Sony Facing Lawsuit over PSN Anti-Lawsuit Clause

Sony is getting sued again, this time over the revised Terms of Service and User Agreement.

Sony Facing Lawsuit Over PSN Anti-Lawsuit Clause

Sony is getting sued again, this time over the revised Terms of Service and User Agreement that was amended following the PSN breach earlier this year. The suit claims that Sony is conducting unfair business with consumers by forcing users to agree to the new terms of the PlayStation Network.

Following the PSN breach of earlier this year, Sony had serious exposure to liability when the privacy of millions was exposed by a hijack of the online gaming network. Sony's answer to that breach was to beef up security, and to cover their assets in the future, they inserted a new clause into the terms of service that prevents PSN users from entering into any class action lawsuit against the company, unless Sony agrees to it.

The suit is claimed to be on behalf of "all those customers who owned a PSN account before the changes to the ToS occurred," according to Gamasutra. Among other things, the suit claims that Sony is taking away the right to a service that was advertised and paid for by the consumers that purchased the PlayStation 3 prior to the change in terms. The man who hails from Northern California that has filed the suit, also claims that Sony buried the clause in the Terms of Service and made the form difficult to access.

By Al McCarthy on December 20, 2011

Did you this story? Please share it with your friends

That Guy
a company should be able to make a stfu or gtfo clause in their terms of service. it is their hardware afterall. if sony loses the ps3 players will suffer as a whole. i hate greedy lawyers looking for any reason to make money.
- Cool dude
  People pay lawyers… Lawyers get a fixed amount of money from the person that has requested their assistance.
  The “Person” gets the money. Whether that “Person” is in it for the money or a just cause….
  The lawyer in this case is already paid, by how much? Its none of our business….
  You need to get a better knowledge of the system.
- That Guy
  in a class action lawsuit the lawyers get the majority of the money while the constituents, varying by the size of the group, get a very small amount ranging from a few dollars to 10 cents. in a regular lawsuit the lawyer fees are extremely high so you almost never get near what you sued for. thats why most cases settle out of court because its such an expensive process. by your previous posts youve obviously never experienced the real world. youre in for a real shock.
- Cool dude
  You cant really call them greedy lawyers as one cannot be guaranteed to be hired at the first place…
- That Guy
  thats really your argument? im done here.
- Cool dude
  Lol…. thats true though..
Allen
then I suppose an Xbox lawsuit is coming too? Because they made the same change in terms. People just seriously need to use “due diligence” whe doing anything online. Don’t point fingers and blame everyone else when you don’t even take the smallest steps to protect your own information.
- Cool dude
  I do agree with you. However, Sony had the “agreement” much longer… So people had more time to plan a lawsuit.
- Silenthawx
  What people need to realize is that PSN is a privilege provided that it is free for owners of he Playstaion 3 console as outlined in their Terms of Service. Live on the other hand is a service that is paid for and thus has an obligation to run. To sue Sony for protecting themselves against their “failure” to sustain the PSN is silly and obnoxious. Sure you can sue them for individual cases, but to rally up class action law suits? Really?? -_-
- Allen
  Seriously!
  If anyone is so damn worried that Sony isn’t going to do enough to protect their personal information then all you gotta do is buy network cards! Then lie about all your personal info when filling out the PSN id. Seriously, no one would ever have any information on you, no one could tie you to that account and even if Sony gave everyone in the freaking world all the information you provided, it wouldn’t change a damn thing. They aren’t going to know who the hell PussyEater69 is or whatever fake name you put up there.
  People are blowing this out of proportion, and you better beleive that if Sony completely neglected security and the protection of their clients personal infomation there would be a way around that Anti-lawsuit clause.
Sauce
Titis For Dinner
njb
if ppl dont read contracts or agreements then its ur own fault.
how can u file a lawsuit against an anti law suit clause, they wont win anyway but still
its the american way, lol
- Cool dude
  You mean we cant do anything if a company makes a mistake? Bravo…
- That Guy
  not if you agree to the terms that say you cant. remember, you dont have to agree. that just means you wont be able to use the service.
- Cool dude
  Anyway, I did agree because I did not have any choice if I wanted to play MW2 online.
  But this agreement restricts a Gamer’s freedom of speech…
- That Guy
  you seem to look over the definition of agreement:
  A negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action
  you gave up whatever rights they wanted to take away (nothing prohibiting freedom of speech) once you agreed.
- That Guy
  if you believe it gave up freedom of speech please tell me how it did. do you see how im proving wrong every point youve made? ill gladly keep doing it if it means purging some ignorance out of this world.
- Cool dude
  Im sorry for using the wrong word, please do change the agreement word to whatever it is necessary.
  And I do see that you can counter ever argument that I bring up… I gladly accept for I can learn of other people…
Allen
It reminds me of that South Park episode about Apple terms and conditions…..You mean you didn’t read the part about us having the right to use the iphone to track you down and sew your mouth to somone elses anus? You didn’t see that?
Brian
It wouldn’t be so sketchy if these terms were released years ago, but to release them right after a security breach? Bad move, but I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere.
Frank
Lmao cool dude, you’re a retard. Stop commenting. Look at your comments dude. They’re all thumbed down for a reason. You have no clue about this situation. Just because you bought a ps3, doesn’t mean that that money “funded” psn idiot. Just like because people pay for live doesn’t mean that $50 a year nesecarlly goes to live.
