Court Says Sony Is Free To Change Its Terms Of Service Because Accessing PSN Is A Choice
from the companies-own-you dept
Last year, Sony changed its terms of service for accessing the PlayStation Network. Like many other companies, part of the changed terms was a requirement to take disputes to arbitration, rather than court. These clauses are pretty popular for some obvious reasons: the companies almost always win (perhaps because the arbitrator wants to get hired in the future, and implicitly recognizes the big company is likely to call him again -- not the random individual who has a dispute with the big company). On top of that, it's a lot cheaper than litigation. That part is a good thing, but arbitration hearings seem to be so one-sided that they're often not worth it.Some folks were not at all happy about this and sought to file a class action lawsuit against Sony for the change -- but that lawsuit has been (pretty quickly) rejected by the court, suggesting that the main guy suing failed to show evidence of any harm. In an interesting move, the court found that the fact that you lost access to the network if you didn't agree to the new terms isn't evidence of any harm, but rather a choice. Of course, that seems a bit extreme. It opens up possibilities for companies to more or less corner users into unpleasant situations. Just change the terms and anyone can be excluded.
I'm not a fan of mandatory arbitration clauses or class action lawsuits like this where "harm" is pretty tough to show. In the end, though, it does seem like Sony should be able to choose and change its terms of service. The real issue is that it chose consumer-unfriendly options, and in a better world, less draconian alternatives would spring up to help treat consumers right. It's hard to side with Sony here (or in most situations), but the lawsuit itself does seem like a stretch.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arbitration, playstation, psn, tos
Companies: sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-Inflicted Injury
The victims are complaining about what amounts to a self-inflicted injury. They deserve no sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
how many geohotz till they go bankrupt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
I buy a PS3. Sony and I agree that I will pay money for the PS3 and, in return, the PS3 will support Linux. Sony later changes its mind and the courts say it's fine.
Now we've reached a stage where I can come into an agreement with a corporation and the corporation can later decide not to keep its end of the agreement. So clearly the legal system is not working as it should and I and consumers will remember that next time we want to enter into an agreement or buy something. We will remember that, if we purchase something and a company advertises something and later changes its mind, there is no legal recourse. This will make us think twice before purchasing anything from anywhere because we will take into consideration the very real possibility that the company could later disable an advertised feature that you partly bought the product for and there will be no way for you to receive compensation. This will make consumers less trustful of the legal system and of the products they buy and the agreements they enter into because they don't have the assurance that the government will ensure that consumers get compensated if a company decides to later break its end of an agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
Why do we even need the government? It's just getting in our way by taxing us and not providing us with any protection from parties that break their end of an agreement. Better for the government not to tax us and provide us without consumer protections than for it to tax us and provide us without consumer protections. We really don't need it and being that it's not protecting us, we really shouldn't be paying it taxes.
We only pay it taxes because they force us to, they have the military power to, we must either A:) Demand something in return for our tax dollars or B:) demand that it abolishes its taxes since they're only a hindrance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
I don't think you'll get far postulating tht because they do one thing badly (or not at all) that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Since I doubt we're going to get an 'opt out' system for tax elements, I would recommend lobby your Members of Parliament/Congress or whatever to get the judiciary to do its duty properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
While I agree reputation is important, my point is that the government should also contribute to consumer trust as well, or it should stop taxing us (and abolish patents, since that can also hinder trustworthy competition). because we pay taxes regardless of who we buy a product from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
If you did then I have no sympathy for you or anything that happens to you.Sony is well known and well documented and anyone buying their Products should know better.This is the Company who put root kits illegally on your Computer.This is the Company who changed your ability to "use other OS" on a PS Console.This is a Company of Greed.
Play your games on a PC and send it out to your Flat Panel with a sound input into your home entertainment Amp.
Voila !!!
No More Sony !!! Know you can get down to some fun gaming and you will never go back to Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
because the choice is Sony or Microsoft and for some dumbass reason the developers that actually make the good console games (if you're into anything other than shooters, anyway) often refuse to deal with Microsoft. (Nintendo A: makes it a pain in the arse to tell if any given game's going to be worth the money, even compared to the normal games situation and B: mostly produces rubbish anyway. the exceptions are, mind you, Insanely good.)
