Updated Subscriber Agreement

[Zesc]

I just saw that the Steam Subsciber Agreement was recently updated (24th of February 2022 for me in Germany, you timezone may vary). As one of the 4 people out there actually interested in the legal fluff, I skimmed through but couldn't make out any majore changes.

Does anybody knows some place that shows the new and the old for comparison (alternately a .txt of the old would suffice for me)?

Also, is this change related to the Steam Deck launch? Or perhaps the fact that a war just broke out?

Thank y'all in advance!

[rawWwRrr]

Using the Wayback Machine and Notepad++ to compare the two versions shows a lot of revisions, mostly rewording statements, adding UK separately for some exclusions, and adding Hardware as a product.

The biggest addition is section D. Section D was about Payment Processing. That's been moved to E: and now D: is about Accept of Agreements.

D. Acceptance of Agreements

Your order through Steam is an offer to Valve to agree on the delivery of the ordered Subscriptions, Content and Services and/or Hardware (the “Product(s)”) in exchange for the listed price.

When you place an order on Steam, we will send you a message confirming receipt of your order and containing the details of your order (the “Order Confirmation”). The Order Confirmation is acknowledgement that we have received your order and does not confirm acceptance of your offer to enter into an agreement.

In the case of Content and Services, we accept your offer, and conclude the agreement with you, by confirming the transaction and making the Content and Services available to you or, in the case of pre-orders, only by confirming the transaction to you and deducting the applicable price from your payment method.

In the case of Hardware, we only accept your offer, and conclude the transaction for an item ordered by you, when we dispatch the Hardware to you and send e-mail confirming to you that we've dispatched the product to you (the "Dispatch Confirmation"). If your order is dispatched in more than one package, you may receive a separate Dispatch Confirmation for each package, and each Dispatch Confirmation and corresponding dispatch will conclude a separate contract of sale between us for the Hardware specified in that Dispatch Confirmation. Any Hardware delivered to you remains property of Valve until payment has been fully made.

You consent to receiving sales invoices electronically.

[Zesc]

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

Using the Wayback Machine and Notepad++ to compare the two versions shows a lot of revisions, mostly rewording statements, adding UK separately for some exclusions, and adding Hardware as a product.

The biggest addition is section D. Section D was about Payment Processing. That's been moved to E: and now D: is about Accept of Agreements.

D. Acceptance of Agreements

Your order through Steam is an offer to Valve to agree on the delivery of the ordered Subscriptions, Content and Services and/or Hardware (the “Product(s)”) in exchange for the listed price.

When you place an order on Steam, we will send you a message confirming receipt of your order and containing the details of your order (the “Order Confirmation”). The Order Confirmation is acknowledgement that we have received your order and does not confirm acceptance of your offer to enter into an agreement.

In the case of Content and Services, we accept your offer, and conclude the agreement with you, by confirming the transaction and making the Content and Services available to you or, in the case of pre-orders, only by confirming the transaction to you and deducting the applicable price from your payment method.

In the case of Hardware, we only accept your offer, and conclude the transaction for an item ordered by you, when we dispatch the Hardware to you and send e-mail confirming to you that we've dispatched the product to you (the "Dispatch Confirmation"). If your order is dispatched in more than one package, you may receive a separate Dispatch Confirmation for each package, and each Dispatch Confirmation and corresponding dispatch will conclude a separate contract of sale between us for the Hardware specified in that Dispatch Confirmation. Any Hardware delivered to you remains property of Valve until payment has been fully made.

You consent to receiving sales invoices electronically.

Thank you a thousand times (though I feel stupid for not doing this myself). This is really helpfull.

Seems like it indeed is mostly minor stuff (the legal department gotta earn their salaries somehow, huh) and stuff releated to good old steam deck.

[rawWwRrr]

I found a diff checker online so you can see all of the changes.

https://www.diffchecker.com/YNRMuskR

edit: I just realized you mentioned you were in Germany. I assume you can make do with the English versions.

edit edit: I see the German version of the SSA is still dated 28. August 2020. So who knows what to expect.

