4 ms·
It looks to me like Sony is being sued, not over the clause itself, but in their application of it and the circumstances surrounding it. That is, that it was p
by roc 15y ago
It looks to me like Sony is being sued, not over the clause itself, but in their application of it and the circumstances surrounding it.
That is, that it was patched in, bolted on toward the bottom of an agreement that is difficult to even read on a console, that the opt-out method is unnecessarily cumbersome, and that opting-out would take away an advertised feature of the purchased hardware with no recourse.
Because the more general question of "is this clause even legal?" was famously settled not all that long ago by the SCOTUS in the AT&T Mobility case.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/us-supreme-court-okays-binding-arbitration-clauses-prohibiting-consumers-from-joining-class-actions.html http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/us-supreme-...
- gareim 15y agoAs I understand it, the AT&T case determined that clauses restricting consumers from engaging in class action lawsuits were legal. But in the Sony case, their clause restricts a consumer from suing in court and instead, must bring the arbitration to a neutral body (but not court). This scenario seems much more harmful and possibly infringes on a very, very important right.
- roc 15y agoThe AT&T case was not specifically about class until it hit the SCOTUS. The case was originally found for AT&T, with the court finding the clause was fine. The California Federal Circuit court reversed that decision, because it felt the clause was 'unconscionable' because it also signed away the right to sue as a class. The SCOTUS rejected that interpretation, upholding not only clauses that deny the right to sue as a class, but the arbitration clause itself.