... i would LOVE to buy a system made by a company that wasn't made of suck. all they have to do is convince the stupidly-nationalist-to-their-own-detriment/contractually obligated/whatever Japanese developers who make the good stuff to produce things for them. (and any American developers still free and making good games... and any other random game developers who are actually any good)
not charging so much per game that they're actually getting more expensive as the exchange rate should be causing their prices to drop would be nice too... as would not having to take out a mortgage to afford the console. (i'm joking about the mortgage, of course, but the PS3's price was still stupid.)
so, yeah, a console that can actually get non-shooter games of any quality that is not Sony or Microsoft, or otherwise evil at a price that's not crippling? i'd be all over that.
too bad it'd get eaten by patent lawsuits the moment anyone tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
i'm still trying to figure out how the hell they got contracts set up to the point where it actually costs MORE to buy a laptop without windows than with, though.
(basically, if you asked the place for the laptop, but did not want windows on it, due to contracts they could NOT not sell you the windows license, and having sold you the license would have to provide you with the software... normally they meet their legal obligation to give you a backup copy of such software by the Incredably dubious, at best, method of making a partition on your harddrive and putting it there. (it's SUPPOSED to be on an entirely seperate bit of physical media, i should note. such is my understanding, at least) ... so they have to make a disk of That, AND take windows off the machine, which takes man hours, which they bill you for... or at least, it went something like this when i ordered mine... the guy i ordered it through ended up giving up and just getting the thing with the windows license and sorting linux for me himself instead. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't agree to the change of terms, can you return the now less valuable device?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you return the devalued device? No, probably not - certainly not to SONY and typically not to the retailer if it's been more than 30 days.
*Some games require an online connection - most for multiplayer, but some for DRM. You may actually not be able to play all your games - especially games you purchased through the PSN store.
Also: I'm not sure if SONY uses Micro-Transaction Currency, but with XBox Live and MS Points: MS will not refund or transfer points in numerous situations, meaning you may have bought 4000 MSP for $50, spent 1600 of those points, then, after declining a new TOS, be locked out of spending or retrieving your remaining $30.
MTC should probably be considered a contract, legally, and partially-consumed MTC should be considered a partially-fulfilled contract; if the company excludes you from access to that MTC for any reason it should be considered a breach of contract resulting in penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if i'm not forgetting something while half asleep, at least.
and yes, SONY uses MTC so far as i can tell.
(i believe, like Paypal, you're actually buying That, which leads to things getting hazy. especially with the constant 'non-refundable' lables on everything under most such systems...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I will stay away from the console market and iAnything, but I don't really need them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
just Windows.
and That they control as much as they can get away with.
they can't stop you doing whatever the hell you want on your PC if you don't use any of their products, and the PC itself is not one of them. (though they may well be in tight with the manufacturers of the hardware, those are, in fact, different entities... )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you not know how many people have done this? do you even plan on suing anyone no you dont because there is no reason to and your and idiot cause you still can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrupt modern courts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
More and more it seems Mike is becoming sympathetic to the corporate side. I don't think corporations should be allowed to make unilateral terms of service changes any more than I think they should be allowed to remove features from devices. The terms of service are what I agreed to when I bought the device--if they can make the terms of service needed to use it in the way the device was intended to be used then they can devalue the device.
And why should just the corporations be able to change the contract? Why shouldn't I, the other party to the contract, just be able to post new terms of service to a website and say that Sony must now abide by them? Perhaps the plaintiff should have done just that and sued Sony to abide by the new terms of service :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
Enough already! Having corporations similar to persons is a good thing. Do you really want employees becoming liable? Corporations have deep pockets, while any individual employee does not, so you can get more damages (think Deepwater Horizon). Contracts and taxation are easier if corporations are considered "people". What is the big deal here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
Absolutely yes, but only the big dogs. If the CEO, CFO, CTO, Corporate Counsel, board of directors, etc. are held liable for the actions of the company I do believe we will see a big change in corporate responsibility. It is their job to make sure that the rest of the organization behaves in the way the corporation wants them to. If they cannot control the organization, they have no business hold such positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
Corporations are basically sociopathic wealth accumulators. Corporations per se do not have human conscience, do not feel shame, have no concept of satiety and can not be incarcerated in jails or mental institutions. Defining them as persons and granting them all the same rights granted to natural persons elevates them above natural persons and creates immortal institutions which celebrate and benefit only themselves, a position tenable only to self-deluded authoritarians or Ferengi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
Why don't you? Write up a counter-agreement, send it certified mail (forcing someone at SONY's HQ to sign for it), include a clause saying that signing for the package implies agreement of your new terms unless you hear from them in writing within 15 days, wait 15 days, then file a copy of your agreement with your local county clerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...Is mike going the way of John Stossel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bait and switch
Hmm... I think I have a business proposal to write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bait and switch
That said, "there is no alternative". Customers who bought Sony's product with the intent to use the service billed as a feature of said product have no alternative than to lose what they paid for. That seems like harm to me and false advertising to sell a lifetime service but then change the terms under which the user purchased the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bait and switch
while i don't agree with this, i believe that there is a fundamental separation between the product and the service. they are cleverly marketed together, but are actually two different things. for example, you buy a car at the dealer, but you can get it serviced anywhere. however, the dealer will do everything he can to make it seem that you can only have that new car serviced at the dealership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bait and switch
So in your car dealership analogy, the service was advertised as included in the price of the car. Then after you bought the product, having been influenced by this incentive, they decided to change the terms of the service making you agree to something egregious if you want to collect on the incentive that you thought you were entitled to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh thats because people are more interested in the new cool toy instead of worrying about the larger issues.
