Mason LLP v. Steam Yes/No?

[Rabblevox]

I had to do some digging into actual facts. I've been happy with Steam for years. Their Customer Service is 2nd to none, and I love my Steam Deck beyond any reasonableness. I had no reason to go suing Steam/Valve, and had never heard of Mason LLC (fortunately, I've not had to deal with many lawyers).

When they invited me to be part of a class action, I tossed it. Then they invited me again when I was broke. Here's what I found out:

#1: Mason LLP is 100% legit. They've been around a long time, specialize in class action suits, and usually get at least partial wins.
#2: The suit might or not be legit. They are using a shotgun approach, alleging everything from price-gouging, to illegal partnership deals. Some of those claims might be legit. I'm not a lawyer, though I did play Atticus Finch in a HS play.
#3: It's based on your game purchases since 2017 only, no Deck or Dock or other hardware eligible..
#4: You might be eligible for 15-25% refund on your total game purchases. For me, that could be up to $300 bucks someday. I buy a lot of games) I And if you start the sign up, they will total their goal for you instantly.
#5: Why not?

I'll re-iterate I've got no axe with Steam. But lots of good corporations (not an oxymoron) over-charge and need a bit of a public tuning, yeah? And in an era of tightening budgets, it's a chance at some money that has way better odds than a lottery ticket. And Mason LLP is a safe legal firm, they use a legit front-end, beyond identifying your account history, they don't ask for squidgy data.

So why not? Does anyone have a good reason not to join the suit?

[KalGimpa]

Originally posted by Rabblevox:

I had to do some digging into actual facts. I've been happy with Steam for years. Their Customer Service is 2nd to none, and I love my Steam Deck beyond any reasonableness. I had no reason to go suing Steam/Valve, and had never heard of Mason LLC (fortunately, I've not had to deal with many lawyers).

When they invited me to be part of a class action, I tossed it. Then they invited me again when I was broke. Here's what I found out:

#1: Mason LLP is 100% legit. They've been around a long time, specialize in class action suits, and usually get at least partial wins.
#2: The suit might or not be legit. They are using a shotgun approach, alleging everything from price-gouging, to illegal partnership deals. Some of those claims might be legit. I'm not a lawyer, though I did play Atticus Finch in a HS play.
#3: It's based on your game purchases since 2017 only, no Deck or Dock or other hardware eligible..
#4: You might be eligible for 15-25% refund on your total game purchases. For me, that could be up to $300 bucks someday. I buy a lot of games) I And if you start the sign up, they will total their goal for you instantly.
#5: Why not?

I'll re-iterate I've got no axe with Steam. But lots of good corporations (not an oxymoron) over-charge and need a bit of a public tuning, yeah? And in an era of tightening budgets, it's a chance at some money that has way better odds than a lottery ticket. And Mason LLP is a safe legal firm, they use a legit front-end, beyond identifying your account history, they don't ask for squidgy data.

So why not? Does anyone have a good reason not to join the suit?

a judge has already ruled that customers have to sue individually

they cannot join in a class action

it is why zaiger only filed five and attempted to force a settlement for them all

as for whether you should even if there were one

the reasons against it are the fees and costs that get added to whatever payout they agree to

you will wind up with pennies on the dollar

if you really are going to try and sue

your best bet is small claims

i do not think you will win

but it gives you the best odds with the best payout

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Don't say i've confirmed anything you have said,

So you are trying to claim then, that a person giving testimony in a civil case has the power to rule on that case?

Either you are making that claim, or your agreeing with me, its a yes/no question. As I already pointed out the law does not give police the ability to rule on civil cases. That isn't even debatable.

As a police officer you should be well aware of the scope of your job and the fact that you have no authority to make civil decisions. I mean are you honestly claiming that a police officer could walk up to a couple getting divorced and legally decide how the separation of their assets and child custody will proceed?

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Don't say i've confirmed anything you have said,

So you are trying to claim then, that a person giving testimony in a civil case has the power to rule on that case?

