Latest Steam update forces you to give up your legal rights

[J T]

For those interested in this issue, here is a list of other companies that force mandatory arbitration as part of their terms of service:

http://www.citizen.org/rigged-justice-rogues-gallery


Here is a report that details some of the ramifications that forced arbitration clauses have had on consumers ever since the ruling of AT&T vs Concepcion. (This, sadly, really bursts the bubble in the argument of the people that keep saying that Valve's arbitration agreement won't be likely to stand up in court).

And for the sake of a balanced argument, here is another report that provides evidence for how binding arbitration can be good for consumers:

[MrPopo]

Class action lawsuits aren't a basic right... You can still sue them as an individual.

This. It also doesn't protect them against criminal prosecution. The main thing this does is that if you have to have a real grievance against Valve, you can't just piggyback on a class action lawsuit.

[sgt.flanders]

It sounds like people are making mountains out of mole hills to me, and I'm willing to bet that this isn't going to end up affecting anyone.

[Zing]

Despite knowing that users agreed to indefinitely modifiable terms, it is still very unsettling that you can lose your purchased product by refusing to agree to the new terms. I know you are just buying a "license", so maybe this is just the industry's way of saying everyone should go back to buying physical goods, or sticking to DRM-free software.

Class actions that win net the lawyers millions of dollars and everyone else gets a cookie. I might still have the $5 coupon from Nintendo that I got because of the licensing stuff in the NES era.

I, too, have my original letter and coupon from that settlement. I'd have to check the date on the letter, but it was pretty ridiculous to receive a $5 coupon for "8-bit Nintendo software" several years into the Super NES era.

[CRTGAMER]

Despite knowing that users agreed to indefinitely modifiable terms, it is still very unsettling that you can lose your purchased product by refusing to agree to the new terms. I know you are just buying a "license", so maybe this is just the industry's way of saying everyone should go back to buying physical goods, or sticking to DRM-free software.

Agree, sneaky that any game already purchased and previously downloaded can still be disabled even for offline play. The worse case of DRM, the control after the purchase, this is happening now if one does not sign the new agreement. I think the amendment is more of saying the consumer is ignorant or does not care. This agreement is just another way of making sure the games are a temporary ownership.

[dsheinem]

Despite knowing that users agreed to indefinitely modifiable terms, it is still very unsettling that you can lose your purchased product by refusing to agree to the new terms. I know you are just buying a "license", so maybe this is just the industry's way of saying everyone should go back to buying physical goods, or sticking to DRM-free software.

Agree, sneaky that any game already purchased and previously downloaded can still be disabled even for offline play. The worse case of DRM, the control after the purchase, this is happening now if one does not sign the new agreement. I think the amendment is more of saying the consumer is ignorant or does not care. This agreement is just another way of making sure the games are a temporary ownership.

Anyone who thinks they "own" what they pay to download through any of the major services (Steam, Wii Shop, PSN, XBLA, etc.) is doing nothing but fooling themselves. You have been paying for a license that entitles you to play the game: nothing less, nothing more. You are "renting" them indefinitely until the service folds or until the terms change to something that you can't agree with.

[J T]

Anyone who thinks they "own" what they pay to download through any of the major services (Steam, Wii Shop, PSN, XBLA, etc.) is doing nothing but fooling themselves. You have been paying for a license that entitles you to play the game: nothing less, nothing more. You are "renting" them indefinitely until the service folds or until the terms change to something that you can't agree with.

While this is true and becomes apparent as you sign a "Subscriber Agreement" as in you are subscribing to a service temporarily, it still is a bit shifty that the market fronts on pretty much all of the major digital distribution sites say "Buy" rather than "Rent" or "Subscribe". You see the full retail price tag, you download the full game to your harddrive, and it really feels like you bought it. A consumer has to be paying attention to notice that they are signing up for a license to play, not true ownership of a product. Even if you buy a retail release, you are still going to have to sign a license agreement much of the time. It's a weird thing. We really own few of our games, truly.

I mean, yes, "caveat emptor" and all of that, but seriously, these companies rely on people not understanding what they are buying and signing to protect themselves legally.

All of this just makes me love gog more and more. DRM-free is the way to go.

[J T]

Valve support got back to me.

Here was my initial message to them:

"I do not want to agree to the binding arbitration clause that was recently announced in the current Steam Subscriber agreement. Other companies like Sony that include binding arbitration clauses have also provided a way for consumers to opt out of the otherwise mandatory clause. I currently have clicked "disagree" to the recent Steam subscriber agreement and consequently, I no longer have access to my Steam account, which I have clearly invested a lot of money in with a library of over 650 games. I am asking that I be given a way to opt out of this clause and retain access to my library of games.

I am very unhappy about this. I just bought a lot of games from the summer sale and would like to be playing them right now, but I don't want to be forced into signing away my legal rights in order to play. "

Here's their response:

"Hello,

A staff member has replied to your question:

Hello Cory,

Thank you for contacting Steam Support.

Valve is a customer oriented company and we value our community. If you feel like you have a claim that you need to bring against Valve you can do that under the new SSA. We've just adopted better, more efficient ways to do so that will mutually benefit our customers and Valve.

On Steam, whenever a customer is unhappy with any transaction, our first goal is to resolve things as quickly as possible through the normal customer support process. In instances in which we can't resolve a dispute, our new SSA includes the option to use the consumer arbitration process. It's specifically designed to efficiently resolve consumer claims. The arbitration can be conducted online, by telephone, or in person if you prefer. If your claim is under $10,000 Valve will reimburse your expenses, provided that the arbitrator does not determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable.

You can read more about the arbitration process here:

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/aoe/gc/con ... jk19r1e_42

Arbitration is a good option. If you don't want to arbitrate for some reason, you can still bring your case in your local small claims court.

However, in arbitration and in small claims court, we agree that you will bring your own case on your own behalf, not as a class action case.

Restricting class action claims was a choice that we considered very carefully. In far too many cases class actions don't provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to mostly benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims.

Here is our blog post that describes our thinking:

http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523/

We are not restricting your right to bring a claim against Valve. The SSA also does not prevent you from bringing your grievance to the attention of any federal, state, or local government agencies that can, if the law allows, seek relief from us for you.

Thanks for reading through our thoughts on these updates and for your continued use of Steam."

Now I've got to decide where to go from here. Do I get in a back-and-forth about this while still denying myself access to my games in hopes that I can opt out? Do I click agree and turn my fight towards the laws that allow companies to do this in the first place?

Does anyone know if it would hold any legal water if I sent them a message saying "I clicked agree to the subscriber agreement, but I am formally stating that this agreement does not include the section regarding binding arbitration"?

I don't really want to spend a lot of time on this, but I dislike what they are doing and I really dislike how they are doing it (by locking people out who won't agree).

[dsheinem]

They are right that "usually" or "most" cases Class Action Lawsuits are better for lawyers than anyone. But not ALWAYS. CALs can still be a useful and powerful consumer tool in certain kinds of situations, and that nice reply email notwithstanding, they are still getting you to give up that potential course of action.

[CRTGAMER]

@ JT - I say go for it by the way of a "lawsuit" refund of your locked out games and get out of Steam. Too bad many consumers will just blindly click okay.

In other news, I have been piling up on older PC games from the Thrift Store with License Agreements that cannot force my hand, even when I disagree with them.