Other people will take care of anything big, but this game is only on PS3 and I gotta have it man!
At some point people need to realize they if they dislike it, they should get off their ass and do something themselves.
As they work on killing off the used games market, rather than making a better player experience, it might be time for some of these gamers to say enough is enough and actually start to hurt the company by having boycotts and making their voices heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> how the hell is it they are still in business?
Because the Sony owners and the Sony complainers aren't the same people. You know the internet has more than 12 people in it?
I have a PS3. I like the games better than the XBOX 360. Online access is free. I can watch Netflix and movies off my computer. Yes, I'm annoyed by some of these other issues, and if it gets too annoying, I'll get something else. I certainly don't complain about it. Voting with my dollars is much more effective. And I haven't found anyone else to vote for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm a Playstation owner and I have yet to run into these problems myself, but I agree if you're selling one thing you shouldn't be able to change it unless it can cause physical harm to the consumer. I'm not about to toss my Playstation over this, though (but I might if they got rid of Netflix.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
less catastrophic failures.
in every other way i've come across that matters to me, when it comes to Gaming, Sony wins. (not that i touch any of their other stuff...)
and even then, with the gaming, a LOT of that is that they've managed to somehow get exclusive deals with the developers that can make games which aren't crap. (also: Japanese nationalism does weird things to this particular industry, apparently.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who's still a Sony customer at this point...
The only correct response is to NEVER purchase any Sony products or services. Anyone giving any other response deserves to suffer. Let them burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The moral of the story is that you cannot force companies to do what they do not want to do without a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess it's not a must if all you want to do is play your existing games and original PS games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing that sony does not have a monopoly in any market whose product is required in order to go about ones day to day activities. I can't think of a good example, but if such a condition were to arise there would be much more outrage from both the general public and those that are supposed to serve them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The addict/customer that sued their drug dealer failed to provide proof of harm the courts ruled.
The courts then sentenced the customer/addict to 10 years in jail for buying the illegal drugs from the drug dealer, and let the drug dealer walk out of court a free man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Not Keeping Up With Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Courts
1) I win
2) you pay me for my time at a rate of $500/hr
If you choose not to accept these terms, you can opt out by preventing litigation against me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SONY...A giant among turds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SONY...A giant among turds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So don't use PSN
I don't *need* to give Sony money. Just like I don't *need* access to PSN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution to balance the equation
On the consumer side though, they should not be financially responsible for a company�s decision to change. Therefore, if a company changes the terms on an agreement that effects a device, then anyone who rejects those terms should be able to get a refund of the full price from when the device was registered (from the company changing the terms of service, not the retailer). Also this should only be applicable to devices and their cost, not monthly service fees that you may have paid to use the device.
I think this serves both sides well. Companies have the ability to correct faulty service agreements and consumers can basically say, I want my money back because that is not what I bought.
This should make the company really think about changes in agreements. They know they are going to have to pay to change, so they better make sure the change is worth it to them. And consumers are locked into a purchase that changed on after they bought the device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution to balance the equation
Last sentence should read:
"And consumers are not locked into a purchase that changed on them after they bought the device"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immediate versus long term "harm"
You buy a PS3, Sony promptly goes out of business.