[Zesc]

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

I found a diff checker online so you can see all of the changes.

https://www.diffchecker.com/YNRMuskR

edit: I just realized you mentioned you were in Germany. I assume you can make do with the English versions.

edit edit: I see the German version of the SSA is still dated 28. August 2020. So who knows what to expect.

Steam Serves you the Subscriber Agreement according to your client language. Except when it decides it's the OS language instead. Basically, it's just there to create headache.

Anyway, since the english original is going the be the binding version anyway (and I don't plan on sueing Volvo anywhen in the near future), the Diffcheck here is fine.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by Zesc:

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

I found a diff checker online so you can see all of the changes.

https://www.diffchecker.com/YNRMuskR

edit: I just realized you mentioned you were in Germany. I assume you can make do with the English versions.

edit edit: I see the German version of the SSA is still dated 28. August 2020. So who knows what to expect.

Steam Serves you the Subscriber Agreement according to your client language. Except when it decides it's the OS language instead. Basically, it's just there to create headache.

Anyway, since the english original is going the be the binding version anyway (and I don't plan on sueing Volvo anywhen in the near future), the Diffcheck here is fine.

I'm just compelled to be thorough.

[Satoru]

The German and US EULA are different which is why Germany has its own SSA agreement.

Do not rely on a diff of the US SSA as it will not reflect the specific German provisions

[Start_Running]

Don't kknock the legal departments and the nature of their work OP. Court cases worth hundreds of thousands of dollars have been decided by the Oxford Comma alone Law can be extremely pedantic..

[Zesc]

Originally posted by Satoru:

The German and US EULA are different which is why Germany has its own SSA agreement.

Do not rely on a diff of the US SSA as it will not reflect the specific German provisions

Indeed; germany (and the EU+Swizerland as a whole) got their own appendiced (addenda? Tacked-on-thingamajigs) which basically explain that wherever applicable, they go by the US version, and then stating the exceptions/special clauses (mostly warranty and privacy stuff.

And since they haven't updated that one yet, what am I gotta do? Wait another day to buying ULTRAKILL? Gotta tick that checkbox sooner or later.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Don't kknock the legal departments and the nature of their work OP. Court cases worth hundreds of thousands of dollars have been decided by the Oxford Comma alone Law can be extremely pedantic..

Oh wow, now that's looking to be offended by proxy if I ever seen it? I'm suprised you don't get uppity about me calling Valve "Volvo" too.

If I wouldn't know the important of these agreements, I wouldn't even bother with this in the first place. But sure, if you enjoy contributing nothing to the matter at hand besides reading the most nefarious things into throwaway lines to lighten the mood, well, I ain't gonna stop you.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Zesc:

Oh wow, now that's looking to be offended by proxy if I ever seen it?

Not really. Start_Running is just warning you that the devil is in the details.

Even if some changes may look minor at face value, they can still change how edge cases would be interpreted in a profound way.

E.g. 'Similar' words does not mean 'same' words - they can have subtly different meaning.
And the difference between a lost 'and' or 'or' in a summation can make a whole world of difference.

[Zesc]

Originally posted by RiO:

Not really. Start_Running is just warning you that the devil is in the details.

Even if some changes may look minor at face value, they can still change how edge cases would be interpreted in a profound way.

E.g. 'Similar' words does not mean 'same' words - they can have subtly different meaning.
And the difference between a lost 'and' or 'or' in a summation can make a whole world of difference.

Fair enough, though these technicalities are usually something that predatory/frevolous lawsuits are fought over (or people trying to skirt paying taxes), nothing that most end-consumers consciously think of (also, outside of common law countries, judges might actualyl adhere to the meaning of the law over its exact wording - for better or worse.)

The main reason I'm kinda pissed by that particular user is because he seems to interject himself into threads posted in Steam's main discussion and then tries to shame the OP or make them look stupid or otherwise ill-intended. (Example Backing up my claims)
I may have a short temper, but oh boy, that guy certainly knows how to make a forum have an unwelcoming atmosphere.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic and drama-y for my liking, so back to it: does anybody know whether companies are required to also tell what they changed in their TOS/EULA/SA, or only that a change has happened? I'll definitely keep a copy for future reference at hand now (in case the CIA doesn't[www.cia.gov] :P).