- Cool dude
  Im sorry, I was just trying to express my opinions and views toward “ThatGuy”.
  And oh, thanks for thumbing me down as if it means anything…
- Cool dude
  Plus… if you have the knowledge…. where do they get the majority of the cost of keeping PSN free?
  Definitely not PSN+ as I believe that it doesnt provide enough revenue..
- That Guy
  what you believe and what is the truth arent necessarily the same thing…
- Cool dude
  … as it is for everyone else
ragglefraggle1
what fat, lazy, uneducated guy doesn’t want to sue a major company?
what happened to the days when an apology & a freebie fixed everything.
Heard it here first
Microsoft is next. I bet they are thinking they changed their terms at the PERFECT TIME.
Cool dude
Ok, If a company makes a mistake, the consumer cant do anything about it?? We as the consumer paid for a product that should protect the system we are playing in.. What if the people who we paid to protect our system failed to do just that?? Because of the agreement, we can not basically do anything about it.
Thats what Sony did with their terms and Conditions agreement.
This man is speaking on behalf of all gamers not just ps3 gamers.
That Guy
i dont believe you ever payed for psn. i believe it was free. so they have every right to change it.
Cool dude
I payed for a console… the money which also means that I paid for a service for me to play online…. Makes sense?
That Guy
no, that would make xbox live completely free also.i payed for my pc so my isp should automatically give me free internet? thatys not the way it works. you pay for what you specifically get at the time of transaction.
Cool dude
Ugh… your not getting the point…. The arbitration act tells us that WE AS GAMERS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IF THE COMPANY THAT WE PAID FOR MADE ________CLEAR AND AVOIDABLE MISTAKES__________
I bought a Xbox 360, this money went towards 6 months of free online. Thus making the money that I paid for the console ($399 Xbox 360 250gb Kinect Bundle) eligible for the online service…
The subscription service coming from Xbox Live is totally optional. Microsoft only placed a subscription fee ($5/ a month) so that they can gain extra revenue for funding of security, downloading servers (and maintaining them) and new features.
If you are talking about gaming servers, that is different… You pay for a game (BF3 for $50)… to fund the gaming servers.
For me, by buying the console means that buying access to Xbox Live. Like downloading Arcade games and Indie games.
The same goes to my Ps3 (160gb Ps3 Slim GT5 bundle), I invested $399 for a Ps3 console, by buying the console, I also invested on PSN online service to download games and DLCs.
The internet is not one service… By buying a PC, you gain access to nothing unless it comes with an OS… PC is a hardware that comes with nothing. Unless it is bundled with a OS. Then you have to pay for an monthly internet fee…
Look, this is freaking hard to explain… I cant get the right words but Im trying to let you understand.
By investing $399 for a Ps3 console, your are not only paying for the console but you are also paying for the online service (which is free) which is also one of the resons why Ps3 is more expensive that a 360.
This means that a percentage of that 399 will go to fund PSN to keep it free and the downloading service and servers up and running.
Because of this, by buying a console and ultimately investing money to Sony. I expect them not to mess up.. And I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to do some thing about their mistakes and if they DID mess at some thing they were supposed to avoid at the first place.
Summary:
I, as a consumer and an investor who funded PSN should be able to do “SOME THING”… Which Sony restricts us from doing so.
That Guy
okay. money and what you did/ didnt pay for aside. PSN and xbox live are services. terms of service are exactly that, terms you must agree to before you are able to use the service. if you dont agree, you cant use it. if you do, youre legally bound to whats inside. you cant pick and choose what you dont want in there. they can say that along with a ban comes a $1,000 fine and as long as you agree you must pay it.
also, if you actually read the terms like i did you would notice that in section 15 they say that they can change the terms at any time at their own discretion.so adding the arbitration act was perfectly legal.
get my point? you either accepted whatever they put on that paper or you didnt use psn. and the second you did you were succeptable to whatever was on there whether or not you read it or liked everything that was on there.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=6158
this is my view on the situation and it opened my eyes to how much of a sense of entitlement people have nowadays and it pisses me off when stuff like this happens.
That Guy
heres a simpler example. if you buy a ps3 and it explodes/overheats w/e and damages your house. you can sue sony over it because you didnt sign a legally binding contract. but if your psn goes haywire and spews your info all over the internet and sony put something that says you cant sue them for that in the ToS . you cant sue them because you agreed that that was a possibility when you accepted the terms to use PSN.
Cool dude
I agree, its legal because its their own company and they can do whatever they want with it. Restricting gamer’s freedom is totally legal but it is “money over moral” is the problem in here.
Sony is afraid to loose more money just like any other companies out there… because of the PSN outage and security breach there should be consequences for their lack of security and how they handled the situation. But this “agreement” restricts that “consequence”.
But the “agreement” also restricts freedom of speech…
That Guy
in that last post change agreement with terms. agreement is just what you do with them. limiting your freedom of speech is perfectly legal if you agree to it.
That Guy
the first amendment only restricts congress from passing laws restricting the 5 basic freedoms against our will,it does not stop corporations from allowing us to sign away our freedoms.
That Guy
i accidentally restated part of what you said but it worked out. morals play no part in court, just facts and law