Why you shouldn't be worried (very much the oppisite).

[Jonthefuzz]

Okay so what the agreements is basically saying that if you have a problem legally with steam you have to go though the court system to remedy it. This is far superior to what other companies are doing atm with forced arbitration where you have to agree not sue and only go through with arbitrators the company has hired (taking away your rights). what valve has done is the opposite of this saying skip arbitration and sue us in the far more fair court system. This is a pro consumer move by valve giving you the right to sue them in court and to join a class action against them.

[Hulkachan]

Zelhart eredeti hozzászólása:

Yea, so im deleting ahead of it, i dont trust this is all this is for. Them saying everything assiciated with your steam account is now under washington dc juristiction, no mater where you are in the world.. seems sus.

I haven't agreed to it yet, seems fishy.

[Nuriyokan]

OH my god dude thank you for explaining this to me ..." .IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM LEGALLY "
I was so confused and thought they were forcing millions of people to show up in court . I have no idea what I'm agreeing to or not agreeing to and i don't have money for a lawyer . I honestly thought they were trying to force all of us to go to court and if we didn't show up and sign some agreement we'd go to jail or something . This message had me freaking out .

[Bad Microsoft, bad!]

Why you shouldn't be worried (very much the oppisite).

You have to put things into context. If the world's newest and craziest dictator sent me a note of admiration and invited me to party, I'd worry.

When Steam voluntarily throws away arbitration, historically one of the favorite tools for big companies to use against consumer, you should worry.

[battlezoby]

Larry The cable guy eredeti hozzászólása:

Tito Shivan eredeti hozzászólása:

That part has been there since almost day one

Dont listen to Tito. He is a federal agent and is trying to trick you

Tito is LITERALLY a former Steam moderator. Not sure which is more suspicious.

[Arathian]

An explanation of the matter by an actual lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-0jSV1pVFs&t=8s

[veracsthane]

Lee eredeti hozzászólása:

I am sorry, but what agreement? I do not see anything on my profile, an email from Steam, in the client app, etc. Are you from Europe?

you have an account alert if you are an american you should have seen it and it is yellow to the left of the bell. it also mostly means nothing to most of us.

its literally just the leftest coast democrats being a pain in the ass agian.

i personally dont agree with people saying this is a good thing and califronia did something right because in 2024 califronia is always doing something wrong and its just a matter of time until we figure out what it is.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Haruspex eredeti hozzászólása:

Jonthefuzz eredeti hozzászólása:

Oh so they changed it because once again someone was trying to abuse a system valve put in place for a get rich quick scheme.

Exactly.

xBCxRangers eredeti hozzászólása:

That's on Valve. They got beat at their own game. Next time, put consumers first.

So the lawsuit you were all excited about gets dismissed. Valve won, changed their TOS in a pro-consumer move that also closed a loophole those ambulance chasers were trying to use for a payday, and you somehow mentally twist it around into a Valve loss in your eyes?

Your BFF Xbox/Microsoft still has forced arbitration clauses in place.
Your favorite streaming service GeForce Now has forced arbitration clauses in place.
Playstation has forced arbitration.
Nintendo has forced arbitration.
Epic Games has forced arbitration.

How is Valve the bad guy here?

Valve lost their lawsuit against Zaiger, which is why they changed the Terms of Service so Valve wouldn't have to pay for all of those arbitrations fees, Valve didn't make this change to be more pro-consumer, Valve only made this change to protect their own bank account, if they didn't lose against Zaiger they would not have made this change at all. What is interesting is that the lawyers first tried to do a class action lawsuit against Valve for the consumer class, and Valve are the ones that got the Consumer class dismissed saying that the consumer class has to go through Arbitration instead, and so the lawyers were "alright that is what we are going to do", so those lawyers did exactly what Valve argued in court the consumers needed to do. And given the recent evidence, what complaint of the consumer class against Valve is very much valid and is no where close to being "ambulance chasing" because Valve did in fact use contracts, threats, and actions to prevent pricing competition between Steam and other PC stores including other PC stores that didn't even sell Steam keys.

by the way Epic's is actually more consumer friendly than Valve's is.

With Epic, consumer can sue in small claims, and the user can choose their own county for jurisdiction and venue. Valve's is anti-consumer because the lawsuit can only be King County Washington as jurisdiction and venue. Putting a huge financial barrier and burden on the average consumer since that consumer will have to travel to Washington state, paying for the travel and accommodations to show up in court on top of the fees.