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Zesc:

Originally posted by RiO:

Not really. Start_Running is just warning you that the devil is in the details.

Even if some changes may look minor at face value, they can still change how edge cases would be interpreted in a profound way.

E.g. 'Similar' words does not mean 'same' words - they can have subtly different meaning.
And the difference between a lost 'and' or 'or' in a summation can make a whole world of difference.

Fair enough, though these technicalities are usually something that predatory/frevolous lawsuits are fought over (or people trying to skirt paying taxes), nothing that most end-consumers consciously think of (also, outside of common law countries, judges might actualyl adhere to the meaning of the law over its exact wording - for better or worse.)

You'd be surprised. And you're right, most end consumers don't think of these things.But those that do, and the lawyers hired by still others will cost you a pretty penny.

Originally posted by Zesc:

The main reason I'm kinda pissed by that particular user is because he seems to interject himself into threads posted in Steam's main discussion and then tries to shame the OP or make them look stupid or otherwise ill-intended.

I can't make anyone look stupid.

Originally posted by Zesc:

I may have a short temper, but oh boy, that guy certainly knows how to make a forum have an unwelcoming atmosphere.

If you find people pointing out the flaws, fallacies, and assumptions in your statements, as well as the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods...well that says more about ye doesn't it m8?

And no COmpanies are not required tio say what they changed because what they changed is rather irrelevant. You are expected to read and reaffirm your agreement to the term. The past state is no longer relevant, the contract embodied by those terms is void and no longer holds power. The current terms are the new contract which will hold power going forward, so you are expected to treat it like any other contract. By reading it fully.

Notifying a change to the contract is more or less a legal requirement (though it can be debated whether that only counts for changes that affect the contract in meaningful ways).

Example. CHanges like the contact information, or Name of one of the parties does not count as a substantive change if the newly named party is just a new operating name (company changes their name), or the newly named party is functionally identical to the previous, (I,.e they accept all the duties, responsibilities, limitations, etc, etc of the previous party). An example would be A company buying out another company, and absorbing it and all the pre-existing contracts. In this case the old company no longer exists but the absorbing company inherits the contracts and the duties of the original.. This is basically how license agreements and what not tend to be passed around.

In such cases the change is basically more for the company's own internal record keeping.
Many companies however will notify for even such trivial changes because what counts as substantive can vary from region to region even within a country, much less across countries. So they take a 'better safe than sorry approach'.

Again wie see that legal thoroughness in ass-covering. Because as said,, there's gonna be at least one other lawyer out there looking for a ♥♥♥♥♥ they can exploit and make bank on.

[Zesc]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Again wie see that legal thoroughness in ass-covering. Because as said,, there's gonna be at least one other lawyer out there looking for a ♥♥♥♥♥ they can exploit and make bank on.

Yup; what I see here is that "purchase" was changed to "order", which I'd guess would be something important should Valve turn out to not be actually able to fullfill a request, e.g. due to silicon shortages.

Though contracts ≠ law, there's always the possibility for people (with enormous legal budgets) to try and argue why something in there is unlawfull. Since the SSA is for consumers though, it's probably not that high-stakes for Valve though. (Aren't they also prohobiting Class action lawsuits somewhere or something?)

If anyone is still following this thread at this point (it's basically became recreational guesstimating about legal shenenigans now), here[loweringthebar.net] an real-life case where a comma (or rather it's absence) became the focal point of a court case.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

If you find people pointing out the flaws, fallacies, and assumptions in your statements, as well as the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods...well that says more about ye doesn't it m8?

I tried adding you, but you declined(?). Could we have a private tête-a-tête? Having stalked your recent contributaion to gauge you trolly-ness, you certainly aren't too shabby, so I'd like to know why you claim I'm lying about a problem you yourself acknowledged exists in other threads.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Zesc:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Again wie see that legal thoroughness in ass-covering. Because as said,, there's gonna be at least one other lawyer out there looking for a ♥♥♥♥♥ they can exploit and make bank on.

