Sony Outrage: No PSN unless you waive lawsuit

Sony is trying to force people to waive any class action suits against them by refusing to let them have PSN until they do.

Excerpt: "Sony sent an e-mail to all their PSN subscribers today announcing a terms of service change that will be implemented on September 15, 2011. You must agree to this new TOS to continue using the Playstation Network, but doing so completely absolves Sony of any new class action lawsuit you may choose to file against Sony.

So what is this notorious “Section 15″ to which they refer? The “too long; didn’t read” version boils down to this; if you have a beef with Sony, you will now be contractually obligated to take it up with them directly and individually. You can’t sue them as a part of a class action and you can’t be named in any kind of governmental legislation that might be enacted against Sony. Well, not if you want to keep using PSN."

[DarkBlood]

i doubt the entire company is outraged just the upper top class lol

[v1c1ous]

what if the reason for the lawsuit involves an aspect of PSN, and you can't justify your case without evidence that can only be accessed by the person suing's account?

[evrfighter]

whoa there...is this legal?

I mean theoretically they could jack your credit card info and start purchasing things with it if it is legal.

that's some kind of faith people have in these corporations. scary thought

[rdgneoz3]

"without evidence that can only be accessed by the person suing's account"

You can call them up to get the info, or if they don't cooperate with you, you can have your lawyer get a subpoena for it.

They might be able to legally not let you access the PSN unless you agree to the new terms of service, but it wouldn't be legal for them to not allow you access to your own account.

As for a company using your CC info to make purchases... If you ever have your CC info put into an account online for a company, they could make illegal purchases with it. If you actually keep an eye on your statements / accounts, you'd notice it pretty quickly and could sue them for a lot more than the charges they made to your card.

"that's some kind of faith people have in these corporations" Hopefully, you don't have a CC at all / direct deposits or withdrawals, or you're a hypocrite.

[DatNJDom81]

I'm not too happy with this new term of service. I understand that if you play and follow the rules youll be fine but what if theres an error in PSN and it damages my PS3/Vita (I know its highly unlikely) and I ask for a replacement. They can say no GTFO and I won't be able to fight it. That is not cool and its kinda scary that we allow companies the oppurtunity to do things like this without caring or even fighting back.

[gamingdroid]

***whoa there...is this legal?***

Generally speaking, you can put whatever you want in a contract, but it isn't necessary legal in the sense that it is enforceable in a court of law. You can't give up your rights, even if you willingly agreed to it and testified in court as such.

So a contract can and have been invalidated in the past.

[RedDead]

DOn't like this, I payed for a Ps3 with online and the original terms of agreement...how is it fair that I now have to take up a new terms of agreement on this scale or I can no longer use what I payed for, and before people start saying "psn is free", no I payed for it with the Ps3, it was on the box as part of my deal.

[Marked]

@REDDEAD

HAAAhh, Im sure in the original agreement there was something stating they could change it when ever they damn well feel like it. And in saying this, they said screw off, because most people get there contract info long after the fact from articles like this one :P

[pixelsword]

Oh, you can still sue; there's ways around anything if you just look around...

[nveenio]

No, this is not legal in all circumstances. Forcing someone to waive their civil rights is not legal, but a TON of companies do it. For instance, when I was 16, I went to apply for a job at Circuit City. They handed me an application and a 6-page legal agreement that told me that I was not allowed to sue them if I was hurt on the job in any way. So, I didn't apply. Later, I found out that it wasn't technically legal to do that, and in a worse case scenario, I could sue the arbitration process.

The reason they do it is to give them a better chance of getting you to settle out of court.

Long story short, you're not in trouble for agreeing to this. You aren't giving anything up. If something happens and you need to go to Sony for arbitration, then do it. If you feel as if the arbitration was assembled to default in favor of Sony, then you can sue them for both the original case AND for violating your civil rights.

The more you know.

[Gamer1982]

anythings legal if you stick it in a TOS and people agree. I remember awhile back gamestation put in there tos when buying games we will own your soul when you buy a game from us and since nobody read it people just clicked. Of course it was a joke to prove a point that nobody actually reads these things. But you can put whatever you want in these things and since Sony does give this service for free you cannot really argue too much.

[ziggurcat]

@ DatNJDom81: you can fight it as an individual, just not via class action lawsuit. so, you know... read more thoroughly, maybe?

[gamingdroid]

@inveni0
***Long story short, you're not in trouble for agreeing to this. You aren't giving anything up. If something happens and you need to go to Sony for arbitration, then do it. If you feel as if the arbitration was assembled to default in favor of Sony, then you can sue them for both the original case AND for violating your civil rights.***

That is not entirely correct, you can only get around a contract if you deem sections of it illegal in some way. If it wasn't illegal, then you are sh!t out of luck so you are giving up something if it happens to be legal.

Problem is, most people don't know their rights (including me) and it requires a lawyer specific in the area to know and even then, he isn't "100% sure".

@Gamer1982
***anythings legal if you stick it in a TOS and people agree.***

Nope. If you signed a contract to be my little slave, that would be illegal and un-enforceable. Obviously slavery is illegal in the US.

@ziggurcat:

***you can fight it as an individual, just not via class action lawsuit. so, you know... read more thoroughly, maybe?***

You can fight as an individual, but it practically would make it impossible. Who in their right mind would bank their entire fortune (and possible future earnings) on a lawsuit against a giant corporation?

Not to mention the fact that the initial legal cost is likely to exceed any damage you received as an individual from Sony.

Essentially Sony eliminated that threat, because it isn't economically viable at all and you never have a chance to complain.

-------------

A lot of time, companies will put in blatantly illegal terms just to scare you into thinking those rights aren't there and you won't seek them. As far as I know, there is no repercussion for doing that.

Don't buy their BS, find out your rights from the correct sources.

[ziggurcat]

@ RedDead: PSN is not packaged with the PS3. it is a separate, private network that doesn't even require you to have a PS3 or even a PSP to access/create an account.

because it's a private network, they can bar you from accessing it if you do not agree to their terms of service. it's the same with xbox live - agree to their terms or go home.

[frostypants]

It's legal to put pretty much whatever you like in a contract. Doesn't mean the courts will find it binding. There's really nothing to see here...

[AliTheBrit420]

It astounds me people have so much loyalty and love for a giant faceless multibillion dollar company that only views you as money bags they have to whack just right to get their money

seriously people, seriously?

