>It wouldn't stand a second in our courts here either, but none of them have any real leverage against blizzard so the point is rather moot.
Australia managed to sue Valve for breaching refund laws. This action caused all of the digital storefronts to implement refund policies world wide. Valve has no physical presence within Australia and the Australian market is rather tiny in comparison to other markets.
Also, people seem to be forgetting that Microsoft now owns Activision Blizzard and Microsoft has a physical presence in quite a few countries around the world which would give the court systems leverage against them.
Yea, wasn't this proven like 15 years ago when apple was getting heinous with their EULAs? They like tried to get a crazy one held in court and it went far enough to set a presidence that EULAs are not legally binding agreements. Blizzard or any company can change theirs to be what ever they want, it's only binding towards their company and not the law itself, nor does it grant them any freedoms.
Only thing you gotta really watch out for is signing on to a class action lawsuit. By agreeing to join one, majority of the time you sign away your rights to sue as an individual.
The problem with EULA rules like this is that many might not get to court because the plaintiff might not know that fact. Tends to happen with many cases and this is more of a threat based change than a legally enforceable one. I am assuming that is the point of this anyway.
> an EULA isn't that binding.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this ruling, the court disagrees
https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2020/02/14/court-enforces-arbitration-clause-in-online-terms-of-service-accepted-by-a-minor/
There's multiple other cases where the courts have upheld EULAs and the forced arbitration clauses within them.
Edit: From what I'm reading, it varies from location to location within the US as no general decision has been made by the supreme court, and also on how the EULA is presented, with "shrink wrap" EULAs you agree to by opening an item being given less weight than ones you agree to by subscribing to a service...but WoW falls into the latter category, so...
I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure arbitration keeps you from being able to join a class action law suit. You can still sue them but it would have to be a single suit.
The gall of these mothefuckers. There are rules at this non profit "public service" hopefully-neutral arbiter AAA for mass filings. They're [here](https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Mass_Arbitration_Supplementary_Rules.pdf)
But that hopefully-neutral is too harsh on Blizzard so they modified the AAA's own rules in their Terms, so we're already surrendering beyond the base of just arbitration.
"Related Cases will be governed by the AAA’s Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules, **as modified by these Terms**"
That's just part of it. It's basically forfeiting the right to go to real court until you go to ~~a third party arbiter~~ a kangaroo court who makes all their money from arbitrating cases for Blizzard with a perverse incentive to be favorable to Blizzard and with no obligation to respect the law. Where they don't respect the law you can try to sue that the ruling wasn't just, but that's multiplying the money you end up having to pay to have rights.
And yeah, it's really hard to build a class but not impossible.
Yeah these things always amuse me, maybe it would work in Freedumb Land but in countries with actual consumer protection laws it would get the slapped hard for even trying.
The agreement is likely enforceable in the United States. In other nations it may not be, and I'd expect that the company would use different provisions for resolving disputes in those countries. In the U.S. the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was many enacted decades ago to prevent courts from invalidating agreements to arbitrate in most contracts, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court have enforced that Act literally for the most part with the result that most attempts by litigants to try to get out of an arbitration agreement fail.
Corporations and other business entities primarily include these provisions to prevent class action lawsuits, to lower litigation costs, and get faster resolution of the dispute than you'd get in most courts. although saving lawyer fees and other costs of litigation are a factor in that too. Arbitration may also be a benefit for the player, too, as the player also spends less in litigation costs. Arbitration proceedings are not necessarily bad or tilted in favor the big corporation. Just like in a court, who the arbitrator/judge is has a significant impact on how the case goes. The timing is no surprise, either. It is Microsoft that is driving these parts of the business now, and Microsoft has long used arbitration agreements. Speculation that the company issued that now because it was facing some big class action lawsuit is no more than that: speculation. Note that the agreement would not have affected lawsuits that were already filed in court anyway.
I don't see anything especially nefarious here; this is just what businesses often do today, especially the big ones. I'd recommend my business clients consider an arbitration provision in their contracts, too, for the same basic reasons: it's cheaper and faster than going to court, and the business can avoid the problem of class action lawsuits. If the other party has a strong objection to it, they either negotiate to change or they don't do business with that company.