Yup; what I see here is that "purchase" was changed to "order", which I'd guess would be something important should Valve turn out to not be actually able to fullfill a request, e.g. due to silicon shortages.

Well I suppose it's also a that a purchase implies its something you walk out of a store with in hand so to speak. An order is something that has to be delivered.
You purchase a frozen pizza in a supermarket. You Order a Pizza from Pizza Hut.
Since there can be a time delay between the payment and the delivery of the item. FOr example if you opurchase something as a gift ffor someone and set it to be delivered on their birthday 3 months later. etc.

Originally posted by Zesc:

Though contracts ≠ law, there's always the possibility for people (with enormous legal budgets) to try and argue why something in there is unlawfull. Since the SSA is for consumers though, it's probably not that high-stakes for Valve though. (Aren't they also prohobiting Class action lawsuits somewhere or something?)

You'd be surprised because when courts award penalties the award them per infraction which would equate to a per customer basis and if you have a lot of customers evern a $100 fine per case can rack up a hefty total in short order.

Hence why lawyers are so pedantic and why companies hire legal teams per country.

Originally posted by Zesc:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

If you find people pointing out the flaws, fallacies, and assumptions in your statements, as well as the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods...well that says more about ye doesn't it m8?

I tried adding you, but you declined(?). Could we have a private tête-a-tête? Having stalked your recent contributaion to gauge you trolly-ness, you certainly aren't too shabby, so I'd like to know why you claim I'm lying about a problem you yourself acknowledged exists in other threads.

Hmm. I generally tend to decline invites out of the blue but sure. Why not.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And no COmpanies are not required tio say what they changed because what they changed is rather irrelevant. You are expected to read and reaffirm your agreement to the term. The past state is no longer relevant, the contract embodied by those terms is void and no longer holds power. The current terms are the new contract which will hold power going forward, so you are expected to treat it like any other contract. By reading it fully.

Partially true.
In the EU this is only the case when the contract in question contains terms that allow the trader or supplier to change the contract unilaterally; and even then, only in ways compatible with valid reasons the original contract must have stated.

I.e. if a company offering a digital service thinks they can pull a fast one by burying some new terms into a contract which state you now owe them 50 grand if you acknowledge your acceptance of the updated contract by continuing to use their service, then that doesn't fly.


Moreover; in the EU companies actually are required to give you a summarized view of the changes. This comes via the fact that unilateral changes in contract are required to be communicated to the consumer in advance, in a 'clear and comprehensible' manner. The appointed authorities upholding these laws interpret the use of a summarized view of the changes as essential vis-a-vis giving the consumer an enormous wall of text and expecting them to figure it out themselves.

In fact, Meta / Facebook, has been warned and fined numerous times because of this.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Notifying a change to the contract is more or less a legal requirement (though it can be debated whether that only counts for changes that affect the contract in meaningful ways).

Example. CHanges like the contact information, or Name of one of the parties does not count as a substantive change if the newly named party is just a new operating name (company changes their name), or the newly named party is functionally identical to the previous

Also something of a bad example in case of the EU,
<edit>
which indeed is one of those areas you mentioned where what counts as substansive is different. -- I missed that before, but I'll keep the below as an explanation for those parties that are interested in it.
</edit>

In case of a sales or service contract involving a consumer, the identity of the trader - including name; physical address; any contact information such as email address or phone number; etc. - is considered material pre-contractual information. Such pre-contractual information is in turn considered an integral part of the contract.

While unilateral changes to contract may be allowed from the trader or supplier's side when the contract actually provides valid reason for it, it still always requires the consumer is given notice of the changes.

I.e. a trader has to take actual effort to reach out to consumers with which it has established contracts and notify them of the change of address; change of name; etc. just the same as with more substantive changes such as the trader being absorbed into another company and their rights and obligations being transferred.

[Start_Running]

And you will notice I actually acknowledged that here:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

In such cases the change is basically more for the company's own internal record keeping.
Many companies however will notify for even such trivial changes because what counts as substantive can vary from region to region even within a country, much less across countries. So they take a 'better safe than sorry approach'.