this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
889 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59300 readers
4713 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 306 points 7 months ago (8 children)

It kind of blows my mind that forced arbitration is legal at all.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 102 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I think in the case of forced agreements (both Roku not having a way to select disagree and disabling all hardware functionality until you agree, and blizzard not allowing login to existing games including non-live service ones) no reasonable court should be viewing this as freely accepting the new conditions.

If you buy a new game with those conditions, sure you should be able to get a full refund though, and you could argue it for ongoing live service games where you pay monthly that it's acceptable to change the conditions with some notice ahead of time. If you don't accept you can no longer use the ongoing paid for features, I expect a court would allow that. But there's no real justification for disabling hardware you already own or disabling single player games you already paid for in full.

It'll be interesting to see any test cases that come from these examples.

[–] lanolinoil@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I see 1 class action where the consumers get screwed and the company gets a slap on the wrist

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ysjet@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The problem here is "reasonable court." One party in the US has spent decades stacking the courts with unreasonable judges who will agree to anything a corporation hands them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 7 months ago

I think you are correct. A contract requires "consideration." You got nothing for agreeing to the new contract, so I don't think it is legal.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Somone said that it isn't and isn't enforceable to but no-one has the time money or will to fuck around with that.

[–] Magrath@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 months ago

Depends on the country. This wiki article goes over a bunch of countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (5 children)

The governments all around the world are probably in favor of it, because their big “donors” want it and it lowers costs for the judicial system for them. It’s a win-win from their perspective.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 160 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Maybe if Activision gets bought by Microsoft, Blizzard won't be as scummy."

Hahaha, nope.

Between the company rape culture and enabling internet & gambling addiction, Blizzard is dead to me.

Support your local private servers.

[–] TrumpetX@programming.dev 15 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Have you found any good private server sublemmies? Whatever we're calling them?

[–] mihnt@lemy.lol 37 points 7 months ago

Communities.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 146 points 7 months ago (10 children)

First Roku did a quick force TOS change before a beach disclosure, now Blizzard is mysteriously forcing a change to their TOS. I have no idea what's coming next. Seems like it's going to become part of the breach playbook to minimize financial loss. Maybe there will be a law against it in... oh...15 years?

[–] STOMPYI@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago (3 children)

So i'm not a lawyer but isn't there a law for unconsciability, When a contract is so one-sided, it's obvious that me the signer has absolutely no rights.The entire contract is voided.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 53 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

EULAs and TOSes are as legally binding as a secondhand piece of toiletpaper with a contract written in shit. Almost every single one will be thrown out in court. The problem is getting to that point in the first place, and incurring the (time, effort & money) costs while enduring. Most common people can't afford that, which the companies know, so they keep making unenforceable EULAs.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That is true in US. In EU litigations cost are way lower and a single person could sue, win and not be financially broken.

Problem is only that in any case what you pay for a lawyer is more than you win, so it make no sense to sue in any case.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 16 points 7 months ago

Almost like the Legal system is intentionally designed such that the wealthy are the only ones with any actual access.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago

Let me laugh if Blizzard's TOS change is because of a security breach they haven't disclosed yet.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] xradeon@lemmy.one 81 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If I don't own the product after purchase, the button shouldn't say "buy/purchase" it should say "rent".

[–] cmrn@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

That’s the hilarious(ly depressing) thing about buying a digital movie, for example, to me.

If you rent it, you get it for a certain amount of time.

If you ‘buy’ it, you also rent it, just for an undisclosed amount of time that they may or may not retroactively take away from you at any point with no warning or compensation.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights.

From the Blizz terms.

WoW has always revolved around having a server handle everything and your client is just the textures/models viewer where you tell the server what to do, I have been fine with this. But I do agree, it should say something else on the button. Other games that are not MMO shouldn't be a "license" to play. If you buy it, you can play it whenever and wherever. Features that are not multiplayer should work regardless. Some things just shouldn't be tied to a server. I really despise modern gaming because of this.

Anecdotal experience: Gran Turismo Sport recently lost its servers. When they went down, the Mileage Exchange shop went with it. This means all the cosmetics for cars. and a few unique cars, are now unobtainable for future players. PD could have patched the shop to be a complete list of everything and you buy it with the plethora of points you will collect in the future as you race. But no, they didn't.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 73 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fuck Blizzard. Haven't used them since the censorship bullshit they pulled over Hong Kong.

[–] toofpic@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

At that point I tried to delete my account, but they made it impossible already. So they are "lucky" to "keep me" as a "customer"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 41 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

This is not unique to Blizzard, and has nothing to do with their latest EULA changes. Binding arbitration has been part of their EULA for years, long before the latest one arrived. (The earliest copy I've found is from 2018, and I don't think it was new even then.)

For reference, here's a diff showing the latest changes:
https://rentry.co/yuu78kqd

Both that and the unilateral changing of terms post-sale are horrible practices that we should all pressure our legislators to make illegal, and perhaps reject by voting with our wallets, but singling out one company for it takes attention away from the larger issue: It has been widespread in the software industry for a long time.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

If EULAs are going to be legally binding, there should really be some standard mechanism, an API, on systems to display one such that the system can record a copy and you can see differences and such. Otherwise, you're entering into a contract with some random party and only they have a copy or and see what changed across versions.