With Epic, arbitration paid for by Epic is still an option, which is a good option for consumers who cannot afford to pay legal fees for court. With Steam no such option exists.

With Epic there is a path for class action lawsuit after a process dealing with mass arbitration situations and things are not agreed upon between Epic and mass arbitration representative.

[Gaming Inpatient]

It's not that consumer friendly when you will need to show up in person in King County, Washington State to dispute a ~$60 video game.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Gaming Inpatient eredeti hozzászólása:

It's not that consumer friendly when you will need to show up in person in King County, Washington State to dispute a ~$60 video game.

and because people are going to tell you that you are wrong, lets look at the exact wording of the agreement:

shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction. You and Valve hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and waive any objections as to personal jurisdiction or venue in such courts.

That very clearly states that the jurisdiction and VENUE are exclusively in King County Washington and the user waives all rights to any other venue, meaning the court hearing can only be done in King County Washington. Washington state also does not allow outside representation in small claims court ($10,000 and below, which the average consumer is going to fit in), so that means the consumer has to show up in Washington state for the court hearing.

[Jonthefuzz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f81qXxggo8

[Bad Microsoft, bad!]

Arathian eredeti hozzászólása:

An explanation of the matter by an actual lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-0jSV1pVFs&t=8s

Did you watch this before posting?

Aside from some inappropriate mockery of at least one country, the guy does very little other than just read what it say outloud. Doesn't really matter if he's a lawyer or not because he really didn't say much.

[Bad Microsoft, bad!]

Purple eredeti hozzászólása:

Washington state also does not allow outside representation in small claims court ($10,000 and below, which the average consumer is going to fit in), so that means the consumer has to show up in Washington state for the court hearing.

I've heard that a Washington State law says that the court has to trust the word of a self-represented individual as much as the word of a lawyer.

That's actually a nice sentiment that other states don't seem to share. (But good luck enforcing it.)

[awkwardpaws]

The net effect here is taking away the right to make a claim in your local small claims court, where it is cheapest for you and typically where claims at the level of, say, the value of a Steam account are taken.

Instead, you can pay for a flight, room and board, and time off of work to go represent yourself in Washington's small claims court, or find and pay a lawyer in the state of Washington (which someone here claims the court there does not allow).

The extra friction they add for customers here effectively gets them out of dealing disputes less than the $6k-$10k range that falls within typical small claims limits by making it HARDER and MORE EXPENSIVE for you to make a claim.

However, this is supposed to DISCOURAGE you from making the claim in your local court in the first place. It only stops you if you don't contest it, or I suppose, if you are a new customer after today.

You can still file in your local claims court and when they try to get it dismissed, you can argue the validity of the agreement.

The way to do this:
* Inform Steam Support that you don't believe this agreement will hold up in court, and that you feel you're agreeing to this under DURESS in order to maintain access to your decades worth of Steam games
* Make a record of this communication, save it with your other docs in case you need it someday.

This way, if you do have to make a claim and they submit the agreement as a reason to dismiss, you can submit your communication to them as an indicator that you only agreed under threat of financial loss and Steam knows it.


....actually, if you could use the full value (up to local small claims limit) of your Steam library that you no longer use anymore, this is a GREAT time to file a small claims case in YOUR LOCAL COURT, representing yourself, and claiming that Steam revoking your access to the library due to this mandatory update to their terms of service, means that Steam needs to pay you out for your lost library.

Then go buy your games again on GoG.

[Brian9824]

awkwardpaws eredeti hozzászólása:

The net effect here is taking away the right to make a claim in your local small claims court, where it is cheapest for you and typically where claims at the level of, say, the value of a Steam account are taken.

Actually the exact opposite, the mandatory arbitration clause prevented small claims court and required you to go thru arbitration. This was removed so now you can indeed file a claim in small claims court.

This is why people need to have a basic grasp of what they are reading/claiming.

[awkwardpaws]

Brian9824 eredeti hozzászólása:

awkwardpaws eredeti hozzászólása:

The net effect here is taking away the right to make a claim in your local small claims court, where it is cheapest for you and typically where claims at the level of, say, the value of a Steam account are taken.

Actually the exact opposite, the mandatory arbitration clause prevented small claims court and required you to go thru arbitration. This was removed so now you can indeed file a claim in small claims court.

This is why people need to have a basic grasp of what they are reading/claiming.

You seem to still misunderstand. Taking away forced arbitration is one effect, yes. The OTHER clause which will take effect is limiting WHICH small claims court you can file in. THAT is the problem I am referring to here.