Steam updates Terms of Service: forbids class-action lawsuits, but will always pay out over disputes
By Tim Colwill on August 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Steam have updated their Terms of Service today, to include two major changes. The first is that Valve now agree to automatically reimburse you as a user for all costs involved in any dispute with them that goes to arbitration – regardless of the arbitrator’s decision.
Which is nice, but what they give with one hand they take with the other: their agreement now expressly forbids users from bringing class-action lawsuits against them. “…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,” writes the announcement. “Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities.”
Valve now joins both EA and Sony in forcing users to agree not to bring class-action lawsuits against them.
Source: Steam (thanks PalZer0 and Andrew)
Steam Trading Cards are real, and you can join the beta now
More things to trade! Oh joy.
‘Steam Trading Cards’ revealed in Steam database entry
Aaaaand that's all we know.
Valve experimenting with biofeedback, including sweat levels and eye-tracking
Builds of Portal 2 and L4D created that use biofeedback.
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
They’ve also made it plainly clear that using a VPN or similar to bypass local (read: gouged) pricing can get your account disabled. That shows up in Section 3A.
Yes Steam! Please take away my consumer rights… I know you would never do wrong :\
For those who want to read the whole thing, you can do so here.
http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
Just remember, a Eula can never override your basic rights or the law in a country.
The Question is, Is this legal in Australia?
They can try and deny class-action lawsuits in their terms of service, but whether those terms are upheld by the courts is another matter entirely.
lordapophis,
You are right, but that can’t stop valve from permanently disabling your steam account. Breaking the EULA isn’t breaking the law, as valve banning your steam account isn’t breaking the law either.
Ofcourse banning your account is against the Law. It’s straight up theft of property
coatsy22,
Section 2 a) “…Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account…”
You don’t have any rights to the games, they are licensed to you, not sold
I was actually about to comment that I had a feeling this was the case, but then I saw your post.
I’m fairly sure that’s how blizzard do it with digital items, which leads to “we do whatever the fuck we want”. it seems to be extremely prevalent in the digital market.
I think the important point is that they can write as much shit as they like, but it doesn’t mean it will hold up in court. I believe that the “no class action suits” clause will hold up in America because a precedent has already been set, but we aren’t America. I don’t believe anyone has properly tested the “we own everything” part of these contracts. it will be interesting to see if anyone tries.
as always it’s interesting to note that these agreements are mandatory if you want access to your account. I wonder what would happen if someone declined and tried to get their money back.
Obviously a lot of people are bypassing the price gouging now and it’s pizzing off the publishers too, then. lol
So how would this play out in Europe? I recently heard that they’re allowing users to sell their games, because it is their rightful property. Of course I am just paraphrasing.
What the hell? If they ban you it’s theft of property? Listen here kid they don’t ban you for no reason, Stay out of there way and don’t cause any problems and they won’t “steal my property”….
1. Don’t use a feaking VPN, suck shit if you get banned.
2. Don’t hack the system, cheat etc etc, Suck shit if you get banned.
I’ve been a steam member for WAY over 7 years, Never had a problem with them, What annoying little kid would even want a law suit? Am I the only one who’s grown up on NOT suing people and just getting over it / on with your life?
If my account got banned, I obviously did something wrong… Stop making excuses why they can and can not do anything, they can do what ever they like, and I agree with them.
They OWN Steam, You trust and buy from them, yeah yeah… but IMO they can do what ever they like, It’s not mine, I’m just paying to use there system in my eyes…
as if
joshsux,
I find it hard to stomach you coming in here and modelling yourself as an example of how people should grow up.
Steam however do not own the rights to the software you have purchased from them, also under Australian law they are not allowed to restrict you purchasing from another country (Our consumer and competition act).
If they restrict your access to the software you purchased then that is illegal (as software has precedent of being an ITEM not just a license) however, they may restrict access to online content if they wish and their own salesroom/program if it does not interfere with the above.
Again, in Australia if a court grants class action status then there’s bugger all steam can do about it, our laws superseed the EULA and the fact they have that in their agreement may actually nullify the entire EULA, as several parts are against consumer laws (like a salesman not accepting a valid form of payment is illegal) to even say.
I would never bother suing them unless they really screwed with me, but they assume many more rights than they actually have.
jez,
I believe he may be refferring to how intellectual property works with steam and how so many people have a hard time understanding what it actually is. Like ‘joshsux’ said, “I’m just paying to use their system”. You may or may not know and understand this concept.
When anyone purchases a game from steam, they arn’t purchasing the actual game. They’re actually purchasing a license to use the game. However, like having a license to drive a car, the owners of the product and issuers of that license have rules you have to follow when using that license. If you break the rules you lose the license.
Being denied your driving license for speeding or losing access to your steam game/account for cheating in multiplayer games or bypassing with VPN(don’t understand how that one works) is not actually theft and the owners of the rights to these products have every ‘right’ to rovoke licenses if their terms or conditions have been explicitly violated.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Valve.
Good luck with that: I will class action sue you as much as I want and there is nothing you can do about it…
slipoch,
I have no problem with the argument that Valve disabling a steam account is not theft per se, but I have massive problems with joshsux’s framing of the argument, as well as the massive chip on his shoulder that he brings into every thread. I’d have to check, but I’m reasonably certain that buying video games from a bricks and mortar store has always been subject to the same kind of restrictions where you’re technically buying a license. So like many things the law is lagging behind technology here, in that these issues have yet to be tested in court or fully addressed by legislation.
Valve can try and deny class-action lawsuits and pretend that every customer outside the US is dealing with them as if they were in Washington, but I’m reasonably certain that if somebody went after them in an Australian court and they didn’t show up it could have some serious repercussions for them and their ability to do business in Australia.
jez,
You’re absolutely right. Valve can’t legally block you anyone from forming class action lawsuits against them, although, they do have a strong case in court against anyone attempting to have a class action lawsuit to retrieve their account back over being banned for…well…instigating a class action lawsuit for another reason.
They also do have a strong point that law suits are far more a benefit for the lawyers than the other two parties involved. They charge by the minute, for printing paper and a whole lot more. Direct handouts and a quick fix by Valve would be far more efficient and beneficial for Valve and the person/s involved. This is really just a strong recommendation by Valve not to file expensive lawsuits. Unreasonable people will most definately still instigate lawsuits successfully against them…and lose…miserably…and lose their steam account for like-forever.
In Australia, they’d get away with this as a policy(“lawsuit and we ban your account”) but definately not undisputed law. In practice, however, Valve are also right in that a lawsuit is a terrible idea if they uphold their end of the bargain, pay you and fix your problem.
Isn’t the reason people (mostly) use this to avoid price gouging?
I kinda agree with everything else tho. But is seems a bit agro. Bad day?
where the hell do you get these ideas? what you are saying is not only your opinion, it actually goes counter to the agreement everyone agrees to when they use steam. it amazes me you don’t add any degree of uncertainty to what you are saying, as nothing is as clear as you are making it out to be.
as linked by the latest article on this topic, America have already set a precedent that says that anti-class action suit clauses in contracts are allowed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion ), and the western courts look at each other for precedents.