No, it just means companies cannot simply add things to their ToS whenever they feel like it without proper notification. It has nothing to do with guilty until proven innocent or whatever you're going on about.
Actually I can see no difference between an mmo and a tv subscription at all - theres no physical product and if you don't pay your subject to late fees for example here's a quote from Virginmedia faqs on payment.
And Square didn't have anything like that in their end user agreement when they started doing this, hence the lawsuit. I find it hard to believe you really don't understand this. I think you are simply opposed to litigation period, as if every lawsuit is just about moneygrubbing people trying to rob companies or something.
Let me put it simply, you cannot collect extraneous money from an individual when you have an existing contract that does not detail those fees. If someone cancels their service, they should not be further billed. The PlayOnline system as I remember it from years ago was incredibly convoluted and that's being generous, you cannot fault people for not understanding the cancellation method. Personally I cancelled over the phone and was still billed for two months though I did eventually get the fees back by issuing a charge back with my credit card company.
Basically stop white knighting Square on this, you don't seem objective to begin with.This comment was edited on Jun 25, 2009, 17:09.