What sort of half assed reporting came up with this story? This is not a new policy. If I remember right, Nintendo added a forced arbitration clause to their EULA about 10 years ago (I would try to find an exact date, but Google is flooded with articles parroting this story).
Should companies be allowed to force arbitration as a shield against all law suits? Hell fucking no, but their lawyers say they can, so any company with a EULA written by a half decent lawyer includes the wording.
At this point, the only reason anyone would complain that a company includes the clause is rage bait.
Exactly why they put it. You would first need to win a trial to get the clause voided and then win another trial to get actual damages or you can go to arbitration and get a modest settlement. Most people will take the latter.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
What sort of half assed reporting came up with this story? This is not a new policy. If I remember right, Nintendo added a forced arbitration clause to their EULA about 10 years ago (I would try to find an exact date, but Google is flooded with articles parroting this story).
It came up with regards to Joy-Con drift in 2017: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2020cv01694/292704/21/
Should companies be allowed to force arbitration as a shield against all law suits? Hell fucking no, but their lawyers say they can, so any company with a EULA written by a half decent lawyer includes the wording.
At this point, the only reason anyone would complain that a company includes the clause is rage bait.
I was so happy to go through the Steam EULA and find that it explicitly states that all disputes will be heard in the court local to the customers.
That was a recent change, and it’s still anti-consumer. It’s an attempt to block class action suits.
There’s a good chance that clause won’t hold up in court, but proving that would require a lot of time and money.
Exactly why they put it. You would first need to win a trial to get the clause voided and then win another trial to get actual damages or you can go to arbitration and get a modest settlement. Most people will take the latter.