[nveenio]

It is illegal to take away someone's right to a fair trial--and that includes the plaintiff. The point of arbitration is that it is handled by an unbiased third party. So, if the 3rd party works for Sony, it's not 3rd party. Therefore, if you decide to sue in court (class action or otherwise), you'd better be dang sure that arbitration was not fair, and not just base your lawsuit on your own biased opinion.

[NiKK_419]

Why did you come back paintsville? Go back to that cave you were hiding in.

OT: I think this is getting blown out of proportion. Sony is probably just tired of getting sued from all those money hungry customers that will find any chance to get free money.

[snipes101]

Wow people if microsoft was doing this things would be getting lit on fire, but since sony can do no wrong it seems people are ok with it? Sure, you don't have to pay for PSN (for the most part) but this is messed up.

[MAJ0R]

lots of companies do this, its mainly done to combat Americas broken legal system but that doesn't mean you won't ever be able to sue them

[gamingdroid]

inveni0:
***It is illegal to take away someone's right to a fair trial--and that includes the plaintiff.***

I never said anything to the contrary. You have right to have a *fair* trial, but you "technically" (since lawyers always finds way around it) can't breach a legal contract. So if you signed a contract saying, I agree to go to arbitration and it is legal in the eyes of the law, then the judge will have to rule that you have no right to sue. The key is that *if* you go to trail, you have a right to a *fair* trial.

You never give up your right, and a contract that forces you to give up your right is illegal and unenforceable in the court of law. The only issue is, if it is legal you do have to abide by it so by signing it you might be out of luck.

These arbitration clauses are relatively common. I have seen them numerous times myself just in daily life.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what your point was?

***The point of arbitration is that it is handled by an unbiased third party. So, if the 3rd party works for Sony, it's not 3rd party. Therefore, if you decide to sue in court (class action or otherwise), you'd better be dang sure that arbitration was not fair, and not just base your lawsuit on your own biased opinion***

That is the problem with the US legal system. You don't have to be damn sure about anything, you just sue and hopefully you win on some account and ask for massive restitution (or legal fees).

That said, I'm still not sure what you are trying to say or point out.

[mac_sparrow]

It's not removing the ability to file a lawsuit as some seem to think; you're perfectly able to, they just will remove your free access to their service.

If someone was suing me I sure as shit wouldn't keep giving them free stuff.

[Vaud-Villian]

Sony: they remove features in firmware updates and rights in ToS updates. Fun, fun.

[Kleptic]

It is pretty obvious that a lot of people complaining didn't read the new agreement, or this cliff note'd article in the first place...

The new TOS does NOT mean you can't sue Sony if they screw up with your credit card, or break your ps3, or anything like that...it means you can't become part of class action suit...which refers to multiple unaffiliated people participating in one organized suit involving all of their 'similar' claims...or in other words, you can't use the PSN 'IF' you want to be part of a class action...

dig around on this stuff...Electronic companies are doing this everywhere because its simply too easy for a law firm to send out newsletters saying 'hey, we'll get you some money if you participate in our case'...class action lawsuits are sky rocketing, and because of the expense involved with companies fighting them in court...they get settled out of court just to get them over with...

I'm not protecting Sony...I'm just saying they are not the only ones doing this...If you feel wronged by Sony, you have to find your own personal counsel and proceed with your own trial...not get ringed into a massive case headed by a private firm specializing in class action suits...or if you do chose to be in a suit such as that; stop using their free service in the mean time...

[SilentNegotiator]

"I mean theoretically they could jack your credit card info and start purchasing things with it if it is legal"

That is NOTHING like what Sony is doing by cutting service from people suing them, and you darn well know it.

It's just the same people as usual - the sort that still claim to this day that Sony allowed hackers to get credit card info (despite it being stated several times that the CC data was encrypted, useless to hackers - making a big deal out of nothing.

You sue a company, they can stop serving you. It's that simple.

[morganfell]

"No, this is not legal in all circumstances. Forcing someone to waive their civil rights is not legal, but a TON of companies do it."

First of all, access to PSN is not a civil right. Rosa Parks didn't risk her life for PSN. Women's Suffrage wasn't about access to PSN.

The other thing that is amazing are the number of comments in this thread that fail to condemn the party responsible for Sony's actions...hackers.

A company is forced to protect itself and the privacy of it's customers against another multimillion dollar loss due to hacking, intrusion, and cracking and suddenly they are evil for doing so.

[LukaX23]

Most people who would sue anyways is just looking for a quick buck… or million bucks.

[LukaX23]

1 person has tried to sue and was unsuccessful. =D

[kneon]

You'll never get a million by going the class action route. I've "won" several class action lawsuits and have never bothered to claim my massive winnings as they would barely cover lunch at McDonalds.

The only winners in a class action are the lawyers.

[jerethdagryphon]

all this change does is stop the mee too sue, that goes on with things like this it also means that if you feel your problem is big enough to take to court then you have to pay your own way
it doesnt say you cant argue with them or dispute something its just the means

the us gov is looking into changing class action lawsuits anyways because there too unwieldy and take years

[Kleptic]

^^I'm currently in Law School...and you are exactly correct...

The very first semester had professors saying 'if you want to make money, get into personal injury claims or specialize in class action litigation'...Its the two areas of America's judicial system that are easily exploited...and its not because the laws are broken (not entirely), but more because of acts currently in place that allow claims of triple (or more) the actual damage when enough people are 'victimized'...

this leads the companies to usually cut losses and settle out of court as quickly as possible...as a small inconvenience to consumers can turn into 3X the money handed out if you lose the entire case...which can also involve years worth of billable hours to the company getting sued...but if the company wins, they are not rewarded the same in return...as that would usually bankrupt the representing firm entirely...the money is only there on the company side...and counter suing, which they can try, will almost never get them back to square...

I'm just saying its cheaper for a company to settle out of court than it is to actually fight the case and win...sometimes anyway...

keep watching, the way the US court system handles class action suits is going to drastically change over the next several years...

[zeal0us]

Something told me this would become top news an hour ago.

People will get over in time.

[SeanScythe]

Wait something changed!! OMG how dare they do th... hey look awesome new game! YAY!

[fr0sty]

How many people do you know that have documented proof that the PSN hack caused them to lose any money or have their credit rating negatively affected?

