Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits

Valve announces an updated Steam Subscriber Agreement, becoming the latest company to attempt to avoid potential class action lawsuits by prohibiting them as a term of service. Here is their explanation of this:
We’re also introducing a new dispute resolution process that will benefit you and Valve. Recently, a number of companies have created similar provisions which have generated lots of discussion from customers and communities, and we’ve been following these discussions closely. On Steam, whenever a customer is unhappy with any transaction, our first goal is to resolve things as quickly as possible through the normal customer support process. However in those instances in which we can't resolve a dispute, we've outlined a new required process whereby we agree to use arbitration or small claims court to resolve the dispute. In the arbitration process, Valve will reimburse your costs of the arbitration for claims under a certain amount. Reimbursement by Valve is provided regardless of the arbitrator’s decision, provided that the arbitrator does not determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable.

Most significant to the new dispute resolution terms is that customers may now only bring individual claims, not class action claims. We considered this change very carefully. It’s clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers. In far too many cases however, class actions don’t provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims. Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities. We think this new dispute resolution process is faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a whole.
View : : :
79.
 
Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
Aug 1, 2012, 04:12
Dev
79.
Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits Aug 1, 2012, 04:12
Aug 1, 2012, 04:12
Dev
 
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.
Date
Subject
Author
29.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
31.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
60.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
68.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
4.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
9.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
11.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
14.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
15.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
20.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
22.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
23.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
26.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
28.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
33.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
30.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
35.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
42.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
45.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
47.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
49.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
50.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
56.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
              Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
53.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
57.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
81.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
              Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
82.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
               Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
84.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
                Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
91.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
                Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
39.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
40.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
41.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
43.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
52.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
24.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
37.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
46.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
48.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
51.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
66.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
87.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
113.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
116.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
119.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
121.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
122.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
131.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
136.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
137.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
              Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
139.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
               Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
140.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
                Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
141.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
                 Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
144.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
                  Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
145.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
                   Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
146.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
                    Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
147.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
              Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
63.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
67.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
69.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
71.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
83.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
114.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
96.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
19.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
61.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
34.
Jul 31, 2012Jul 31 2012
97.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
99.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
100.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
101.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
102.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
105.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
104.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
106.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
108.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
115.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
135.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
138.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
75.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
78.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
 79.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
Re: Steam Precludes Class Action Lawsuits
89.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
93.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
95.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
103.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
110.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
109.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
112.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
120.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
124.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
125.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
126.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
130.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
148.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
128.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
129.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
132.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
133.
Aug 1, 2012Aug 1 2012
143.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
150.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012
151.
Aug 2, 2012Aug 2 2012