Either you are making that claim, or your agreeing with me, its a yes/no question. As I already pointed out the law does not give police the ability to rule on civil cases. That isn't even debatable.

As a police officer you should be well aware of the scope of your job and the fact that you have no authority to make civil decisions. I mean are you honestly claiming that a police officer could walk up to a couple getting divorced and legally decide how the separation of their assets and child custody will proceed?

Actually to a point that would be Civil Litigator, not a civil case. A case situation remains outside of the court and was dealt with on person private resolve where the litigator was resolved in a court so even below the branch of civil laws, there are sub-sections where even the court itself does not get involved and cases do not involve the court as a case is one resolved without issue usually in private and with no criminal charges where the one taken to court is no longer a case, but a civil litigator.

TheMoreYouKnow xD

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Mischievous Sly Succubus:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Half our time, is spent on Civil Cases. Property damage reports is a civil case. A dispute between an owner and customer is a civil case. Landlord Tenant is civil. Accidents. Who falls down and wants to sue the business or city. These are all civil cases sir.

Perhaps google is not your friend?

Allow me to correct you because I had to actually drag out my dusty tome of a law book to correct you. A Civil case is one between one or more people dealing with a situation often related to private property or constitutional rights, state rights or federal rights.

If the CASE is not solved privately and without criminal punishment then it is known as Civil Litigation which, we the court, will take over from you, the law enforcement. The fact here alone that your job as the handler of the case by the federal regulations of a civil handling cannot end in a criminal charge means you do not have the foreknowing of what your preaching, as that is the job of the court of law, not the enforcer.

Even then at best, civil litigation will send you to the Claims courts which is what were dealing with here, the problem is that due to how this all works, one must provide full burden-less proof of a breach of contract, note that a civil litigation DOES NOT INCLUDE MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT with Valve can do

The time required within federal court to fall outside of allowed modification of contract is 6 months, Valve provided a full year, 12 months which not only voids the claim of Modification of contract, this also is where I must do this to you Ranger, and I apologize but as a former member of the court of law here





Your claims against Valve here are wrong. This is an Arbitration claim as stated on their page, Arbitration claims ARE NOT and HAVE NEVER been held in a Civil case nor civil litigation and are ONLY, AND I STRICTLY MEAN ONLY Outside of the traditional court system, meaning that MASS ARBITRATION is entirely 3rd Party Court Regulated.

In summery, no you cannot claim this is a civil case, because in a civil case the level of law used would be handled by State courts, this is not a one that State courts however handle.


The fact alone you would dare bring up claims as a former enforcer or even current enforcer of the law and not know the difference of federal court levels of which the law is used is actually a horrific level of misconduct on your part and is a breach of power. I hope your aware of what that means because I'm not against telling you what a Breach of Power means, even for one who is off duty.

Oh good grief LOL. How about this, instead of spending your time here playing detective with one hand, and COD on the other, maybe go out, and join up. Become a cop. Go to law school.

The only way to know what you're talking about, is to do it. Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case, and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here (though i wish it was true), but i'd have to dwell on that lol.

But one thing i can never say, is that i have heard everything. Even in my years, that will never be the case evidently.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Mischievous Sly Succubus:

Allow me to correct you because I had to actually drag out my dusty tome of a law book to correct you. A Civil case is one between one or more people dealing with a situation often related to private property or constitutional rights, state rights or federal rights.

If the CASE is not solved privately and without criminal punishment then it is known as Civil Litigation which, we the court, will take over from you, the law enforcement. The fact here alone that your job as the handler of the case by the federal regulations of a civil handling cannot end in a criminal charge means you do not have the foreknowing of what your preaching, as that is the job of the court of law, not the enforcer.

