It's the opposite, there's a law passed in 1925 that states that arbitration clauses are fully legal and enforceable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
It's the opposite, there's a law passed in 1925 that states that arbitration clauses are fully legal and enforceable.
Right!? How insane is it that by employing a team of “legal experts”, they can craft a document that basically allows them to set the rules of the system in their favor!? It’s mind boggling that...
Right!? How insane is it that by employing a team of “legal experts”, they can craft a document that basically allows them to set the rules of the system in their favor!? It’s mind boggling that we live in a world where this is legal, where the people working on this think that they are doing something “normal”. I mean, if I was any of the folks at Nintendo who prepared this update to the agreement, then I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. I wouldn’t be able to sleep knowing that I completely screwed over every customer with a Nintendo account. 99% of their customers are not going to read this document and opt out of the agreement. This is deeply and obviously evil what they are doing. Every normal person can see that.
This is something that needs to be pushed by the states first, I think. California or NY ha strong consumer laws, maybe start to bother your local politicians in these states to introduce...
This is something that needs to be pushed by the states first, I think. California or NY ha strong consumer laws, maybe start to bother your local politicians in these states to introduce anti-arbitration legislation. (It's something I've already been hounding my state reps to do for a while in CA).
Satan to Nintendo: “Well, I just wanna say, I’m a huge fan.” Wow. This company has completely lost the plot. This is basically forced arbitration. I think this deserves a boycott. I’m talking: No...
Satan to Nintendo: “Well, I just wanna say, I’m a huge fan.”
Wow. This company has completely lost the plot. This is basically forced arbitration.
I think this deserves a boycott. I’m talking: No buying anything Nintendo. No software, no hardware, no merchandise, no media. Forever.
Edit:
I wonder if this has something to do with the launch of the Switch 2. Could they be afraid of another situation like what happened with the Joy-Con stick drift issue? Is so, then I’m afraid that they haven’t made enough of an effort to improve the hardware, and those things are going to deteriorate like they do now.
Good luck gaming without forced arbitration. Steam had forced arbitration until recently. They basically decided people are less likely to sue than pursue arbitration, so it would be cheaper to...
Good luck gaming without forced arbitration.
Steam had forced arbitration until recently. They basically decided people are less likely to sue than pursue arbitration, so it would be cheaper to not. A good chunk of the individual games you buy will have a EULA that may have an arbitration clause as well.
Fun fact on why they changed it: they had this grace where they would cover some amount of the arbitration themselves. Lawyers noted this and launched a mass arbitration. regardless of the...
Steam had forced arbitration until recently
Fun fact on why they changed it: they had this grace where they would cover some amount of the arbitration themselves. Lawyers noted this and launched a mass arbitration. regardless of the results, this would have costed Valve millions.
So in October they forced everyone to update their ToS to switch to "okay you can launch class actions".
Emphasis mine. Look, IANAL, nor am I much good at interpreting these things as they'd play out in the real world. But this reads to me like they can't sue a customer for doing something like...
PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES YOU AND NINTENDO TO ARBITRATE CERTAIN DISPUTES AND CLAIMS AND LIMITS THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU AND NINTENDO CAN SEEK RELIEF FROM EACH OTHER. THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION PRECLUDES YOU AND NINTENDO FROM SUING IN COURT, HAVING A TRIAL BY JURY, OR PARTICIPATING IN A CLASS ACTION. YOU AND NINTENDO AGREE THAT ARBITRATION WILL BE SOLELY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT AS A CLASS ARBITRATION, CLASS ACTION, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING. YOU AND NINTENDO ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY A JURY.
Emphasis mine.
Look, IANAL, nor am I much good at interpreting these things as they'd play out in the real world. But this reads to me like they can't sue a customer for doing something like piracy or emulation, but it seems obvious to me Nintendo wouldn't make an agreement hamstringing their ability to be litigious against consumers. So what am I missing, does some subsection say they can actually sue you?
I also thought these clauses were losing popularity with the rise of capitalists exploiting mass arbitrations for monetary gain, has that practice lost steam?
The part you quoted "REQUIRES YOU AND NINTENDO TO ARBITRATE CERTAIN DISPUTES AND CLAIMS," and later on in part D of section 16 it exempts various things from arbitration, including protection of...
The part you quoted "REQUIRES YOU AND NINTENDO TO ARBITRATE CERTAIN DISPUTES AND CLAIMS," and later on in part D of section 16 it exempts various things from arbitration, including protection of intellectual property.
d. Claims Subject to Binding Arbitration; Exceptions. Except for Claims (i) in which a party is attempting to protect its intellectual property rights (such as its patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, anti-circumvention, or moral rights, but not including its privacy or publicity rights)
That's all the proof I need to see that binding arbitration is bullshit only intended to benefit the larger party with the most money. Which is why they're really keen to kill class action suits.
