Steam Will Let You Sue Valve Now (theverge.com) 28
Steam just removed its forced arbitration policy, opening the door for lawsuits against its parent company, Valve. From a report: In an update on Thursday, Steam says its subscriber agreement "now provides that any disputes are to go forward in court instead of arbitration." Many companies include a forced arbitration clause in their user agreement, waiving a person's right to a trial in court. Arbitration involves settling a dispute outside a legal system before an impartial third party. This method is often faster but may not get the best results for consumers, as arbitrators don't need to consider the law when issuing a decision.
Lawyers... (Score:2)
Sure, if you want to sue them in Washington. Not very cost effective and I suspect the courts there may not be that friendly.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, if you want to sue them in Washington. Not very cost effective and I suspect the courts there may not be that friendly.
That's no different than any other company. However, there are ways to move the venue. For example if the plaintiffs are from multiple states, then the lawsuit could be moved to federal court
Re: (Score:2)
That's already covered in the agreement:
shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction
They don't make any misguided attempt to force Federal issues into the State court, they just tell you that you have to file it in Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington has strong, legit courts and reasonable consumer protections. This isn't some sort of East Texas backwater, it's the main state courts in Seattle. The big city in a blue state. You can absolutely sue a company there and the court is going to give you a fair shake.
And it isn't difficult to hire local council in Seattle, even if you live somewhere else.
Lawyers...continues (Score:2)
I should add, this is for us US plebes. EU has it better, as usual form a consumer right perspective,
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, the timing is just that forced arbitration agreements have been a sore point with customers (nee voters) for a long time, with lots of negative press about them for a few years.
I know some people hate lawyers and would prefer fisticuffs to settle all disputes, but laywers will happily work both sides here - either in court to get money, or be an arbitraitor that always votes in favor of a corporation for money. Personally, I'd rather have a lawyer and the law on my side, rather than arbitration with
Re: (Score:2)
The timing is that a law firm was recruiting users for a large number of concurrent individual claims that would cost Valve $3000 each in administrative costs. That's their entry cost even if they win!
Basically, arbitration agreements are legal, but if they're forced then the business has to pay the fees, or else courts will find the requirement to be unfair and unenforceable.
The way it works, you sue them, and then they file for dismissal on account of having a arbitration agreement. So if they're basicall
Re: (Score:2)
EU has it better, as usual form a consumer right perspective
Perhaps from a "consumer rights that a government representative enforces on your behalf" perspective, but from a "hire a lawyer and go to court individually to enforce your rights, even when you're not important and nobody else cares" perspective the US has it way better, at least as long as there is no forced arbitration agreement...
So this is a big win. And even for Europeans, if you have some dispute over Steam you might be better off going to US courts than EU courts, because while the Agreement does s
Actually surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
But maybe you're right and it's just them wanting to be a moral example.
Also, I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. And if you are considering taking legal advice from slashdot, I'm also not a mental health professional, but you should see one of those as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Are the great majority of companies doing the opposite being altruistic then? This case actually is pretty much mutually exclusive.
Couple that with the fact that Valve has a long track record of standing out from their competition by doing what's good for the consumer: they've avoided getting onboard with some Steam+ five tier subscription plan, they have a very moderate, reasonable stance about DRM, the Steam Deck is basically a right to repair, tinkerer's dream. I'm not much of a Valve fan and this is ju
Re: (Score:2)
Reply to self: the actual story is sort of complicated. Ars has an article with a lot of detail:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But arbitration means the corporations always win. If you want to win as a consumer, you have to keep escalating and redoing arbitrations, at your own expense, until one side or the other runs out of money. Most of the time the arbitor is not a neutral party. The rest of the time the corporiation sends someone who knows all the nuances and details of the law and who is trained how to baffle and bullshit (normally just juries and judges, but in this case only a single arbitor), whereas the consumer shows
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of the weaponized arbitration agreements.
Lawyers have realized that class actions and lawsuits may be banned, but mass arbitration can be a thing.
And DoorDash was hit with millions of dollars in arbitration fees because 6000 people suddenly decided to arbitrate their case, resulting in a month where they get a $10M bill. They tried to sue to stop it, but the judges basically said "live by the sword, die by the sword" and enforced payment.
So now lawyers have set up shops where they'll gather cas
Re:Actually surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not doing it to be nice but because it cost them money to go through arbitration. They had to pay arbitration fees [arstechnica.com]. The Verge article doesn't mention this part:
Mandatory arbitration clauses are generally seen as bad for consumers, who are deprived of the ability to seek compensation through individual or class-action lawsuits. But many Steam users were able to easily get money from Valve through arbitration, according to law firms that filed the arbitration cases over allegedly inflated game prices.
Valve used to prefer arbitration because few consumers brought claims and the process kept the company's legal costs low. But in October 2023, Valve sued a law firm in an attempt to stop it from submitting loads of arbitration claims on behalf of gamers.
Valve's suit complained that "unscrupulous lawyers" at law firm Zaiger, LLC presented a plan to a potential funder "to recruit 75,000 clients and threaten Valve with arbitration on behalf of those clients, thus exposing Valve to potentially millions of dollars of arbitration fees alone: 75,000 potential arbitrations times $3,000 in fees per arbitration is two hundred and twenty-five million dollars."
Valve said that Zaiger's "extortive plan" was to "offer a settlement slightly less than the [arbitration] chargeâ"$2,900 per claim or soâ"attempting to induce a quick resolution."
"Zaiger targeted Valve and Steam users for its scheme precisely because the arbitration clause in the SSA [Steam Subscriber Agreement] is 'favorable' to Steam users in that Valve agrees to pay the fees and costs associated with arbitration," Valve said.
So people had figured out (Score:2)
It's cheaper than just pay off a lawyer during class action lawsuit. It's also much harder than it used to be to file a class action lawsuit due to new laws and changes to existing laws.
"as arbitrators don't need to consider the law" (Score:5, Informative)
Okay. That's not true.
First of all, yes they do. Arbitrators can't just ignore the law.
Second, you can always appeal an arbitrator's decision to the real courts. If the Arbitrators flat ignored the law, like said "Yes, I understand that this act is clearly against the law, but I don't care" then you will probably be granted a real appeal.
Third, if a company does something criminal then they can't force arbitration. Disney can't put out a hit on you and be like "Oh, yeah, sorry you signed up for Disney+ so you'll have to file criminal charges through our arbitration."
Re: (Score:1)
And also, arbitration is pro-consumer. It's far faster and far easier. If you legitimately have a claim, it'll get settled quicker. Companies don't like it because they will win more, they like it because the lawsuits won't go to class action.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass arbitration can also be much more expensive [slashdot.org] than class action.
Re: (Score:1)
pleasantly surprised (Score:3)
When I logged into my home computer this morning there was a bib popup from Steam about a change in terms. These changes are almost never in my favor and I thought maybe it was time to uninstall Steam. Then I noticed that the change was arbitration out and courts in, great! Finally, a terms change in my favor. Feel like I should buy a lottery ticket today.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when I saw the popup I was very skeptical, but then I read what it actually said and I laughed for 5 minutes before collecting myself, said "GG," and clicked OK.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and the catch is that your lawsuit can only be filed exclusively in King County, Washington.
Sounds good, but arbitration in WA is a waste (Score:2)
This isn't that pro customer as it sounds. Appealing an arbitration to court is practically free in WA, so if you don't get the result you want you just wasted Valve's time and money on arbitration.