Now, with that answer in mind... Why is this surprising?

It was a mess for sure, and Sony did bear blame. But the fact remains that we don't have issues of people being robbed. Those affected were even given identity theft protection, but even then it didn't prove necessary. If I were in Sony's position, I would have done the same thing to protect against frivolous lawsuits if those same people wanted to keep using my services. But that's just me.

If it really was as bad of an issue as these lawsuits claim, nobody should have issues getting the money they deserve by suing individually. People were put at risk, but you don't have a case where everyone was caused direct harm, so a class action suit isn't necessary. It's not like when a cell phone company overcharges all of their customers and gets called out for it, prompting a suit that refunds them somehow. This was an incident that nobody who i've seen has been able to produce credible evidence that they had their identity or money stolen from them as a result of it. Definitely not everyone. My info was stolen, and yet not a damn thing has happened to me, my credit, or my wallet. I don't deserve anything as a result. Not anything beyond the welcome back package and free identity theft protection I already got.

If everyone had money come up missing as a result of this, they should have to pay every psn subscriber for it. I'm just not seeing that sort of situation taking place though, so a class action suit isn't justified IMO.

[gamingdroid]

I have mixed feelings about these, because a company has a right to protect itself (just like we individuals do), but this prevents them from taking any responsibility.

That said, because "no documented" issues arrived from the PSN hacking incident (except major losses for Sony's partner publishers and financial institutions), doesn't mean Sony isn't part of the blame.

If you take my information down, you damn well better be able to protect it. No excuses!

Also, I don't know if it is related as there are many ways you can hack in the chain, but I had my yahoo email account recently taken that only had three things registered to it, one of them being PSN!

Logged in to find spam has been sending from my email and Yahoo shut it down. This is just a few days ago.

[JackBNimble]

@droid
how does this stop them from taking any responsibility? All sony is saying is if you plan on sueing , don't expect to come and play on their psn, seems logical to me.
If you planned on sueing a company, (for what ever reason) then why would you continue to use their services in the first place?

[fr0sty]

Nothing in the agreement stops you personally from suing Sony, you just can't go class action on them and still use their service. Since a class action settlement would affect every PSN subscriber, and not everyone was affected, I can't say I disagree with the move.

[gamingdroid]

@JackBNimble

***how does this stop them from taking any responsibility?***

Of course it prevents them from taking responsibility when the risk of lawsuit is significantly diminished? Do you know what it cost to have a lawsuit? No individual will sue a company, because the cost would be astronomical for the individual.

Possiblity does NOT equal practicality and is the same reason why US doesn't automatically force the looser in a case to pay legal costs. The individual would never have a chance.

Without repercussion, Sony are relieved of any responsibility. In some ways it is the opposite now where consumers can sue without repercussion too and we get too many frivolous lawsuits.

Nothing irks me more than paying my Umbrella insurance (I just did a few days ago, it was several hundred bucks and enough to buy at least a PS3), because a lawyer can bankrupt me with the cost of stamp without even tangible proof.

***If you planned on sueing a company, (for what ever reason) then why would you continue to use their services in the first place? ***

You don't plan on suing a company, you sue them after they wrong you... well that is the way it is suppose to go anyway.

Sony is saying, you can't sue as class action lawsuit period which pretty much eliminates the ability to sue for the aforementioned reasons.

@frosty:

***Nothing in the agreement stops you personally from suing Sony, you just can't go class action on them and still use their service.***

Read my respones to JacBNimble above to why....

That said, most class action lawsuits raises cost for consumers and generally only benefits the lawyer so in practice this might better off for everyone.

That is why I'm mixed about this.

[newleaf]

LOOOOOOOOOL! Are they serious?? So they are saying no matter what happens, they could send a signal to your ps3 via psn that instruct it to blow up, you cannot sue them! Ha ha ha. Looking forward to hearing people say that they are more than ok with this. In fact, I know some will thank sony because somehow this is awesome.

[dangert12]

most of there money comes back of software sales i doubt they intened to do that

[The_Con-Sept]

Funny thing is that every PSN user has already agreed to this new ToS. But what JackBNimble said a bit above you is completely true... If you are suing a company over something you find to be lacking in something... why continue to use it?

I think the "Luther Burger" is the perfect example of just how dumb this entire article is.

[bigevilworldwide]

That has to be in the top 10 most ignorant, backasswards things I have heard today...Wow who knew that the movie Idiocracy would eventually start to come true

[JsonHenry]

Easy way around this- use fake email, give fake name, and use PSN cards for purchases.

[kikizoo]

gamestooge....lol.

(paintsvill and others fanboyz, too)

[Trophywhore]

You all agreed to this.

Now I announce, THE SONIPEDE!

[Persistantthug]

In this T&C, for example,

Sony's trying to tell you that if you have a good case against them, you can't sue them, or rather, you can't sue them to the fullest extent that the law allows.......Because hey...."YOU SIGNED IT".

Certain rights and privileges can't just be signed away.....and I don't care how many times you sign for it.

There's no US court that would agree to this. That's not Sony's Call.

[ShadowJetX]

Finally, somebody who knows their shit.

[solar]

why i dont like these console networks.

[morkendo23]

i dont play online any-how so this mess dont bother my gaming.

[ShadowJetX]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually read this shit. I'm also wondering if they know what a class action lawsuit or government legislation is. You can still sue them, but Sony could only take it in a case by case basis for each individual.

So in short, it's one man versus an entire army. Don't worry, you could still win. Now this only covers PSN, not the console itself or any add-ons/features that don't use PSN.

[Scary69]

My question is, Why would you want to use a service you do no agree with their TOS?

[DrFUD]

I see this is new law trick number 3.6
pretty sneaky
smart too

[SilentNegotiator]

I don't really know about "sneaky"....It just seems more like common sense to me.

If someone came into your business and 'served' you, you probably wouldn't reply with a "Thank you, come again!"

And if you seriously have THAT big of a problem (that it comes to a lawsuit) with a company, then you probably shouldn't be using that company's services.

[GamersRulz]

too true, +bub although you don't seem starving.

[Ayepecks]

I don't agree with the lawsuit, but the motive behind it is that Sony acted improperly before the hacking. That holds no bearing on the company's future services.

