Has their recent decision to include a root-kit in their PS3 (and their computers?), which raised the ire of lots of PS3 users and several class-action lawsuits, encouraged them to sink further into the slim hole? Apparently so. Their response to the class-action lawsuits is to add some boiler plate to their EULA in which the PS3 user, in order to continue using their PS3 and have online access, must agree to the following terms:
As the article points out:
That's illegal, you say. Not so. The same SCOTUS that ruled that corporations did not have to limit their bribes to politicians, nor keep an accounting of them, has also ruled that:
In the past I favored Sony equipment. My first Sony PC was a desktop I purchased on Dec 29, 1997. I own a Sony DVR and my current PC is a Sony VAIO notebook. This notebook is the LAST Sony made object I shall ever buy. Sony doesn't have a monopoly lock in on the laptop the way Microsoft does on it's desktop, so I am not forced to buy a Sony to get the kind of hardware power I want.
Goodbye, Sony. Let's us know when you rejoin the community of ethical corporations again and I'll consider reconsidering your products.
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.
There is no way to opt out of this electronically, because it's not in Sony's best interests to give you an easy way to do so. This bit of fine print will go unread by most gamers, which means they'll be signing away their rights to join in class-actions without even realizing what they've done. If you decide not to agree to the new agreement, you simply won't be able to play games online.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's decision. In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the purpose of the FAA was designed to promote arbitration over more costly and lengthy litigation. Quoting an earlier ruling by the court, Scalia explained that "[a] prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve ‘streamlined proceedings and expeditious results,'" and that requiring the class-action litigation to proceed would be at odds with the intent of the FAA and the benefits that arbitration agreements ostensibly provide.
Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, noted that the saving clause in the FAA left ground for individual states to determine how a contract or its clauses may be revoked. "[R]ecognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California's law, not to strike it down," he wrote.
The decision, which fell precisely along ideological lines, could have far-reaching effects on consumers' ability to challenge corporations in court over future disputes. In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices.
Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, noted that the saving clause in the FAA left ground for individual states to determine how a contract or its clauses may be revoked. "[R]ecognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California's law, not to strike it down," he wrote.
The decision, which fell precisely along ideological lines, could have far-reaching effects on consumers' ability to challenge corporations in court over future disputes. In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices.
Goodbye, Sony. Let's us know when you rejoin the community of ethical corporations again and I'll consider reconsidering your products.
Comment