That's all the proof I need to see that binding arbitration is bullshit only intended to benefit the larger party with the most money.
Which is why they're really keen to kill class action suits.
well of course, the house always wins. Forced arbitiration only works better for you if you're motivated and willing to take a legal case, and that preparation is prohobitively expensive for the...
well of course, the house always wins. Forced arbitiration only works better for you if you're motivated and willing to take a legal case, and that preparation is prohobitively expensive for the average individual. Meanwhile, class actions are launched by firms and they only need to essentially petition for users while they do the work they specialize in.
TBH an awful lot of Tildes is former Reddit users/mods, so I'm honestly more surprised to see someone encountering IANAL for the first time. Always one of the 10,000 though.
TBH an awful lot of Tildes is former Reddit users/mods, so I'm honestly more surprised to see someone encountering IANAL for the first time.
I still can't believe that it caught on. People write long, in-depth comments that start with IANAL like it's completely normal and I'm just here like "Bro???"
I still can't believe that it caught on. People write long, in-depth comments that start with IANAL like it's completely normal and I'm just here like "Bro???"
Is it really a surprise it caught on? IANAL being inappropriate sounding and funny is precisely why I have occasionally prefaced my own comments with it when relevant, like when I was giving...
Is it really a surprise it caught on? IANAL being inappropriate sounding and funny is precisely why I have occasionally prefaced my own comments with it when relevant, like when I was giving advice where a lawyer would probably be the better person to ask. And I doubt I am alone in that.
Seems like they were just paving the way for this: Nintendo reserves the right to brick your console following "unauthorised use", in bid to prevent piracy
Arbitration (.. which feels "forced" in terms of it being common in many company-consumer relationships at this point, making it hard to avoid ..), at least in the US, essentially acts as a way to...
Arbitration (.. which feels "forced" in terms of it being common in many company-consumer relationships at this point, making it hard to avoid ..), at least in the US, essentially acts as a way to usurp the legal system in favor of a separate system that is often favorable to companies / those that write the agreements requiring arbitration while often pretending to appear impartial.
It seems a far shot from its original intent, and while one can technically argue supposed positives and negatives of it, in terms of contract arbitration being foisted upon consumers in user agreements it leans negative, and at least one arbitration group was so proven to be biased towards companies, it had to cease arbitrating, and other groups, at least one, have been asked to stop for the same reasons.
Among many other flaws in the idea/process, an arbiting group's business that survives on being an arbitrator for a particular company is automatically incentivized to rule in that company's favor for continued business.
Congress has attempted to restrict/appeal/muzzle it via the FAIR Act multiple times, especially given SCOTUS' rulings that often land in favor of the corporate, and has never succeeded in getting anything passed. Majority of Repubs do not support repeal/etc (under the guise of being pro-business, of course, at the expense of consumers, which they are okay with) and thus it continuously gets stalled or not passed.
It's one of those things where, if it could be restricted to not preclude someone's ability to still sue, and if there was some mandated / highly regulated way of providing actual impartial arbitrators, there are ways it could make sense to avoid going to the legal system for certain dispute resolution, but to me it feels like one of those things that kinda seems like a good idea at face value/on paper, but often in execution is corrupted by money/power/etc like everything else, and the consumer loses yet again
I feel like we need some legislation that basically says "you always have the right to sue using the legal system. You cannot waive this right."
It's the opposite, there's a law passed in 1925 that states that arbitration clauses are fully legal and enforceable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
Right!? How insane is it that by employing a team of “legal experts”, they can craft a document that basically allows them to set the rules of the system in their favor!? It’s mind boggling that we live in a world where this is legal, where the people working on this think that they are doing something “normal”. I mean, if I was any of the folks at Nintendo who prepared this update to the agreement, then I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. I wouldn’t be able to sleep knowing that I completely screwed over every customer with a Nintendo account. 99% of their customers are not going to read this document and opt out of the agreement. This is deeply and obviously evil what they are doing. Every normal person can see that.
This is something that needs to be pushed by the states first, I think. California or NY ha strong consumer laws, maybe start to bother your local politicians in these states to introduce anti-arbitration legislation. (It's something I've already been hounding my state reps to do for a while in CA).
I think CA did, couple years ago they did something that nullified employment non disclosure agreements or something like that. I forget the details.
Satan to Nintendo: “Well, I just wanna say, I’m a huge fan.”
Wow. This company has completely lost the plot. This is basically forced arbitration.
I think this deserves a boycott. I’m talking: No buying anything Nintendo. No software, no hardware, no merchandise, no media. Forever.