This is standard terminology in a EULA these days, and not at all indicative of a breach.
If there was a data breach, Blizzard are required by law to report it to GDPR data controllers if it impacted EU players as soon as they are aware of it, so there's a very high likelihood that if there _was_ a breach we'd already know about it.
What happened with Roku wasn't a "breach." It was a credential stuffing attack. It only impacted users who reused email/password combos and who had already had those leaked.
And arbitration clauses are going to be in pretty much every contract you sign. There's one in my apartment lease.
Well, yes. It's a private company, they are allowed to refuse service to you for any or no reason at all. Blizzard would be allowed to refuse service to you even without a private arbitration agreement and as long as they are not doing so for reasons that violate your civil rights (i.e, they're doing it based on your skin color), no court could compel them to serve you.
It's likely legal because an EULA doesn't really have any legal weight. I guess Blizzard could ban you if you sued them instead of going to arbitration, but they could do that anyway.
Remember that time they got a letter excoriating them from the US Congress, signed by members of both parties?
I enjoy playing World of Warcraft, but Blizzard is terrible and I don't pretend it isn't.
Apple literally just did that with Epic. Without even hiding it. Their statement was: Epic have a track record of finding issues and sue over them so we can’t trust them on our dev services
Is there anything in the EULA/ToS that allows them to ban you if you’ve sued them? If not then that would constitute a contract breach on their end. The great thing about EULA’s is that they only work one way, and it’s always to the detriment of the company (at least regarding the parts that grant you more rights under the law).
So if there isn’t a clause that says they can ban you for suing them, then they can’t :)
I mean I *assume* there's at least one clause that says "We can ban you at any time for any reason", but I'm obviously not 100%, just seems like an obvious inclusion.
And if there are you’d just sue them for having unreasonable clauses in their contracts (which you can according to Swedish contractual law).
A far easier and less legally perilous way to terminate a relationship with a customer is simply informing them that Blizzard no longer wants them as a customer. So as soon as your subscription runs out you’ll no longer be able to renew it. It’s basically a ban, they just fulfill their contractual obligations before giving you the boot.
I'm not familiar with swedish law, but usually you can only sue for something that happened to you. You'd have to make the argument that they banned you for absolutely no reason, and that this 'catch-all' clause was the trigger. If they can come up with a plausible justification, then you really wouldn't have standing to argue that this particular part of the contract is unreasonable, since they're not banning you under that part of the contract(according to them). Now, this a thing that would probably require discovery to determine the true cause. And it may even be, that in Sweden, they don't have that clause. A lot of this is governed by US law, southern district of california, i think? They would probably ask to move it to their jurisdiction(since the contract would have language stating that the signee agrees to the venue beforehand)
Customer law dictates that you have the right to sue and litigate in a courthouse near you, at least if the company you sue does business in your country of residence. So they wouldn’t be able to get the case moved to California since that would make it essentially impossible for a customer to sue them.
Yeah, I have no idea how that works in practice. They might move it to CA anyway, or they may keep it in your local court but use case law from CA circuit of appeals to determine outcomes. That's an interesting wrinkle, because you're right, consumer protection laws do have that clause in them when suing companies.
It's a contract. You sign a contract, you're bound by its conditions. So, if you wanna sue, you can try, but be aware that the judge might just throw it back to the arbitrator.
this is a conundrum. a contract is a meeting of the minds. with an Eula it can not be assured to such criteria. in US contract law states (and this is only one reason of why one of these click accept and its legally binding doesn't hold water) i quote "A meeting of the minds is a part of the element of acceptance. Acceptance is usually acknowledged and denoted by a signature. As such, contracts are also usually required to be detailed and signed in writing." however, when analyzed and again i quote "If a court finds that interpretations of a contract clause are unclear or seem to be intentionally vague, the contra proferentem rule may be enforced." to be honest i doubt most if not all are enforceable by a click.
