Kxmode wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 17:10:

Overon wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 15:23:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:24:
"Have a problem with Valve? Give the law office of Bucher, Scamwell & Claimmore a call. We're here... to profit from you!"

Isn't this how every lawyer works?

That was the point of my joke. It's another joke law firm (e.g., the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe and Bicker, Back & Forthe).

Well I feel silly I thought you were being serious making a bad point about lawyers.

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2024, 20:10.

FAFO. You put the arbitration clause in your agreement, you suffer the consequences.

Arbitration is yet another example of laws being made to benefit a small, entitled group. In this case it's wealthy companies. We have many, many laws in the US that are needless complex all in the name of helping/protecting those who already have too much anyways. Of course the reality is due to the issues of our legal system, it was created as a way to streamline things to avoid the courts being bogged down but really better pro-consumer legislation should be in place to make the whole thing irrelevant in the first place.

Overon wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 15:23:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:24:
"Have a problem with Valve? Give the law office of Bucher, Scamwell & Claimmore a call. We're here... to profit from you!"

Isn't this how every lawyer works?

That was the point of my joke. It's another joke law firm (e.g., the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe and Bicker, Back & Forthe).

jdreyer wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:13:
Corporations force users into arbitration because its cheaper for them and they come out on top more often. So it's delicious irony that the system has been turned against them. I like the service Valve provides, but make no mistake they are a monopoly and abuse their position in the market. They are literally the most profitable company per employee in the world.

Forced arbitration is seen frequently as a poor option for otherwise plaintiffs in a lawsuit because the big corp with deep pockets wins far more often than they lose, although it's hard to get exact numbers because usually there's a gag agreement in place too.

I wanna say like 10 years back they used the arbitration en masse tactic on a couple companies to really hose the companies. I think they might have been tech companies? Might have been insurance I'd have to look.

Anyway, the idea isn't so much "lots of arbitration" as the arbitration agreement stipulates that your dispute will be heard in a certain time frame, usually like 60-90 days IIRC. There's only so many accredited arbitrators out there, and if you have 10,000 cases to hear, you're going to be paying a premium to fly in and employ so many arbitrators. This compounds until it's more expensive to go into arbitration than it is to litigate.

For like 5 years a lot of big companies yanked forced arbitration from their agreements because this was getting trendy. Then they quietly added it back in.

As for Valve, if there's a legitimate case to be made here, then they've fucked themselves over, this is part of the risk that you take when you get people to take things out of a court of law where you have legal protections for everyone.

Cutter wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 14:50:
I don't know if being a vexatious litigant applies to arbitration or not. You'd think there was some mechanism in place to prevent this sort of nonsense. If not, there soon will be. Fucking ambulance chasers, man. This is why we can't have nice things.

Arbitration is basically taking it outside of the system. I don't think there will be a mechanism because that's the risk you take by forcing arbitration. They want to avoid small claims court and class action lawsuits, so this is what they get

WaltSee wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:20:
Lie down with lawyers, get up with fleas. The old adage about starving lawyers is true, so many of them resort to crap like this to survive and profit. Sounds like this law firm is guilty of fraud. Suing for settlements in which the sued company admits no wrong is one of the popular tactics employed by shysters today. "Valve has plenty of money, so let's see how much of it we can steal," is unfortunately the way far too many lawyers work today. Bottom line is that costs are pushed out to consumers and the lawyers unjustly enrich themselves. It's like a back door tax on consumers. Don't know about you, but I have no interest in subsidizing ambulance chasers...!

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one. Then a lawyer battling in your interest is okay. Or companies can simply stop acting illegally and then they won't get sued. Or they can choose not to pass costs to the customer, and instead cut their profit instead. That's always an option.

Kxmode wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:24:
"Have a problem with Valve? Give the law office of Bucher, Scamwell & Claimmore a call. We're here... to profit from you!"

Isn't this how every lawyer works? Or more generally Isn't this how capitalism works? Seems to me your problems is with capitalism not with this law firm.

Oh boohoo first too much litigation was costing Valve money so they put in an arbitration clause/no class actions allowed, then the arbitration clause was costing them too much money so they removed the arbitration clause. Give me a break. They are blaming lawyers and a law firm but those lawyers and law firm represent actual people. What do you do when Valve told you that you can't have a class action, you are forced into arbitration, then you say, okay there are hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs, class actions aren't allowed. If class actions aren't allowed you resolve each case individually. Maybe Valve shouldn't have screwed over so many litigants?

