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.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Except you do understand that similar clauses are standard?

as in they are part of the the boilerplate/template. IT's something you literally have to remove from a contract.
FYI GoG also has the same SSA clauses.

yup.

[davidb11]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Iron Knights:

I kept saying that Steam keeping you away from your games via the App. is Illegal.
It was NEVER about DRM, but taking away your Ownership of the game.
Valve & Steam discusses the purchase you make as "The Product" not "The License" or "Lease", thus you own a Product that Valve controls your usage of and can shut you out from it, any which way they please now. That's Legalized THEFT. Go hire a million dollar Lawyer Team to get your $60.00 back. Makes sense now ?

Why are you making up silly claims?
THis is literally removing an annoyance that forced you to travel thousands of miles to bring up a case for Binding Arbitration.
It's nonsensical to claim anything about this is theft.

And you haven't even owned a game you bought since like 1998. LOL.

[D_sol]

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Almost.

By accpeting the new terms, continuing to use the service, it means FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS you can only work on the new terms. So no legal action for old terms from that point.

But you can still carry on with ongoing legal action if you've started it.

The point is that you had an issue WHEN it occurredm, under conditions THEN. You can still continue with that, even if you accept the new. You just can't obviously bring anew.

Think I misread this before, so what you're saying is so as long as you don't accept the new terms, they won't apply retroactively? Like it says in Section 10 in the support message, unless I'm just reading it wrong (obviously I'm not an expert, so it's a real possibility)?:

"You and Valve agree that all disputes and claims between you and Valve (including any dispute or claim that arose before the existence of this or any prior agreement) shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction."

Which sounded really strange, and prompted my strange question.

Oprindeligt skrevet af D_sol:

Probably a dumb question, but: If Valve can just retroactively change the terms of service during ongoing legal action like this (and apply them to said ongoing legal action)... What is to stop them from simply reversing the terms back and forth between forcing binding arbitration and forcing court cases endlessly?

1. Continually change the terms of service.
   
2. Make sure the terms apply retroactively.
   
3. Profit!

Also I keep seeing it claimed that people have to delete their Steam accounts in order to opt out of the change, like below:

Oprindeligt skrevet af omegakiller:

A lot of you are discussing whether or not arbitration is good or not but I've not seen anyone mention that if someone decides they do not agree to the updated SSA but did agree to the previous SSA they must delete their account before the deadline or will be considered to have agreed to the new SSA. So all 75,000+ people currently with open arbitration cases will have to delete their accounts to continue with arbitration..

But the support message says to delete or just stop using the account:

"This updated Steam Subscriber Agreement will become effective immediately when you accept it, including by agreeing to the Updated Steam Subscriber Agreement below, or when you make most purchases, fund your Steam wallet, or otherwise agree to it. Otherwise, the updated Steam Subscriber Agreement will become effective on November 1, 2024, unless you delete or discontinue use of your Steam account prior to this date."

So I guess there's that. (Probably?) Maybe once everything is all over people can simply go back to their accounts. Some day, in the potentially very distant future.

Ultimately, despite all the strangeness (and questionable motivations), I definitely think it's a good thing for Steam to be getting rid of arbitration though going forward.

(Edited due to my own misreading.)

[davidb11]

If you continue to use Steam, you AUTOMATICALLY AGREE to the new SSA.
Period.
No exceptions.

[Doctor Zalgo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af D_sol:

Probably a dumb question, but: If Valve can just retroactively change the terms of service during ongoing legal action like this (and apply them to said ongoing legal action)... What is to stop them from simply reversing the terms back and forth between forcing binding arbitration and forcing court cases endlessly?

Judges love it when corporations think they've found 'one weird trick' to avoid judicial oversight. It's the judicial equivalent of a cop pulling out their taser when they see a sovereign citizen.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Doctor Zalgo:

Oprindeligt skrevet af D_sol:

Probably a dumb question, but: If Valve can just retroactively change the terms of service during ongoing legal action like this (and apply them to said ongoing legal action)... What is to stop them from simply reversing the terms back and forth between forcing binding arbitration and forcing court cases endlessly?

Judges love it when corporations think they've found 'one weird trick' to avoid judicial oversight. It's the judicial equivalent of a cop pulling out their taser when they see a sovereign citizen.

That's not a bad analogy.

It always mamazes me when I see sovereign citizens think they've found some magic words or special loophole to get round being arrested, and of course the police and the courts have seen it all before.

The fact that when EA pushed this in their terms and we spoke of it on these forums and I pointed out that it was illegal here in Britain, I also opined that this will end up with them getting burned as it's going to bite them in the arse, I never realised just how easy it was.

It does show how idiotic big corporations and how greed has added to their stupidity.

[Iron Knights]

Legally, ordering someone to forfeit their property is called ROBBERY.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Iron Knights:

Legally, ordering someone to forfeit their property is called ROBBERY.

If that's the case.

But it isn't here because you AGREED to those terms at the point of downloading and the point of pruchase.

It CANNOT be theft if you agreed to it. Again this is not new, not unique and common in service contracts.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Iron Knights:

Legally, ordering someone to forfeit their property is called ROBBERY.

Not if the choices are entirely voluntary on the person's part. People for example, leave a rental with a tonne of furniture still inside.

[Realigo Actual]

We're all just shareholders

in a tiny bit of Gaben

[Doctor Zalgo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Iron Knights:

Legally, ordering someone to forfeit their property is called ROBBERY.

They're not ordering you to forfeit anything. The games are waiting for you as soon as you accept the new agreement. They're allowed to define the situations under which you can access their service and you're allowed to vote with your wallet.

[Jakob Fel]

Forced arbitration is almost never in the favor of the customer. It's almost always in favor of the corporation. So, by complaining about this, you're literally complaining about having a better legal setup for yourself as a customer. Calling this extortion is absolutely and unnecessarily dramatic.

[Ganger]

Im sure your 7th Amendment overrides all Eula's or ToS or contracts when it comes to this sort of thing. Again, I could be totally wrong as im not a american.

[veracsthane]

Oprindeligt skrevet af 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.

its also why i say people dont need to think about it too much. most tos/ula are garbage at best these days and if they ever goto court over something serious or not it will change.

as for the pin comment.

south park. the human centipeid. contract law doesnt give a ♥♥♥♥ about what the companies try to force agreements too. once they bastardize it might as well burn the courts down and wash your hands of the issue hints why ip contract and consumer protection laws will be adjusted in the near future to prevent that.

[veracsthane]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ganger:

Im sure your 7th Amendment overrides all Eula's or ToS or contracts when it comes to this sort of thing. Again, I could be totally wrong as im not a american.

most of the bill of rights only sees lip service these day. they will probably make something up syaing like 20 dollars from teh countries founding is 10000 now so it doesnt apply to 60 dollar games.

legal issues are bs and self defense starts at 80-100k pending the issue.