It's still a stupid lawsuit, though. The only reason they're suing is because it's a potential payday. Ah, lawsuits: letting the lazy attempt to get rich.

[-Alpha]

Well let's just hope hackers don't use this as new excuse to hack Sony again for being corporate bullies, or whatever else they used to justify the original hack

[B-Real206]

Doesn't bother me any! I had no plans to sue, just to game.

[Neko608]

A-Freaking-Men

[v1c1ous]

i'm sure sony/microsoft love your mentality. someone who won't sue for anything. can't buy loyalty like that with money!

[wenaldy]

He just want to game...jeez.. If you want quick bucks go get some works..

[Inception]

yeah, not everybody have tons of cash to pay a lawyer like you dude -_-

[nycredude]

In america people sue for any fucking reason. I would say this is a smart business decision and i bet most big companies have something like this in their TOS, including MS.

You can buy loyalty like that by providing me with services and games I love.

[Mrmagnumman357]

You speak words of truth my man, game on. And long live play!!!

[Sandmano]

PLAY? The service on PSN!? O_o

[Mrmagnumman357]

@ Sandmano, yeah i have seen the commercials, just said it because it fit the situation. Also why the disagrees ?

[CadDad]

Agreed. I have no problem with those that want to sue, but for me personally, changing my credit card information and watching it regularly isn't a big deal, something I should do with any fraudulent activity anyways.

I'm in it for the games.

-caddad

[bigevilworldwide]

This is exactly why they need to change the laws so that all these crybaby douchebags that start their frivolous lawsuits or class action lawsuits have to pay the person or companies legal fees if and when they lose.

[llMurcielagoll]

Amen to that B-Real206!

Same here, as a regular consumer, I like gaming, downloading the stuff I like from PSN, demos, games, trailers etc.

No intentions of suing Sony as well.

[Man_Among_Mice]

I read it when they sent me the email and I didn't care one bit about. If it ever comes to the point that I want to sue Sony I won't be planning on using PSN anyway.

[Christopher]

Why would you want to use PSN if you are currently involved in suing them? And if you are in the process of filing a suit, your lawyer's first words would be to not agree to any other agreements with the company you are suing.

[JonahFalcon]

Because you own a PS3 and want to play online, buy content, etc?

And if you believe Sony correctly fixed all of the security issues, why wouldn't you continue using PSN?

[JonahFalcon]

"B) It's highly unlikely someone that is suing Sony actually believes their information is still secure."

They may think it's secure NOW, but want damages for their mistake. It happens all. the. time.

[Christopher]

Because

A) Your lawyer would tell you the first thing to do is to not agree to anything with the people you are filing suit against since it would likely nullify your case.

B) It's highly unlikely someone that is suing Sony actually believes their information is still secure.

[Karooo]

You can opt out of it. This article is nothing but flamebait.

RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.

[Micro_Sony]

Does this only apply to people who are currently suing Sony or does this mean that you have agreed that you can never sue Sony for any PSN issues in the future?

Edit: Thanks!

[Christopher]

It only applies to people who are currently suing them. No agreement can ever be signed to say that you will never sue them from the perspective of a customer. That only works for employees, and even then it is limited to a specific scope of reasons.

[JonahFalcon]

Wanna read the PDF again? It says that if you have a beef with Sony, you can ONLY deal with them out of court if you agree to the Terms of Service.

"By accepting this Agreement, you agree to its terms and to abide by SNEA’sSNEI’s Sony Online
Services policies" and by that, you're sent to section 15 where it says that by agreeing to the TOS, you're bound to arbitration with Sony.

[Christopher]

@JonahFalcon: You may not be familiar with legal matters, but I am.

What you're missing from Section 15 is the most important element:

"includes the validity, enforceability or scope of this Section 15 (with the exception of the enforceability of the Class Action Waiver clause below). “Dispute” is to be given the broadest possible meaning that will be enforced."

What they are essentially saying is that wherever applicable because laws are not supporting your claim to file a suit against them, they will bind you to arbitration.

This hasn't changed anything other than giving them a way out in a few states regarding specific types of suits or claims against the company (but it specifically denotes that civil suits are not covered by this).

You can still file a suit with them and not be held to arbitration unless your state or federal laws do not support consumer rights.

Also, one of the most important sections of any agreement is as follows:

"Severability. If any clause within this Section 15 (other than the Class Action Waiver clause above) is found to be illegal or unenforceable, that clause will be severed from this Section 15, and the remainder of this Section 15 will be given full force and effect. If the Class Action Waiver clause is found to be illegal or unenforceable, this entire Section 15 will be unenforceable, and the Dispute will be decided by a court and you and the Sony Entity you have a dispute with each agree to waive in that instance, to the fullest extent allowed by law, any trial by jury."

This essentially is what allows them to write whatever they want and apply it as necessary.

In neither the U.S. nor Canada will the preceding requirement for arbitration be held up in court when a suit is filed. The Severability clause allows that portion of the agreement to be ignored and for the rest that does fall under the applicable laws of your region to be applied as normal.

Edit: The way some of this is written makes it look like someone is going to get in trouble for posting this in the manner that it is posted.

[gamingdroid]

To be fair, by using PSN you are relinquishing your right to be able to sue Sony in a class action lawsuit after the fact.

I hope people don't plan to sue Sony in advance and the lawsuit is more the outcome of some false "promise".

[JonahFalcon]

For all of Sony's claims to being apologetic and claiming they were truly remorseful over letting all of their users personal info and in many cases credit and debit card info get stolen over a security system that they were told was vulnerable, telling PSN users that they can't sue them or else they're booted from PSN is... not exactly showing remorse.

[Christopher]

You don't understand the document, which is understandable. But, the most state laws support your right to sue them and nullify their statement that you agree to this otherwise. You can also file a civil suit against them without arbitration.

[JD_Shadow]

Jonah always has an ulterior, anti-Sony motive with whatever he puts out on his site. It seems he can do nothing else. He has no room to really say anything that's deemed creditable without us bringing that up. He's been known to be very anti-Sony and very unfair in his articles.

That being said, though, this section 15 is going to have a lot of issues and challenges, there's no doubt about that, and we cannot pretend that there won't be (and personally, the amount of ignorance on this site to this is just as disturbing as Falcon's anti-Sony stance). No matter how many ways to spin this and slice this, the bottom line fact of the matter is that this is going to leave a lot of room for interpretation, and a lot of questions that must be answered by Sony.