Edit:
I wonder if this has something to do with the launch of the Switch 2. Could they be afraid of another situation like what happened with the Joy-Con stick drift issue? Is so, then I’m afraid that they haven’t made enough of an effort to improve the hardware, and those things are going to deteriorate like they do now.
Good luck gaming without forced arbitration.
Steam had forced arbitration until recently. They basically decided people are less likely to sue than pursue arbitration, so it would be cheaper to not. A good chunk of the individual games you buy will have a EULA that may have an arbitration clause as well.
Microsoft's overall services agreement, which applies to all Xbox services (Store, Live, Game Pass, Cloud Streaming, etc.) has binding arbitration for US residents. The Windows terms are separate, but also include a similar clause, last I checked.
The PSN terms also have a binding arbitration clause.
Arbitration clauses are pretty much the norm in any software product or ongoing service in the US.
Piracy is available as a heckler's veto.
I guess. But if you pirate you lose out on any ability to join in a class action anyway.
Sure, but it's moot anyway, you got the thing for free.
Fun fact on why they changed it: they had this grace where they would cover some amount of the arbitration themselves. Lawyers noted this and launched a mass arbitration. regardless of the results, this would have costed Valve millions.
So in October they forced everyone to update their ToS to switch to "okay you can launch class actions".
Emphasis mine.
Look, IANAL, nor am I much good at interpreting these things as they'd play out in the real world. But this reads to me like they can't sue a customer for doing something like piracy or emulation, but it seems obvious to me Nintendo wouldn't make an agreement hamstringing their ability to be litigious against consumers. So what am I missing, does some subsection say they can actually sue you?
I also thought these clauses were losing popularity with the rise of capitalists exploiting mass arbitrations for monetary gain, has that practice lost steam?
The part you quoted "REQUIRES YOU AND NINTENDO TO ARBITRATE CERTAIN DISPUTES AND CLAIMS," and later on in part D of section 16 it exempts various things from arbitration, including protection of intellectual property.
That's all the proof I need to see that binding arbitration is bullshit only intended to benefit the larger party with the most money.
Which is why they're really keen to kill class action suits.
well of course, the house always wins. Forced arbitiration only works better for you if you're motivated and willing to take a legal case, and that preparation is prohobitively expensive for the average individual. Meanwhile, class actions are launched by firms and they only need to essentially petition for users while they do the work they specialize in.
Ah thank you, I should've gone through the subsections before asking (and made it more clear what section I quoted my bad)
Today I learned a new acronym, which at first I accidentally read as “I anal”. 😂
Lol whoops carried that one over from my reddit era. For others wondering, I Am Not A Lawyer.
TBH an awful lot of Tildes is former Reddit users/mods, so I'm honestly more surprised to see someone encountering IANAL for the first time.
Always one of the 10,000 though.
I still can't believe that it caught on. People write long, in-depth comments that start with IANAL like it's completely normal and I'm just here like "Bro???"
Is it really a surprise it caught on? IANAL being inappropriate sounding and funny is precisely why I have occasionally prefaced my own comments with it when relevant, like when I was giving advice where a lawyer would probably be the better person to ask. And I doubt I am alone in that.
Maybe that’s why it caught on? lol Who doesn’t want an excuse to throw around the word “anal” without being judged for it?
Seems like they were just paving the way for this: Nintendo reserves the right to brick your console following "unauthorised use", in bid to prevent piracy
Arbitration (.. which feels "forced" in terms of it being common in many company-consumer relationships at this point, making it hard to avoid ..), at least in the US, essentially acts as a way to usurp the legal system in favor of a separate system that is often favorable to companies / those that write the agreements requiring arbitration while often pretending to appear impartial.
It seems a far shot from its original intent, and while one can technically argue supposed positives and negatives of it, in terms of contract arbitration being foisted upon consumers in user agreements it leans negative, and at least one arbitration group was so proven to be biased towards companies, it had to cease arbitrating, and other groups, at least one, have been asked to stop for the same reasons.
Among many other flaws in the idea/process, an arbiting group's business that survives on being an arbitrator for a particular company is automatically incentivized to rule in that company's favor for continued business.
Congress has attempted to restrict/appeal/muzzle it via the FAIR Act multiple times, especially given SCOTUS' rulings that often land in favor of the corporate, and has never succeeded in getting anything passed. Majority of Repubs do not support repeal/etc (under the guise of being pro-business, of course, at the expense of consumers, which they are okay with) and thus it continuously gets stalled or not passed.
It's one of those things where, if it could be restricted to not preclude someone's ability to still sue, and if there was some mandated / highly regulated way of providing actual impartial arbitrators, there are ways it could make sense to avoid going to the legal system for certain dispute resolution, but to me it feels like one of those things that kinda seems like a good idea at face value/on paper, but often in execution is corrupted by money/power/etc like everything else, and the consumer loses yet again