If this scenario were true you would also "lose the value" of the device, since there would no longer be a service to connect to. In fact this happens in other contexts all the time with devices and services--people sign up right before it goes out of business and only get a short time of usage. If there was fraud involved (as in the business knew it would fail and intentionally hid this fact while signing people up) then I'd guess you could have some standing to sue...in most other cases you simply have a legacy device or software and that's the breaks.
In this particular case, while I absolutely hate Sony, the real crux is how long do you realistically involve yourself with them when you buy the console? I would sadly say it really means that immediate moment (as in the console should fulfill any of it's stated functions, and play any games that you could buy) at that moment. Past that point, it becomes very difficult to say that you are harmed since you do in fact have the option to not move forward and use the device with the things that worked at the time you bought the device. The only issue then is in regard to functions that have a main component that utilizes the network (as in purely multi-player games).
That has other issues though--like in another context of MMO's. What if you bought WOW and then they did an update that you hated? Are you "harmed" in this case? Or do you simply stop playing the game? It's similar in scope.
Ultimately as many others have said--if you hate their practices STOP SUPPORTING THEM. If enough people said "screw this" and dropped their system they'd get the clue.
You do in fact have the option to not play their games, no matter how shiny and cute they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contracts
There's no offer and acceptance, no proposal and counter-proposal, no consideration towards the both sides, and puts the consumer under undue influence to comply.
Sony breached their contract with their customers by modifying the terms of the contract without approval of both parties (Sony and their customers). You can't just change the terms at will and tell the secondary party to take it or lose the service, that's undue influence.
I'm relieved that I haven't bought a Sony product for nearly a decade. I will continue to avoid them in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Plaintiff acknowledges that he made a choice and agreed to the arbitration and class action waiver provisions of the Agreement and did not opt out."
And as Mr. Goldman asked when he blogged about it:
"Did Sony advertise access to the PSN network as part of the PS3?"
Unless I missed it (and I probably did), I don't recall Sony ever advertising one gets PSN access upon purchasing a PS3.
Of course, it's conveniently easier to rant and rave against something one doesn't like without taking time to read - much more understand - the decision. That's to be (sometimes sadly) expected since it's also easier to feel like it's another David vs. Goliath thing, even though not all scenarios seem that way without taking a closer look.
Much as I don't like either this latest thing Sony did, they are (arguably) within their rights - within reason - to change their contract terms. That's something we also get to do. (within reason also, of course...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arbitration
It seems mandatory arbitration can be beneficial when both sides have equal bargaining power and it is truly a part of a fully negotiated contract. It is a great time and money saver in many business arrangements.
But I do see great problems when the power base is so clearly lopsided. I think arbitration clauses should not be permitted as part of a standard contract with individual customers, especially when that contract is a contract of adhesion attached to a product already purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the same problem caused by the PS3 beginning with the ability to boot Linux and that was later removed. It was an advertised feature that was retroactively removed from all PS3's, with no alternative way to receive firmware updates while continuing to boot Linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quit your crying clown shoes!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quit your crying clown shoes!!!!!!!!!!
Eveyone else does it so it must be ok.
And no - I do not have an I*, WII, 360, or sony products - and yet I still think that Sony has their collective head up their ass. Is this ok, or should I feel bad about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe all the "PC gaming is dying" cries from the last 10 years were premature, and PC gaming will end up flourishing and the consoles end up dying due to consumer backlash. At least there's always GoG.com. Which is giving away Fallout for the next 48 hours in case anyone was interested in reliving 1997 gaming greatness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure there are few out there that will 0wn th3 c0n50l3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gamer Entitlement Must Stop...
If you don't like decisions made by companies feel free to speak with your dollars, you will be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gamer Entitlement Must Stop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gamer Entitlement Must Stop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gamer Entitlement Must Stop...
If you don't like decisions made by companies feel free to speak with your dollars, you will be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gamer Entitlement Must Stop...
If you don't like decisions made by companies feel free to speak with your dollars, you will be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to be rich!
Then after they sigh, I'll change the contract to add the fact that I can take up to 30 years to finish the job! This will give me plenty of time to sign up hundreds of sucke... Er, I mean customers while insuring that I don't have to deliver on what I promised. Just slap a little paint on the side of the house and say I'll be back "later".
And it's all perfectly legal, the courts have said so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going to be rich!
If anything, it's the devil in the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Sony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morons
That's gold Jerry - Gold!!!
Just imagine how this could be used to justify any and all stupid idiotic actions, blunders and outright evil plans.
MUAHAHAHAHA, MUAHAHAHAHA, MUAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]