Plus, keep in mind that TOSs cannot contradict any federal laws. So if Sony says you cannot sue them for something which US laws (for example) state that you have every right TO sue them for, the US federal law WILL be enforced, and you can more or less also bring the draconian TOS into question. There is a such thing as consumer protection laws that can tell the consumer that they DO have the right to sue regardless of what Sony says ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ).

The problem is that articles like this will not make people take action, because you're seeing the amount of sheer ignorance and immaturity on this site to just about anything like this (big corporate America taking over the world FTW, I guess). What you should do instead is contact congressmen, CPA groups (there are many out there: I just e-mailed EFF about this, and I hope I get a response back because I subjected it with how I would go about submitting a problem like this). There are too many ways to get someone's attention (getting some of the N4G users to give a shit is a lost cause because they will more than likely actually supported, being more blind than tea party republicans are).

Want proof that N4G users are more than likely going to be as ignorant as fuck about this? Watch what happens to my disagrees on this very comment!

[Eromu]

But why would you continue to do something that has anything to do with a lawsuit you are pursuing?

Wouldn't that undermine your case since if you continued to use the service you would pretty much be saying, "Oh hey I really have no problem with this I just want money!"

[Parapraxis]

It's funny how quickly logic,common sense, and a bit of general knowledge can destroy a whole mountain made from a mole-hill.
Well said to you and as well cgoodno above.

[mieko]

JonahFalcon, Your anti-sony motive is almost as plain as day. Your recent comments don't help and neither do your slew of anti-sony articles created from your website which fit your rabid blind hatred that you're spewing forth right now.

Grow the hell up.

[JD_Shadow]

I agree that Jonah needs to grow up, but it's more than him that has been reporting about this issue. Yes, Jonah needs to be banned from the games industry for the crap he spews, but in this case, I think this is an issue about Sony's recent change to the TOS that deserve all the attention it can be given.

If it was anyone else drawing attention to this issue, I think it wouldn't be viewed as something given by someone who grinds their ax constantly, and would be treated a hundred times more seriously (at least as serious as I would like for people to take this, because I think this is a damaging TOS clause that needs to have courts challenge).

[jacksonmichael]

Prepaid cards for the win, I guess.

[Neko608]

Just buy a code on Amazon.... no card!

[eak3]

i buy PSN cards at Gamestop or Walmart. They used to have my card info but after the security breach never again.

[ThePsychoGamer]

When where Wordpress blogs permitted? I say this cause it seems the writer is missing the point. It would seem to me that by agreeing to these turns you giving up all rights to join in current class action against Sony for whatever reason. I really hope that my small legal knowledge is misinterpreting those ToS

[Combo]

crap... my lawyer sucks anyways.

[3GenGames]

And if you can't sue them, you get somebody like your brother to sue them on your behalf. This is a joke.

[StarWolf]

damn looks like im no longer using psn now. cmon guys lol .

[IHateYouFanboys]

its all well and good, but Terms of Service agreements arent and never will be legally binding.

i cant just put a ToSA on this post saying "by reading any or all of this post you agree to give IHateYouFanboys any and all future earnings", and then have it be legally enforcable. thats just not how terms of service agreements work.

[sashimi]

Well why would you use a service that you're suing anyway lol.

[smashcrashbash]

Agreed. How is it that you want to sue me and yet you still want me to give you the PSN service as well? 'I am suing your company for hundreds of millions and by the way can you still keep giving me the service that I am suing you about' What type of crap is that?

'I am suing your restaurant for food poisoning and running you out of business and by the way can you get me a reservation here for Friday? Thanks.' How can you be outraged and dissatisfied and still want the service?

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Ummm... Let's see PG&E (energy utility for California) just basically caused major damage and deaths to hundreds in N. California. All those families are / will be suing them but still using the services. Bank of America over charging fees...customers all part of class action lawsuit but still have accounts with B of A. Just because you sue a company it doesn't mean you hate or can't use their services or products.

[Biggest]

Online gaming service. . . Gas and electricity company. . . Online gaming service. . . Past left field and into the parking lot. . .

[Legion]

@smash

Except you just asked why they would continue using a service that is advertised as free if they have a complaint with the company.

So basically anyone who might have an issue with their credit card info or any other associated problem might still want to avail of the free service (that they were guaranteed when purchasing their system) and still resolve some complaints that they have against Sony.

Everyone seems to think that you have to be sleeping with Sony or Microsoft to be playing their games. No, you just want to be able to play games... and if either get in your @ss about things then continue playing and let them know that you don't accept @ss licking.

[joeorc]

that would be the problem, when your case resolves for the point that your info was leaked an your sueing for damages. Now a) you have to prove you were damaged, B)every account holder was compensated. C) EVERY ACCOUNT HOLDER WAS GIVEN ID THEFT PROTECTION FOR A "FULL YEAR"

So perish the thought that if you really want your pound of flesh you can still go for it, but
as the above PSN: is owned by Sony, is not a life or death service provided to the public, so no shirt , no shoes , no lawsuit or no service. you can sue them just do not expect them to provide service to you while your sueing them!

there is reasonable compensation
than there is "just looking for their pound of flesh"

your want your pound of flesh go on an sue but you not getting PSN usage because that is the point of your law suit right?

if you felt that strongly about this issue "unless you can prove you were damaged by it"

that like saying im sueing you before it happens to me, if so you already had ID theft protection.

So the fact that people were compensated over this already, an people want more compensation?

I mean how much compensation is reasonable?

[OC_MurphysLaw]

@joeorc... did you read my post? did you even bother to understand what I was saying? Companies are sued by their users...its a fact. It happens..that was my point.

As to your ramble... when did I ever say Sony didn't compensate people for the PSN hack? Or that it wasn't enough?

Clearly you are missing the point here. The issue at hand is Sony forcing (yes forcing) all to agree to not sue them for anything at all, past, present or future in order to use PSN. When I bought my PS3 no such T&C's (Terms & Conditions) were in place, and so now after the fact...after the purchase of my PS3 they are introducing a new set of T&C's and forcing me to agree or else I will be cut off from a major part of the PS3 experience. THAT is the issue.

