Games

32582 readers

1718 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

shitpostpolice@lemmy.world

Dremor@lemmy.world

Dremor@jlai.lu

805

Steam does the opposite of forcing Arbitration on its users (lemdro.id)

submitted 1 month ago by potentiallynotfelix@lemdro.id to c/games@lemmy.world

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it's just not a requirement anymore.

Unless the OP is a forgery of some sort, you evidently DON'T understand it.

still seems to me that consumers are getting more options which is usually a good thing.

Nope. They're switching from one mandatory method which favors companies liable to get into big disputes where a court case is advantageous to the consumer, which isn't the case with them, to one that favors a company wanting to avoid a lot of issues too small to warrant a lawyer.

It's not anywhere near as bad for consumers as when a utility company that poisons thousands of people forces everyone to corporate-friendly arbitration procedure (likely with the "neutral" third party much less neutral than the ones Valve used), but it's certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I've edited my comment to reflect that. I didn't read OP's image but rather the news post by Valve on Steam, but missed the part that said: "the updated SSA now provides that any disputes are to go forward in court instead of arbitration".

it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

But doesn't the change open up for litigation in small claims court? (Again, I'm in no way knowledgeable in US law, so I'm just asking.)

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But doesn't the change open up for litigation in small claims court?

More like mandates it. For those who live in the country to even have ACCESS to it. The vast majority of Steam users don't (while the US has more users than any other single country, it's still only ~14m out of 120m) and would also need a lawyer licensed to practice in both countries afaik.

So nah, I don't suspect that this change will benefit the users in general, rather the opposite..

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I have no idea how accurate this info on FindLaw.com is, but according to it, you don't need a lawyer in small claims court (in the US). And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court there are many other countries with similar small claim courts: "Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States". I know the list of countries is not even close to covering a large amount of Steam users, but I suspect that us Europeans are covered in other ways, so there's that.

The Wikipedia page also mentions the lawyer thing, by the way:

A usual guiding principle in these courts is that individuals ought to be able to conduct their own cases and represent themselves without a lawyer. Rules are relaxed but still apply to some degree. In some jurisdictions, corporations must still be represented by a lawyer in small-claims court.

And I don't think you need to sue Valve in the US. I think they're required to have legal representation in the countries in which they operate, which should enable you to sue them "locally" in many cases. Again, not an expert, so I'm making quite a few assumptions here.