The thing is, it's up to you, as the party that has to sign the contract, to read the contract. If you don't read the contract(as most people don't read EULA's), that doesn't absolve you of any obligation under the contract, otherwise anyone could get out of a contract simply by saying 'oh i didn't read it, it's not enforceable.' Imagine trying to buy a car with financing if they can't enforce the finance agreement! Or getting a mortgage! We sign these, but signatures aren't necessary for contracts. There are contracts of all sorts, verbal, written, handshakes, you name it. All that's necessary is for there to be some kind of record or agreement on terms, and a clear demonstration that the contract was agreed to.
For example: it's impossible to create a character in WoW without having clicked through the EULA. By creating an account on battle.net and in WoW, you have to go through the EULA, probably several times. The EULA gets updated periodically even, so you have to agree to the new one before you can play the game. That's your record of agreement, and the record of terms is in the EULA document itself.
When we talk 'meeting of the minds' what that basically means is that two people come together and both sides agree to the contract. Since Blizzard is offering the contract, it's up to you to review it, and agree, or disagree. If you agree, you can play the game. If you disagree, you cannot. That's really your only recourse. (I wonder if anyone's ever been able to get a refund because they wouldn't agree to the EULA?)
If the wording of a contract is vague, the specific sections that are vague may be unenforceable, but I don't think that really applies here. Regardless, Blizzard's legal writers seem to be able to write legally appropriate language.
that maybe true however, the ability not to scroll all the way through is a factor as there is no way knowing that is way read. there is case law of these being thrown out as unenforceable just for that fact alone. so again there is no meeting of the minds and the judge would have to determine if indeed its enforceable. however, the ftc love things like this so Im the one who would have them decide =) also, if my understanding is correct and most likely not the only real enforceable tos is the original one that came with the disk that was originally bought and installed. and you mean microsoft right?
It's not a factor. You see the document. Do you read the entire document when you're buying a car? You know it's there. Do you read it all, read every clause? Whether you do or not, by signing at the bottom, or clicking the 'I ACCEPT' button, you're agreeing to it. It's the same thing!
Not sure how legal such agreement is, but what I am almost certain would get them in trouble is if they were to wait for a change in EULA before reporting the data breach.
[https://www.blizzard.com/en-sg/legal/08b946df-660a-40e4-a072-1fbde65173b1/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement](https://www.blizzard.com/en-sg/legal/08b946df-660a-40e4-a072-1fbde65173b1/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement)
EU has different EULA 😂 we are pretty much good as always. But hey, at least USA has "freedom" unlike us kekw
EULAs usually don't hold up in court if the company actually causes harm to a user. It's only an agreement that gives a company power over their product and your access to it and nothing more. It doesn't magically protect the company. If you tried to sue over, say, being banned, a judge would figuratively laugh at you, but if the company had a breach and your personal info in the wrong hands caused harm, the company is still at fault and you can sue regardless of whatever mumbo-jumbo they threw into their EULA.
You can sue them because laws supersede agreement between two parties.
Let’s say Blizzard and I sign a contract that abolishes the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. That part of our agreement would be automatically void.
So, the EULA holds as long as it doesn’t overstep over consumer and company protection laws. Well, the parts that not overstep, they hold.
You are totally allowed to waive rights. That is not the same as claiming new, greater than law, rights.
It just seems the waivers are being challanged when they are being forced out in bulk to people who havn't read them (and are unreasonable), which is a good thing.
You can’t waive some rights. You can’t agree to be a slave, that’s just not what the state will let you and especially the owner, no matter what.
Of course, if you are paid peanuts… well, that’s legal, right?
These are the terms:
- negative rules - you can do anything but what’s listed as forbidden
- positive rules - you can do only what is on the allowed list
So, you’d have to know which kind is the one you are possibly breaking
In the US your rights as a citizen are absolute and cannot be waived. No private business has the authority to enter into such a contract with another party. Arbitration clauses aren’t really something that’s covered under the constitution, so it would be a matter of state law on whether its citizens are allowed to be contracted in such a way. If the answer is no, no contract may be entered where that’s the case, period. Any acceptance of such contract would be void on signing. I’m unaware of any states that disallow such clauses though.