[SuperbVillain]

I never have,nor do I intent on suing Sony for anything.The only thing I'd sue them for is not making anymore video game consoles.But we all know that will never happen.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

While something like this will deter many future lawsuits, I am betting it actually won't stand up in court if push comes to shove. It's a bit of a duress situation. To use our online service anymore for a console and service you signed up to already you now have to agree to never sue us again for anything past, present or future... Yeah... I don't think the courts will side with Sony on that.

[Newsman]

The fact this contract is aimed at minor aged audiences is enough to deny it has any legal grounds in court.

No 15 year old could understand that contract.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Nor is it technically legal to enter into a contract with a minor. In the US you are suppose to be 18 or older to enter into any legal binding contract. This is so to protect minors from being takin advantage of.

[Parapraxis]

When signing up for PSN you must be legal age or have a parent/guardian do so on your behalf.
This contract is NOT "aimed" at 15 year olds in any way.

[eak3]

Most people will just accept this agreement when it pops up on the screen and have no knowledge of what they just agreed too.

[johnnybridges39]

As diacy said, if your a minor and agree to these terms it doesn't mean anything because your underage and no contract can bind you legally like this one. I don't know about fraudulently joining the Pam and lying about ur age tho

[Ezio2048]

crap!!!:D

[smashcrashbash]

@ Dlacy13g. Are you talking about an electric company? How is that the same thing? How exactly are you going to stop using the electric company that supplies power to your house in that area? That isn't even an option. People could easily just not use PSN if they hate it enough to sue them for it.

[eak3]

Totally agree.. electricity is a necessity these days. To try and compare this situation to a utility is just silly. Lol I find it amazing how people survived all those centuries without electricity and our society would utterly fall apart without it.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I also brought up Bank of America. You could toss in Verizon while you are at it... Class Action suits purpose is to get a large company to correct a wrong by large monetary amounts as this is the only way to get them to react. As an example, one person suing a huge company for a $300 item won't get a response.... 100,000 people represented by one suit will.

[bigevilworldwide]

No class action lawsuits are a way for a bunch of ignorant poor asses to get together and try to get some money from a company hoping they settle out of court for the most idiotic and frivolous, things imaginable. even though they only get 2 bucks out of it. Just like the moronic class action lawsuits over the otherOS yeah those went nowhere fast, yet sony had to waste their time with it just the same

[OC_MurphysLaw]

"a bunch of ignorant poor asses"... wow... talk about ignorant. Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble but Class Action Law suits do have their place, they are there for a reason...and its not as you so masterfully put "try to get some money from a company hoping they settle out of court for the most idiotic and frivolous, things imaginable. even though they only get 2 bucks out of it". Those out of court settlements are also usually accompanied by changes to company policies or practices that the consumer/users/victims has sued for in the first place.

[Legion]

@smash

And you are talking about a restaurant and food poisoning. How does eating and almost dying have anything to do with the matter at hand?

[MeNoRasta]

Lol Sony got you ps3 users right were they want you better bend over before Sony asks you lol

EDIT: @dcortz2027
well you do have to agree to those TOS in order to use their service's after all even if you dont plan to sue them.

[dcortz2027]

You should be the last one talking Mr. Microsoft.

[orange-skittle]

Why should he be the last one talking you fanboy(resistance3 as an avatar)? Microsoft didn't say i'll let you play if you promise not to sue me. They said if you wanna play, you pay, but we'll include these with your purchase. Sony said the same thing with PSN+. Microsoft can't do what Sony just asked you to do because it's a paid membership. DUH!!!

You want all those perks like XBL...you pay $50 a year. Nothing's free anymore, losers -PSN+

[theonlylolking]

@orange-skittle

All that M$ has to do is change the TOS.

[gcolley]

whether you plan to sue them or not doesn't really come into it. you are basically saying to us that you love sony so much they can do anything to you and you wouldn't care.

to me this sort of thing is just another large corporation wanting everything their own way. the whole world revolves around large corporations these days. especially in the US

[daveosaurus]

I think the best way to show this large corporation your dissatisfaction is not to buy any more products or services from them. No downloads, no games, no Vita ... etc.

The only thing I've bought from Sony since the security breech is an HD copy of X-Men First Class from PSN. But after this show of corporate evil I regret that purchase greatly. I'll be buying Thor from a local store.

[Dayngls]

makes sense to me..

if you dont like us enough or have a problem that big that you wanna sue then we dont want you using our service. same the other way, if i had a problem with a company the last thing id do is use their product.

the closing sentence shows that this is just a sony hater any way.

"In other words, you want PSN? Absolve us of any blame for giving away your info."

i coulda sworn they said no personal info was stolen...any ways i dont really see a big deal with the new terms.

[KMCROC]

Not agreeing to jack till i have had the legal language translated into English.

[Ninjamonkey82]

good for them tbh :)

[KaiokenKid]

Eh, can't blame them. MS's stupid thing about games that are on Psn first they don't want and games that are on their platform first need to be timed exclusive is Rage worthy, but even that not a biggie.

[Vega75]

And in what way does your post have to do with Sony taking away your right to sue by strong-arming you into their new ToS huh? This also applies to people that also want to play new releases as you have to update your firmware in order to play new releases. Making the fact that if you don't agree to the New ToS and don't have a updated version of the firmware. Then you have a useless console

Edit: for people saying "well you don't have to agree to it" you do if you want to continue to play games that may require you to have the lastest firmware which is how Sony is forcing your hand.

[KaiokenKid]

I know this isn't a popular view, but it's still there product.

[artdafoo]

You don't have to sign up for PSN, you don't need it to live.

[devilhunterx]

Reminds me of the sign at my workplace "park at your own risk"

[Legion]

And even that doesn't prevent your company from being sued for proven negligence. Just prevents then from being sued for things outside of their control.

[Bladesfist]

Dayum, I don't understand a word in that legal agreement. I bet 95% of people don't or wont bother to even look as well. Does this really have legal ground?

[Mister_G]

Not unexpected really.

[orange-skittle]

If you're not paying for the service, they can do whatever they want to do. How do you like that free shit now you devoted followers of 1 company. Never understood that 1 company devotion you had...they are not a sports franchise. Just like you people(PSfanboys) yell about MS, it's a company all about making money not friends. It never was. Price gouging, failed consoles(PSP GO) that didnt sell because of bad business ideas, Hack prone network because a lack of fail safes, and now this. I predicted this 2 years ago and I will say it again, SONY WILL MERGE WITH MS IN 7 YEARS. Sony builds the hardware and MS takes care of the network and multimedia. Costs and profits are split. Both save money on every console sold make side money with their own development studio games. The competition/innovation isn't about the company, it's within the developers. PC companies don't compete when it comes to gaming, why should console manufacturers?

