The New SSA is an extortion.

[Steve]

With the way the SSA update is worded, it implies you are either no longer able to join the mass arbitrage, or barred from accessing the games you paid for.

[Kiryn]

The new SSA is an opportunity for The Usual Crowd to post a new array of "Steam Panic" threads.

[Brian9824]

It does indeed mean you can't go to arbitration and companies that try to extort steam via threats can't do so. It however actually makes things more flexible for users and gives them more rights including a right to trial by their peers for complaints.

It also allows class action lawsuits which is the equivalent of the arbitration they are putting a stop to, and would be financially more sound for everyone involved.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Kiryn:

The new SSA is an opportunity for The Usual Crowd to post a new array of "Steam Panic" threads.

The new SSA is an opportunity for the Bootlickers to kiss GabeN's feet again.

[Thermal Lance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g

[Steve]

Originally posted by Brian9824:

It does indeed mean you can't go to arbitration and companies that try to extort steam via threats can't do so. It however actually makes things more flexible for users and gives them more rights including a right to trial by their peers for complaints.

It also allows class action lawsuits which is the equivalent of the arbitration they are putting a stop to, and would be financially more sound for everyone involved.

Yes and no, but specifically it's going to reduce costs in the long run from mass arbitrage on the part of Valve. That said, I don't know how it affects the Milberg firm's class action, let alone Zaiger's mass arbitrage campaign.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Animal Control:

Originally posted by Brian9824:

It does indeed mean you can't go to arbitration and companies that try to extort steam via threats can't do so. It however actually makes things more flexible for users and gives them more rights including a right to trial by their peers for complaints.

It also allows class action lawsuits which is the equivalent of the arbitration they are putting a stop to, and would be financially more sound for everyone involved.

Yes and no, but specifically it's going to reduce costs in the long run from mass arbitrage on the part of Valve. That said, I don't know how it affects the Milberg firm's class action, let alone Zaiger's mass arbitrage campaign.

There currently is no class action. Bother are arbitration cases.

They will stay as such because they were filed under the old ToS.

[Haruspex]

It's an adjustment due to Zaiger's frivolous lawsuit getting dismissed[casetext.com]. The new terms drop some of all of the arbitration rules in the previous TOS.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Animal Control:

With the way the SSA update is worded, it implies you are either no longer able to join the mass arbitrage, or barred from accessing the games you paid for.

Literally isn't extortion. Very minor change. Likely due to frivolous time wasting individuals.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Animal Control:

With the way the SSA update is worded, it implies you are either no longer able to join the mass arbitrage, or barred from accessing the games you paid for.

Literally isn't extortion. Very minor change. Likely due to frivolous time wasting individuals.

Yeah, it closed a loophole that ambulance chasers like Zaiger can use. Valve would rather settle individual complaints in court.

[Brian9824]

Ironically enough arbitration favors the business more then lawsuits, so its huge win for customers

[crunchyfrog]

You have it completely wrong. They're scrapping the mass arbitrage thing and reversing that nonsense as I understand it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read it yet.

And furthermore, no, if it were half as draconian as you claim not only would people be up in arms, but they'd be instantly sued.

Isn't it more likely you've read it wrong?

[Wolfpig]

Originally posted by Brian9824:

Ironically enough arbitration favors the business more then lawsuits, so its huge win for customers

The little News they posted reads so too as it would benefit users which go that way more, as especially court rulings would give a clear line for others too.

But that change probably only affects people in the US either way, and not the majority of steam users.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

You have it completely wrong. They're scrapping the mass arbitrage thing and reversing that nonsense as I understand it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read it yet.

And furthermore, no, if it were half as draconian as you claim not only would people be up in arms, but they'd be instantly sued.

Isn't it more likely you've read it wrong?

It's what happens when people listen to clickbait/ragebait youtubers that'll manufacture anything so people share their videos to be the source of artificial panic, rather than actually reading the changes.

[SolidSonicMania]

When I read the new agreement to me it sounded like nothing but a win for consumers. Companies saying "no, you CANNOT go to court, you have to go into arbitration if you have a dispute with us," is a terrible situation for consumers because due process isn't considered in such a scenario and oftentimes the arbitrator has a prior relationship with the company, meaning the deck is stacked.

Removing that clause and saying you need to go to court to serve Valve with a formal complaint means that the playing field is (at least in theory) now even and Valve must be prepared to argue their case as much as the plaintiff. Rescinding the class action waiver is likewise positive (and usually why arbitration clauses exist in the first place). A company walking such things back is a rare sight, especially in the US.

Arbitration clauses are a blight on consumer rights the way US corporations employ them, even if I personally think from a purely conceptual perspective they do have a time and place to be enforced. Individual consumers being held to an arbitration clause has almost never been a good option and those situations are the ones I wish the government would be more firm about dealing with.

If you want to see the frustrating effects of an arbitration clause in action just look up the LG fridge debacle from earlier this year. LG sells a faulty product that is demonstrably and consistently faulty but when customers are like "I think we deserve to sue and either get refunds or force a recall," LG pointed them to the arbitration clause they "agreed" to by opening the box. So your consumer rights don't mean anything, the company stole them from you when you decided to do business with them, which is a "great" relationship to have with people who willingly spent money on your stuff.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by SolidSonicMania:

When I read the new agreement to me it sounded like nothing but a win for consumers. Companies saying "no, you CANNOT go to court, you have to go into arbitration if you have a dispute with us," is a terrible situation for consumers because due process isn't considered in such a scenario and oftentimes the arbitrator has a prior relationship with the company, meaning the deck is stacked.

Removing that clause and saying you need to go to court if you need to serve Valve with a formal complaint means that the playing field is (at least in theory) now even and Valve must be prepared to argue their case as much as the plaintiff. Rescinding the class action waiver is likewise positive (and usually why arbitration clauses exist in the first place).

Arbitration clauses are a blight on consumer rights the way US corporations employ them, even if I personally think from a purely conceptual perspective they do have a time and place to be enforced. Individual consumers being held to an arbitration clause has almost never been a good option and those situations are the ones I wish the government would be more firm about dealing with.

Thank you for actually reading and taking the time to do basic research. You are correct. This ends up being far better for consumers then the previous system. It also doesn't change much for many people as Arbitration was already not allowed in several countries, so it makes the rules more consistent as well.