I like Valve, they are one of the better game developers, but I'm not going to defend them like an irrational fanboy. They are a monopolist. If I'm a plaintiff why would I care about the motivations of my lawyer?. Why would I care if what was being alleged by Valve was true? I just want to get paid for Valve screwing me over.

This comment was edited on Oct 22, 2024, 15:22.

LurkerLito wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 13:54:
I am of two minds of this whole situation. On the one hand it's definitely a scam by a law firm and really it's like one of the things I hate about them, but at the same time, there is no other way to have gotten that arbitration clause to disappear from the ToS. I have to say the arbitration clause on ALL EULA and ToS to me should be unconstitutional. I do agree that if you were to do that on a regular contract where both parties have representation then a binding arbitration clause is fine to put into a contract as signatures of both parties would be required for the contract to be enforceable, but for a click through license where most people don't read it or if they do read it they don't understand the actual consequences of agreeing, that should be unenforceable. IMO you should not be able to give away any of your constitutionally guaranteed rights without an actual signature from both parties in the presence of an actual judge.

There has to be a balance to both parties in regard to fairness in a contract or it is unenforceable. There's no shortage of badly written contracts that get tossed all the time. Most contract law disputes are proverbial hair splitting over a certain word/phrase/clause. This is why you have specialty lawyers. Contract law is a world all of its own. I don't know if being a vexatious litigant applies to arbitration or not. You'd think there was some mechanism in place to prevent this sort of nonsense. If not, there soon will be. Fucking ambulance chasers, man. This is why we can't have nice things.

Jivaro wrote on Oct 22, 2024, 14:00:
I don't see the consumer/employee motivation to work through arbitration with corporations and companies. Is there one? I realize arbitration is something you agree to usually as part of a purchase or hiring agreement...I am asking in terms of society...why is this a thing?

The idea was, AFAIK, to prevent a situation where an ongoing lawsuit could potentially deadlock a company's production line or status (this tells you how old this was) due to ongoing investigation, which would mean you could bankrupt a company by chain-sueing them even if the claims never worked out to much.

But of course, nowadays it's purely a negative thing for the customer as the companies can easily shed all legal responsibility for absolutely marginal fees (to them).

I don't see the consumer/employee motivation to work through arbitration with corporations and companies. Is there one? I realize arbitration is something you agree to usually as part of a purchase or hiring agreement...I am asking in terms of society...why is this a thing?

I am of two minds of this whole situation. On the one hand it's definitely a scam by a law firm and really it's like one of the things I hate about them, but at the same time, there is no other way to have gotten that arbitration clause to disappear from the ToS. I have to say the arbitration clause on ALL EULA and ToS to me should be unconstitutional. I do agree that if you were to do that on a regular contract where both parties have representation then a binding arbitration clause is fine to put into a contract as signatures of both parties would be required for the contract to be enforceable, but for a click through license where most people don't read it or if they do read it they don't understand the actual consequences of agreeing, that should be unenforceable. IMO you should not be able to give away any of your constitutionally guaranteed rights without an actual signature from both parties in the presence of an actual judge.

"Have a problem with Valve? Give the law office of Bucher, Scamwell & Claimmore a call. We're here... to profit from you!"

Lie down with lawyers, get up with fleas. The old adage about starving lawyers is true, so many of them resort to crap like this to survive and profit. Sounds like this law firm is guilty of fraud. Suing for settlements in which the sued company admits no wrong is one of the popular tactics employed by shysters today. "Valve has plenty of money, so let's see how much of it we can steal," is unfortunately the way far too many lawyers work today. Bottom line is that costs are pushed out to consumers and the lawyers unjustly enrich themselves. It's like a back door tax on consumers. Don't know about you, but I have no interest in subsidizing ambulance chasers...!

Corporations force users into arbitration because its cheaper for them and they come out on top more often. So it's delicious irony that the system has been turned against them. I like the service Valve provides, but make no mistake they are a monopoly and abuse their position in the market. They are literally the most profitable company per employee in the world.

So based off the two articles, it looks like this move was done to save Valve money because the arbitrations were costing them more per instance than a law suit. The scum bag lawyers saw all that free, low hanging fruit and decided to go after it en masse. The one clear loser here either way is us, the consumers.