[PantherDST]

You are without a doubt an idiot. I read your comments while watching a TV preacher on mute and guess what... The rhetoric spewing from your mouth matched perfectly with that of a bible belt thumping preacher, calling for the end of the world and damning all those who do not believe as he does. Just play whatever games you like and quite spewing garbage out.

[ChronoJoe]

Yeah it's funny.

Sony merging with Microsoft was the funniest part. I mean up to that point his argument had some sort of basis or logic even if it was a complete overreaction, and over simplification of goings on.

"Sony builds hardware, Microsoft take care of network and multimedia"

So the company with 4 dev studios is going to take care of the software, and the company with 21 software dev studios - are going to make hardware?

[bigevilworldwide]

Yeah cause Microsoft never price gouges, certainly not with their 150 dollar 120gb hard drives, when you can go buy TB HDDs for less than 100. Or the wireless network adapter that wasn't gouging either right?

[Vega75]

Looks like I won't be using psn or ps3 at all. Sorry psn isn't worth my rights, Never was

[scottd]

Sony did this kind of maneuvering last time they changed there name. There just preparing for the upcoming class action lawsuit. You see last time they changed there name was just before the other OS removal lawsuit. They actually said in court. That wasn't us that removed the other OS that was that other company (mysteriously named sony too) and the judge fell for it. Now they will say it wasn't us that got hacked it was that other company. The new TOS is just adding the sec 15 to get people to drop out of the suit before this goes to court.

[RadioactiveTouch]

I was personally never going to sue them for the PSN outage so that's fine by me. I don't see how Sony is responsible for the actions of a bunch of pimply-faced teenagers who want to feel rebellious.

[geddesmond]

Thats BS. Companies should not be allowed to make TOS like that FULLSTOP. Sonys really pushing shit too far lately

[tiffac008]

Any company can make any ToS they want since the service is their own property BUT it does not take away your right as a consumer to file a lawsuit against them (or any company with the same ToS) if there is a just cause to do so.

Even contracts can be invalidated if the court finds it unjust.

So just know your rights and you'll be fine.

[BlueEye]

Sure I'll agree, no reason for me to ever have to try and take Sony into a lawsuit.

[JeffGUNZ]

What if your account was hacked, credit card info stolen and your identity was aswell? They never track down the person, what do you plan on doing then?

[BlueEye]

Well what are the chances of that? I mean seriously. I don't have credit card info I use PSN cards and with the exception of my country I use a fake address, name and so on as a last defense in the small possibility of getting hacked. Plus I have two extra accounts. No reason to sue Sony if it gets hacked and Sony can't find it.

[JeffGUNZ]

Oh, I agree with you, chances are slim. Smart move by you, but a lot of people out there use their credit cards and what not. Sure, it probably will never happen to you, but when it happens to someone, I bet they had the same attitude. I don't think it's a deal breaker and if you act smart like you do, you can easily avoid giving your info and placing yourself at risk.

[StupidDude]

typical Jonah Falcon article.

you guys might remember him from last year, the same guy who wrote that "JACK TRETTON CAUGHT LYING" article...when Tretton wasn't lying at all.

don't read his website. he's the biggest anti-PS3 troll with a website, who doesn't even own a PS3.

[madcowz64]

Do what they say, they might unleash the Chimera.

[Knushwood Butt]

Yawn.

Just give me the games.

[n4gisatroll]

If everyone read the terms of service, you can accept the terms to get online. And within 30 days write a letter to Sony and tell them you don't agree with clause 15, it says so right in the ToS, and you will still be able to access psn.

[Ethereal]

Again you point out that one moron reads it and things its corporate greed and blah blah. Looks like someone can take the time to read the document in it's entirety. Hats off.

[SuperStrokey1123]

How could this be illegal at all? They are simply saying that they will not provide you a service if you do not agree with the terms of it. Thats perfectly fine and legal. Im sure all of you in their position would feel the same. Plus, this is for the best. Let this all finally be dead.

[Coopertone]

For people attacking their psn network.I'm sure its more secure now, so I don't really see a problem here.

[NYC_Gamer]

I won't sign this agreement

[narutogameking]

Good.
We don't need loser like you on PSN anyway. Have fun paying $60 for Xbox Live!

[NYC_Gamer]

what makes you think I'll pay for xbl?

[lionelglitchy]

theres always a loophole :)

[PatchowPietro]

Fine by me. Who would wanna sue sony?

[bozebo]

Pretty standard. Various service providers for all sorts of things say the same thing in their terms.

[thespaz]

I don't mind this policy.

People can still sue them if they want, but it can't be a class-action suit.

[Robotronfiend]

I see how Americans are scoring quite low in reading comprehension, it shows in the comments here.

YOU CAN STILL SUE, just not as part of a class-action lawsuit.

[bigevilworldwide]

Yes but the ignorant one just want to make a big hoopla about it. Its pretty standard in a lot of TOS lately. Surprised a lot of these people actually have the reading skills to read the TOS. Its a shame how many of these people make it embarrassing to be a gamer

[Ethereal]

Who cares. The hacking incident sucked but it is to be expected in this day and age. I can't imagine all the TOS that people sign every day that have no idea what is in them. Lets just keep on gaming, Sony has spent ample time on fixing the issue. Move on and lets talk about all the awesome games we get to play this year. AND as stated above you can still sue Sony.

[Shojin1]

Bye Bye... I know 5 people that only game casualy and cant keep up with their email accounts. They loose everything. At some point constant network related acceptance of new policys should be incorporated to be accepted online on the PSN not on the email account...

[P_Bomb]

What's this? Suddenly people are afraid to buy a videogame console unless it comes with Robert Shapiro's retainer? Call it a hunch, but I doubt most of these protesters have ever sued anyone in their lives or would even have the wherewithal to.

Look, there's more than one way to sue. Even when OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial he was still able to be sued again in a civil trial and found guilty there. So don't worry. If you're that determined to put a lawyer's kids through college, you'll find a way.

