:
Like I said in the thread when Microsoft did this, it's more or less malpractice for counsel to not include this in a EULA at this point.
That doesn't mean they'll be upheld, and any attorney worth a damn will still pursue a class action suit as per usual.
Why wouldn't it be? The supreme court oked it. And yes I agree, since they oked it, it would be irresponsible of companies legal teams not to prohibit it. While I think it sucks, valve aren't the ones making supreme court decisions.
What's needed is to push congress to update a 100 year old federal law so companies can't do it anymore.
Asmo wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 23:24:
I don't see what the big fucking deal is. If there is a case that truly has merit, Valve cannot stop you pressing suit not can it stop a judge overturning it's EULA if the judge finds fault with it.
I don't think it matters much if it has merit or what a random judge says, if the supreme court says otherwise.
This comment was edited on Aug 1, 2012, 04:44.