Common Valve W
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
203 points (96.8% liked)
Gaming
22052 readers
1 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
its not exactly for the positive reason you think. theyre trying to prevent the class action lawsuit going around the (UK?) right now and realized when a certain amount of people take the arbitration, it gets fairly costly, so they reverted on that clause.
regardless fuck arbitration, its like paying off judges but even more transparent about it.
its basically doing the right thing for the wrong reason (reverting arbitration cause not for thr consumer, but for their wallets)
Still, the effects benefits the consumer, so I would consider this a good thing.
Also, I wonder if we can do the same to other companies and let them revert course.
I would if it had any lasting power. I mean, can't they just push out another eula update 6 months from now when this change is no longer useful to them?
Fuck arbitration, of course, I'm just not expecting this to really mean anything.
Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).
"Specifically, the named Plaintiffs won binding decisions from arbitrators rendering Valve's arbitration provision unenforceable for both lack of notice and because it impermissibly seeks to bar public injunctive relief."
So none of these stupid clauses are valid? FOO FYEAH!
Anyone can ELI5 this thing? I'm pretty lost
Twofold: One, they lost a case in arbitration that basically said arbitration isn't usable.
Two: Lot of companies do arbitration to avoid court, which works fine and is cheaper if you're not getting taken to court much. If 75,000 people that could do a class action suit all go to arbitration though, the benefit is lost. Lawyers threatened that. 3 grand a arbitration case x 75,000 people == 225 million dollars on fees alone.
Thank you, when does steam need to do arbitration?
Previously, any time they'd normally go to court, which was fairly rare, per the article.