@Shojin
They already do TOS updates on PSN. I just logged on 10min ago and there it was. Never had an email one. Ever. You don't need a real email to have an account. Watch out for phishing.

[Parapraxis]

Do people ever read TOS agreements.
Guaranteed there are plenty of them that make you agree to similar, if not identical terms.

[konrad]

I think that it is good move to stop stupid lawsuits.

[Enigma_2099]

I'd be a little pissed at this, but then I remember that most class action lawsuits are usually just cash grabs or attempts to get free money.

[OooHJohnny]

Honestly... I would be Sony, I would do the same...

[narutogameking]

These are reasonable demands. You want to sue us? You cant use our free service.

[Simco876]

eh, you do the same with Facebook.

[JeffGUNZ]

Yeah, but you don't put your credit card information on facebook.

[KaiokenKid]

And I really hate to break it to you guys, but the concept of ownership IS dying out.

[SuperBeast811]

At least they have a chance to get it back Microsoft would just ban thier console until 2999 lol

[Dawale]

Class action lawsuits are a bane on our society.

[Hayabusa 117]

As are massive corporations driven by quatery profits that only reach a few people.

[PirateThom]

Gamestooge with an anti-Sony article?

I can't believe it...

Guess they didn't read the rest of the terms where it says you can send them a letter within 30 days if you do intend to follow through with lawsuit... but, hey, why let that get in the way of a good dose of misinformation?

[scepter]

ok this just set me off that final straw i hacking my ps3 now screw u sony u done enough damage to us as it is now this so my credit card get used by u i cant file class action lawsit screw u stupid company

[Treyb3yond]

Don't care. Sony outrage my ass.

[crossplatformgamers]

Didnt' anyone else see this coming a mile away? I'm surpised they didn't do these when people accepted their "we're sorry" games

[ATi_Elite]

Whoa! way to slip to the darkside Sony!

Sony "hey we will take your money but if someone steals your Credit Card info then do not blame us for our insecure Network"!

[mrmikew2018]

@ATI

You should read the terms, before making yourself look like a fool.

[ATi_Elite]

this same story has been reported by Attack of the show, CNN, MSNbc and dam near every gamer magazine there is and they all say the same thing and have used this same example.

Sure you can write a letter but whose to say Sony receives the letter. So the next time you get your Credit Card info and your identity stolen on PSN your shite outta luck!

So the only Fool is you and the other Fools who agreed with you!!

[trikster40]

Geez, everyone needs to chill about this. There is a reason this isn't a news story on most of the major sites: it's because it isn't.

People have the right to sue whoever they want, just as corporations have the right to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. When companies have to pay for legal fees, settlements, etc, guess who pays for it? Yup, their consumers.

If people didn't try to make a quick buck and sue over every asinine thing out there, this never would have happened. As it is, these new TOS won't affect 99.99% of us. The other .01% either have a legit claim or are an a$$hole.

[upallnightgamer]

All I know is this is gonna make Xbox fanboys happy. One more reason for them to say "Xbox rules; PS3 drools," or whatever BS fanboys on either side spout.

[mrmikew2018]

Did you guys actually read the terms, this seems fair enough. Besides, Sony is not the only company doing this.

[GarandShooter]

True. Much ado about nothing. This is more than common. I work in the auto industry. Try filing a 'Lemon Law' lawsuit, then getting warranty repairs performed. It won't happen. Once litigation has started, nothing occurs outside of that litigation, until resolved.

[Hayabusa 117]

The fact that other companies do simualr sht doesn't make it ok. ALL these companies are flushing consumer righs down the toilet...and we let them get away with it :/

[airforcex]

This is ridiculous; I wonder what people would be saying had MS done this. As an owner of both systems, PS3 was my Netflix player (Blue Tooth remote). Not anymore. I guess it us now just a BR player. It is just like saying: "hey you got a RRoD? No playing your fixed Xbox until you waive any lawsuits." Yes, it's more technical than this, but weren't identities potentally compromised?

[T3MPL3TON]

Not potentially, they were.

[StitchJones]

Nope, not going to accept it. I've had enough of Sony's nonsense.

[T3MPL3TON]

First off this is just absurd. They can't even do this legally.

Second, if you agreed to these terms you are a moron, because legal or not you signed a contract. Signed contracts, are binding no matter what the legality. So if Sony leaks your info AGAIN, you can't do anything about it accept take that shaft straight in your rear.

I will not accept these terms. So until it's changed, I wont be using my PS3. It'll continue to gather dust. For them to even try and slide that in there and expect nobody to catch it is pure horse shit.

[rjgbyrne]

One minute SONY claims they are being hindered by MS Xbox Live policy and the next its this! No Government would allow this clause regardless and consumer affairs (US/EU/ASIA) should be investigating them over this... who do they think they are? Above the law, no chance, I think anyone who doesn't agree should be entitled to a full refund for their console and games. It was not a condition of sale when I purchased my PS3 or any of the games so I should be able to get a full refund and would happily take it.

[Tonester925]

Whoa! I already accepted! But... I have two profiles. Soo just in case Sony wants to show an evil side they will have to see my lawyer. Once I get a $100,000 loan so I could win the case.

[DrRobotnik]

Every company you deal with in past purchases has your credit card number. either it being a physical store or an online. And you can sue them if they use or sell your info. It kinda tickles me to here the comments though. It's not the end of the world. TJ max,Bank of America and if you remember Microsoft all had breaches to costumer info. And many other company's in the future. Long story short, monitor your stuff.

[ACEMANWISE]

No person nor entity is immune to a lawsuit even if both parties agree to it. The law is there to enforce contracts and agreements sure but only if those agreements do not conflict with other laws set in place to keep balance and justice present at all times. There are consumer laws set in place that supercede a corporation's law (contracts). One of which is...

The right to redress

To receive a fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services.

[ufo8mycat]

This is something Micro$oft would do!

Sony Sony Sony....

[Baysiderulez]

"Users do have the ability to opt out of this agreement, but it must be done in writing within 30 days of the date that you accept the agreement. That opt-out request must include your name, address, PSN account number, and a clear statement that you don't want to resolve any Sony-related issues via arbitration (mailed to 6080 Center Dr., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045)."

Also, Regardless of what is legal and what is not, you at the very least retain your right to sue. You just may not have the support of a class-action suit behind you.