Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
And yet, here we are several months and another update or three later, and this is not resolved by even a very loose definition of the word.
This is starting to get into class-action territory, Paradox, especially with your new DLC subscription service.
I hope it's not enforceable, but they tried to smuggle a "no class action lawsuits" clause into their EULA. ( Found here: https://store.steampowered.com/eula/202090_eula_0 )
I sincerely doubt it's enforceable, but I wouldn't put it past them to try. That last line about reserving the right to make any claim against you would definitely run afoul of anti-SLAPP legislation.
Yeah. As a legal document, it's impossible to get scuzzier in intent. "You hereby waive all rights no matter how many damages we inflict upon you, but we can assert any legal right against you at any time." In American law, there's a lot of room to screw customers over with forum non conveniens clauses, but at least when I took contracts law American courts were much less likely to decline jurisdiction in deference to foreign courts than they were to other states within the Union.
But I've seen cases where courts upheld EULAs as enforceable despite being enclosed in shrink-wrap that couldn't be removed until after the customer purchased it. So, who knows. But most nations don't really like the idea that foreign companies can break any law and cause any injury to their citizens without recourse. And it's not a good sign of a corporation's ethics when they try it.