Even then at best, civil litigation will send you to the Claims courts which is what were dealing with here, the problem is that due to how this all works, one must provide full burden-less proof of a breach of contract, note that a civil litigation DOES NOT INCLUDE MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT with Valve can do

The time required within federal court to fall outside of allowed modification of contract is 6 months, Valve provided a full year, 12 months which not only voids the claim of Modification of contract, this also is where I must do this to you Ranger, and I apologize but as a former member of the court of law here





Your claims against Valve here are wrong. This is an Arbitration claim as stated on their page, Arbitration claims ARE NOT and HAVE NEVER been held in a Civil case nor civil litigation and are ONLY, AND I STRICTLY MEAN ONLY Outside of the traditional court system, meaning that MASS ARBITRATION is entirely 3rd Party Court Regulated.

In summery, no you cannot claim this is a civil case, because in a civil case the level of law used would be handled by State courts, this is not a one that State courts however handle.


The fact alone you would dare bring up claims as a former enforcer or even current enforcer of the law and not know the difference of federal court levels of which the law is used is actually a horrific level of misconduct on your part and is a breach of power. I hope your aware of what that means because I'm not against telling you what a Breach of Power means, even for one who is off duty.

Oh good grief LOL. How about this, instead of spending your time here playing detective with one hand, and COD on the other, maybe go out, and join up. Become a cop. Go to law school.

The only way to know what you're talking about, is to do it. Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case, and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here (though i wish it was true), but i'd have to dwell on that lol.

But one thing i can never say, is that i have heard everything. Even in my years, that will never be the case evidently.

First of all, I bolded the part in my original post and your post that you did not simply read. Here's a tip, do not try to actually duel someone who holds a graduates degree in criminal law and a Bachelor's degree in criminal justice.

Yes, your right cops handle the CASES as thats outside of the court and the situation was resolved in private, outside of a court civil litigator, you are 100% correct on that but you clearly did not read the rest of my post and continue to assert your authority of power which is still a breach of power.

Edit: Changed my bolding to underline as quote post's with bold are hard to see, apologize

[Crashed]

Is it legal for them to be collecting people's login names?

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Mischievous Sly Succubus:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Oh good grief LOL. How about this, instead of spending your time here playing detective with one hand, and COD on the other, maybe go out, and join up. Become a cop. Go to law school.

The only way to know what you're talking about, is to do it. Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case, and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here (though i wish it was true), but i'd have to dwell on that lol.

But one thing i can never say, is that i have heard everything. Even in my years, that will never be the case evidently.

First of all, I bolded the part in my original post and your post that you did not simply read. Here's a tip, do not try to actually duel someone who holds a graduates degree in criminal law and a Bachelor's degree in criminal justice.

Yes, your right cops handle the CASES as thats outside of the court and the situation was resolved in private, outside of a court civil litigator, you are 100% correct on that but you clearly did not read the rest of my post and continue to assert your authority of power which is still a breach of power.

Well if you take the report, and are called in to testify for the report you've taken, in an accident, in an landlord tenant dispute, in a business matter where you're called to the scene and take a report, in a slip and fall, i mean can go on, in these civil matters, it's kind of common sense, police are involved in civil matters.

And so, however you're gonna spin your way out of it, that's up to you, but again, i'd stick to video gaming if i were you (though your avatar may get some laughs in the locker room). BYE.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Mischievous Sly Succubus:

Allow me to correct you because I had to actually drag out my dusty tome of a law book to correct you. A Civil case is one between one or more people dealing with a situation often related to private property or constitutional rights, state rights or federal rights.

If the CASE is not solved privately and without criminal punishment then it is known as Civil Litigation which, we the court, will take over from you, the law enforcement. The fact here alone that your job as the handler of the case by the federal regulations of a civil handling cannot end in a criminal charge means you do not have the foreknowing of what your preaching, as that is the job of the court of law, not the enforcer.

Even then at best, civil litigation will send you to the Claims courts which is what were dealing with here, the problem is that due to how this all works, one must provide full burden-less proof of a breach of contract, note that a civil litigation DOES NOT INCLUDE MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT with Valve can do

The time required within federal court to fall outside of allowed modification of contract is 6 months, Valve provided a full year, 12 months which not only voids the claim of Modification of contract, this also is where I must do this to you Ranger, and I apologize but as a former member of the court of law here





Your claims against Valve here are wrong. This is an Arbitration claim as stated on their page, Arbitration claims ARE NOT and HAVE NEVER been held in a Civil case nor civil litigation and are ONLY, AND I STRICTLY MEAN ONLY Outside of the traditional court system, meaning that MASS ARBITRATION is entirely 3rd Party Court Regulated.