If such a display API is available on a given platform and isn't used, could simply make the EULA automatically non-binding.

I'm willing to believe that there are legitimately cases where one does need license agreements to fix issues that extend beyond standard consumer law, but the current situation is simply a dumpster fire. Also, some EULAs have been held unenforceable, so even from the standpoint of the software company, it's a mess as to whether their license is actually going to stand up; there are no clear lines to which a lawyer can conform to make their license hold up.

Some other possible tweaks:

  • Require that prior to sale, existence of a EULA be prominently disclosed and be readable.

  • I personally would much rather have industry adopting standard licenses than having every company creating ad-hoc licenses. Like, in the open-source world, the GPL and MIT licenses deal with a number of problems that open source software runs into, and I can learn once what each entails and quit looking at it. I'd rather have there be agreements for commercial software that work the same way. If industry needs flexibility, I think that it's reasonable to say that they don't all need to custom-craft solutions. I'd rather like legislation that encourages industry use of a limited number of widely-used agreements rather than hand-crafting them. Maybe add some kind of tax on non-standard EULAs, dunno.

  • Disallow change-without-notice as a EULA condition; there should be no legitimate reason for this. If you got agreement once, you can get it again. Require that any change notice also provide a way to see the "delta" between the old license and the new license, just the changes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 34 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Hopefully the lesson people are slowly learning is to walk away from these systems.

[–] sardaukar@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago (11 children)

It's not that easy. My Blizzard account is over 10 years old - never thought they'd go down hill so much. What's the solution, to never create accounts online anywhere? Even if a service looks good and you support it, a corporation like Activision can come along and have their asshole CEO infect everything.

Walking away from my account now means throwing away a lot of money spent on it.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

a sunk cost is a sum paid in the past that is no longer relevant to decisions about the future.

[–] DABDA@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So due to sunk cost the better choice is to continue supporting bad behavior?

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 15 points 7 months ago

For me, not continue to support but use what I've paid for and not put any more money into it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I played Vanilla WoW a week after launch and was with it all the way up through ~~Cataclysm~~ Mists. After hearing about the multiple shocking incidences of sexual harassment and gender discrimination at Blizzard and upper management's unwillingness to stop it, it was quite easy to delete my Battle.net account and walk away. (Yeah I hadn't played in a while, but I'd intended to come back eventually.)

There are plenty of other games out there. You vote with your dollars, and your vote shows your character.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

I understand why Louis likes privacy.com so much. But he really needs to stop telling people to use them as a means of stopping payment with scummy vendors and companies so frivolously without having a disclaimer that it can open that person up to getting their credit dinged for non-payment.

Maybe he doesn't care about such things, but his viewers might.

To get around the Blizzard dark pattern the "right way", agree to the EULA, login, cancel subscriptions, remove payment details, close account (if possible), stop using Battle.net, done. Now the EULA is irrelevant. This also has the knock on effect of being the path that Blizzard/Activision/MS will actually notice since it will cost them money at scale in a way they can't explain away as childish internet trolling.

Edit: a word (irreverent > irrelevant)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The funny thing is by forcing you to agree to the new terms, the contract can be challenged since one side was coerced to sign it (and didn't get a chance to sign in voluntarily!).

US courts tend to favor corporations over end users, so there's still a strong chance a judge will throw the case out anyway, but because this is such an act of bad faith in US contract law, a judge might also rule in the end-user's favor just to make an example out of Blizzard for being such a dick.

PS: Steam did this a long time ago. I've never had any disagreements with Steam but some folks have. I don't know if anyone's had the account bricked, which Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft have done.

[–] Nusm@yall.theatl.social 26 points 7 months ago

This seems to be the new norm, first Roku, now Blizzard.

[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Worthless company. Hope they go bankrupt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bruhsoulz@lemmy.ml 22 points 7 months ago

I have less reasons to feel bad about pirating everything day by day

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 20 points 7 months ago (3 children)

How can they "force" anything if you dont sign? By not agreeing to new terms.. you dont agree to the terms. Wouldnt having it any other way just be insanity? Like i could write "contract" here that by viewing it you agree to it and if you dont agree, i could still claim that some part of it applies because it reads so in the contract. Or I have some other contract that is agreeable and someone signs it, then I change the terms and other party can't reject them all because of something in the first contract.

[–] peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de 37 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Internet companies usually have clauses that they can terminate the agreement at any time for any reason, including "because they feel like it". They usually don't have to tell you why, either.

Same deal with all the "licensing" things and "digital goods ownership". In two words: you don't.

But it's been that way for ages.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Especially if it's something free or subscription based. It's just a "our rules have changed, if you don't like it stop using it/paying for it"

It's get very dodgy when it's a physical thing you've bought like that Roku agreement a few weeks back, but I doubt they'll let that stop them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 7 months ago

As my lawyer used to tell me, "there is the contract and there is the law." Meaning anyone can say anything in a contract. If you have the legal ability you can find out what the law says about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This doesn't affect me, because I stopped buying Blizzard's shit games after the BnetD lawsuit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 months ago

k, I'll continue to not ever buy their games

[–] kwebb990@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

hopefully a class action lawsuit in the making. i wouldnt think doing this would hold up in court would it? INAL tho

[–] Fridgeratr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 7 months ago

Common Blizzard L

[–] raptore39@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago

That's very Roku of them

load more comments
view more: next ›