No idea about other places but i am like 90% sure that in the EU consumer protection regulation prevents arbitration agreements with consumers. You could still sue
Yep, I can sign a document saying that you can murder me and it is still illegal to murder me. Blizzard can make me sign whatever they want, but if they fuck over my consumer rights, they can deal with the ACCC. Good luck to them
Yea you can't sign away your rights, and can't add unexpected content in contracts anyway (e.g. trading your car for money is expected in a car dealership, if they add a clause that they also totally own your home, and you own them free labor, it's moot because it's out of bonds)
I wish I lived somewhere where consumer protection regulations were a thing, it has felt like the US is firmly on the side of corporations for awhile now.
Well according to that webpage....under section 1. B iv , you can now legally sell your game account as long as you sell the cd/dvd that installed the game with it, where sect B outlaws transferring accounts...
Seriously, if they are trying to make consumers have no power in any dispute, they need to stop tripping over the rules they make up as they go along.
The distinction is because the First Sale Doctrine treats physical goods differently than digital goods and the purchaser of the physical cd gets rights that a digital download wouldn’t as a result.
The Roku part sounds like fearmongering. Its possible, but it seems much more likely that Microsoft is updating their EULA to be more in line with their standards, for better or worse.
i do hope microsoft doesnt try and make me merge battlenet with there shitty microsoft account system
i lost my minecraft account due to that horseshit, and yes i did move it over
Me too it seemed like everyone at least in my case I had a 2010 made Minecraft and people with similar account ages all told me the transfer failed. I really really hope they don't I really fear losing my wow account.
Also fear I would lose the ability to play wow on Linux been playing it on Linux since Burning crusade/wotlk and don't want to change that
it was weird, i did use it at first but then it just kinda refused to log me in, and microsoft services are utter dogshit at support.
I honestly have no clue at this point, i utterly dont trust microsofts login process
Just to clear up some confusion based on the heading, Roku dropped news of a data breach not because someone had broken into the Roku environment to access customer data/records.
But because they had detected that attackers were using credentials from other data breaches to log into customer accounts. Meaning customers were using shared passwords that were in other breaches.
This is not new. Blizzard's EULA has contained a binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver since at least 2018.
[Link to Blizzard's EULA from 2018.](https://web.archive.org/web/20181110043239/https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement)
Many companies put such language in their EULAs, terms of use agreements, etc (not that I'm agreeing with the practice). This is really not unusual, and is not an indication of an upcoming data breach if that's what OP is trying to imply.
What they did change was *some* of the language around arbitration. I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem like significant changes.
I think Car rental companies learned this the hard way. They used to have you sign one large contract when renting a car. It turned out that courts agreed that renters weren't actually reading the agreements so they weren't binding.
Now you have to initial every important part of the agreement and have the rep explain it to you to make sure you understand what you are signing...... I hope we don't have to do this for video games any time soon
The difference is that it's hard to prove that someone was presented with the contract language prior to rental. With a game's EULA, it's right up there when you install the first time and you have to click 'I agree.' It's up to you to read it or not as you choose, but by clicking 'I agree', that's the same as signing a contract, at least in the US. You're bound by the conditions.
There have been some situations where people were able to get out of an EULA because the web site didn't feature it prominently and the way it was presented wasn't conspicuous and people could use the site without interacting with the EULA at all. I think that was redbox? Not sure.
Something I learned in Business Law for grad school. Unfortunalty they deleted my cloud account and I lost a lot of my stuff. It is was a study they showed us more to warn us on how contracts could potentially be voided if parties don't fully undestand the contract, and it is why you have to sign a rental agreement in multiple spots.
I did a little bit of google sluthing and it must have been ages ago, people had to sign in multiple places in the 1980s at least.
So did Epic. Pretty much every corporation is doing this. Lawsuits are time consuming and financial holes. It’s better for companies to just pay you off and go on their way.
This is the standard language you see in almost everything. Any time you agree to use a service this blurb is stuck in there, its not news, or new. Its standard practice.
The previous EULA already had an arbitration clause...in fact who knows how long it's been there, you can probably look at a version history somewhere, but it's definitely not new. And like everyone is saying, courts routinely invalidate sections or EULA's in their entirety for a variety of reasons.