In summery, no you cannot claim this is a civil case, because in a civil case the level of law used would be handled by State courts, this is not a one that State courts however handle.


The fact alone you would dare bring up claims as a former enforcer or even current enforcer of the law and not know the difference of federal court levels of which the law is used is actually a horrific level of misconduct on your part and is a breach of power. I hope your aware of what that means because I'm not against telling you what a Breach of Power means, even for one who is off duty.

Oh good grief LOL. How about this, instead of spending your time here playing detective with one hand, and COD on the other, maybe go out, and join up. Become a cop. Go to law school.

The only way to know what you're talking about, is to do it. Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case, and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here (though i wish it was true), but i'd have to dwell on that lol.

But one thing i can never say, is that i have heard everything. Even in my years, that will never be the case evidently.

Why would they become a cop to go to law school?

That's like be comming a janitor to become a CEO.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here

Actually it would have the potential to be both criminal (if infractions such as speeding resulted in the accident) and civil. The cops are only allowed to deal with the criminal aspect of the case.

Again as published by actual police - https://www.wbrandywine.org/index.asp?SEC=25F58029-CFD8-4AD9-9087-9CD6D132A7D3&DE=8084E7DF-536C-4B4D-BD41-4380631F181A

Police Officers are responsible to deal with violations of CRIMINAL LAW, not civil law. Here is a basic description of the two:

1) Criminal law is a anything that is an act of CRIMINAL nature. Examples would be burglaries, thefts, sex offenses, DUI's, trespassing, disorderly conduct, harassment, etc..basically anything that is deemed to be a crime under the PA crimes code.

2) Civil law is anything NOT a criminal act. This would be landlord/tenant evictions/disputes, child custody issues, disputes over ownership of property, Person A owes money to person B and they have not paid them back, any breach of contracts, etc...

It's sad that you don't understand the differnce and keep insisting that the police have the authority to rule on breach of contracts, child custody, etc. Fortunately in these cases the law clearly separates those two.

Police do not have the power granted to them from the state to enforce civil law, they enforce CRIMINAL law.

Hence why civil cases cannot result in jail time unless someone disobeys the court's ruling. Its really sad that people don't understand the basic separation of power in the US between Criminal and Civil courts...

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

it's kind of common sense, police are involved in civil matters.

No one has said police can't be involved. ANYONE can be involved in a civil case. What the police don't have is any authority in the civil case. They have no more power then any other random citizen being called in to provide testimony or evidence.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Mischievous Sly Succubus:

First of all, I bolded the part in my original post and your post that you did not simply read. Here's a tip, do not try to actually duel someone who holds a graduates degree in criminal law and a Bachelor's degree in criminal justice.

Yes, your right cops handle the CASES as thats outside of the court and the situation was resolved in private, outside of a court civil litigator, you are 100% correct on that but you clearly did not read the rest of my post and continue to assert your authority of power which is still a breach of power.

Well if you take the report, and are called in to testify for the report you've taken, in an accident, in an landlord tenant dispute, in a business matter where you're called to the scene and take a report, in a slip and fall, i mean can go on, in these civil matters, it's kind of common sense, police are involved in civil matters.

And so, however you're gonna spin your way out of it, that's up to you, but again, i'd stick to video gaming if i were you (though your avatar may get some laughs in the locker room). BYE.

Oh it 100% does get laughs but hey I take them in stride, being insulted is a common thing and honestly you grow to ignore it at this stage, especially one of rank, the law, the court, military or other jobs that often get hefty backlash.

I'm not dishing hate out on you Ranger, you should be aware of the fact that I'm not even saying this to goat you but its one of those situations where my collage mood kicks in, I drag a book out and go to town on the basics which I imagine you've done before.

Regardless, to avoid a total derailment of the topic I'll take the high road and hope you will as well and apologize for having insulted you if you feel that I have and apologize for attacking you personally if you also feel that I have, that was not my intention but it seems the conversation we held was heading in that direction.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Crashed:

Is it legal for them to be collecting people's login names?

No real law against it especially if willingly given.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by Crashed:

Is it legal for them to be collecting people's login names?

No real law against it especially if willingly given.

Exactly, at the end of the day, evidence is evidence, it may be simple log in names, avatars of profiles or an assortment of other random things but it all can actually be tried and used in court, there was a court case a while ago, I forgot most of the details where the law used a freaking avatar of pepe the frog wearing a ski mask as proof of violence on the internet, and as far as I know that case never went anywhere because the court called it "The Grinch wearing Thief Clothing and holding a gun" then were told what the heck Pepe the Frog is and from there it derailed...

I swear it was like a case of violence on the internet that started over some old people being mad at the first existing memes.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Oh good grief LOL. How about this, instead of spending your time here playing detective with one hand, and COD on the other, maybe go out, and join up. Become a cop. Go to law school.

The only way to know what you're talking about, is to do it. Otherwise, simply put, a mere accident case is a civil case, and to hear cops cant handle civil cases, may be the most ridiculous i've heard here (though i wish it was true), but i'd have to dwell on that lol.

But one thing i can never say, is that i have heard everything. Even in my years, that will never be the case evidently.

Why would they become a cop to go to law school?

That's like be comming a janitor to become a CEO.

Not all Lawyers are that successful at all. In fact i know a Sergeant that led up the Peddler Task Force on a precinct level, that became some hot shot Security honcho at Nike or one of those companies back when. And we didn't even need college back then.

He made more money than any lawyer i know. But some police departments will help pay for college, if you want to get into the legal profession.

[bonkmaykr]

Originally posted by Kargor:

What exactly are they even baiting with when it comes to the lawsuit?

Are they just like "Valve has a lot of money, we are lawyers, and we'll just attack them until something comes out", or do they have an actual case?

Keep in mind, I'm not in the US. In most western-ish countries, you can't just sue a company for things like "I think your prices are too high, give me something back".

However, lawyers generally aren't particularly social -- they want to be paid for their services. In fact, in any lawsuit, there is one guaranteed winner: the lawyers.

Did you even read the details of the case...?

It's an antitrust lawsuit, specifically related to Valve's pricing policies and how they hurt competing launchers and make it harder for them to thrive in an ecosystem where Steam takes over the majority marketshare.

As gamers we all know the real reason we all use Steam is because it's just that good, most the other launchers are lacking or... unstable *cough EA*. But in the eyes of the law that doesn't matter. Even if Steam earned it's stranglehold of the industry fairly, without any dirty tricks like what Microsoft would have done, the fact it prevents sellers on its platform from having lower prices on the Epic Games Store to compensate for Steam's higher fees is inherently anticompetitive. You either follow Valve's rules or you miss out on the biggest opportunity to reach your customers.

Originally posted by Crashed:

Is it legal for them to be collecting people's login names?

You give it to them voluntarily so you consent to doing so.

It's not like they're asking for passwords. Your login name is something you can remember, but can't change. Your display name isn't unique and can change to anything at any time. Not everyone knows what a SteamID is and would probably screw up that step. Asking for the account name seems like the most frictionless approach to me, and there's nothing in US or Canadian law that says you can't give someone your login credentials (it's just a matter of if you SHOULD).

The Steam Subscriber Agreement does say however that you are not allowed to share accounts. You are allowed to share a computer with one account, hence family sharing, but that's it. Technically if you've ever game shared with a friend you don't live with you've broken the ToS but Valve doesn't really care that much. The key here is that Valve specifically mentions giving access to your account: a username is not enough to just log into your Steam account by itself.

As for Mason LLP, I trust them. If you don't, agree to disagree. we'll both get to see what happens to me in the end