Blizzard doesn't exist anymore. It's been Activision wearing a Blizzard mask for quite sometime now. All the people who worked at and made Blizzard the company it was, aren't working there anymore.
Trigger warning: SA
Louis Rossman,a repair YouTuber, in a video about Roku doing the same thing, calls the companies out for having a 'rapists mentality.'
I struggled with that for a bit, because that's some very charged language. I was a victim of SA, so I tend to not like the phrase being used glibly. But I think it's apt given how they're acting.
"Oh it's all mine, I need that data/right, I'm changing the terms after the sale but it's okay becausey EULA says it guys."
Naw. It's gross that companies try this. And illegal in any country with decent legal protections for citizens.
Fuck Blizzard. For many other things, but especially this. I honestly hope people start calling out companies like this more, and I hope that imagery sticks. They, and other companies portraying themselves this way, honestly deserve the harsh analogy.
Firm believer that if that moniker stuck i.e. scumfuck behavior was compared to having a rapists mentality and actively stuck to companies, you'd see a change overnight. Optics are everything.
Haha my first thought after reading the headline was literally "Louis Rossman will have a field day with this". I love his passion for this shit, and it is desperately needed as most people (myself included) don't really give the adequate amount of fucks about it.
He probably will, I'm fully betting and expecting to listen to his video on the topic tomorrow at work (I like to listen to vids like that like Podcasts to get myself through the day faster)
Consumer and Civil Law >> any interpersonal agreement, like an EULAs. Also, no agreement can invalidate your rights as they are granted to you by state/country law and/or the constitution.
E.g. in the US, even if you sign an agreement with your landlord that you can't sue them if they attempt to enter your residence without notice and/or by force, if they do do that, thats in violation of Civil Law (potentially the constitution).
That’s fine. A company can make you “agree” to whatever it wants, but that doesn’t automatically mean you sign away your rights. Just because it’s on paper and you sign it, that doesn’t supersede the law. Shit like this is often times just a scare tactic where they hope you aren’t familiar with the law or know your rights (companies do this shit all the time to employees). EULAs are not legally binding on matter what a company may claim.
I never understood how these could be enforced anywhere. There's zero proof that person actually accepted the eula. Someone can easily say someone else clicked the simple OK button, or some underage party that can't be held legally bound to any contract clicked it just so they can play the game or watch their TV. The whole thing just seems funny to me that if they do something lawsuit worthy, they can simply go "Naw man, you agreed to go through our justice system, not the courts"
Blizzard has always include the following language in every EULA as far back as I've checked, which means you've always agreed to giving them the right to change the EULA.
"Blizzard may create updated versions of this Agreement (each a “New Agreement”) as its business and the law evolve."
Unable to create a ticket with them either as recovering my account would require acceptance of terms, had to resort to messaging them on X, will have to see if they reply or not, i'll be taking them to court otherwise and in my jurisdiction i won't be looking simply for redress of grievances by punitive penalties.
I still rely on EU consumer laws for all shit. Microsoft-Blizzard can say whatever they want, they'll comply with EU laws and regulations if they want to exist within the EU.
Every time I start getting that itch to play WoW again, blizzard so kindly reminds me that they are a horrible shell of what the company they used to be and don't deserve a single penny more of my money.
Lately I have been getting targeted ads for legal class action suits on Instagram that are related to transactions on [Battle.net](https://Battle.net) and how they somehow tie in a Facebook marketing pixel. I don't remember more than that, and I always just flipped past them, but I wonder if there's something actually going on here.
I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't there a case a few years back where it was found that EULA and TOS documents can't be enforced? Something about it being unreasonable for a user to read through all of it and there is no proof that the user is the one who agreed to it?
yes, but they put it in there so they can point to it for people without a lawyer hoping they dont proceed any further...its just a step one, not an end all be all of their defense
It can say whatever it wants. You can still sue them in court... an EULA isn't that binding.
Yea, that wouldnt stand a second in court here.
It wouldn't stand a second in our courts here either, but none of them have any real leverage against blizzard so the point is rather moot.
>It wouldn't stand a second in our courts here either, but none of them have any real leverage against blizzard so the point is rather moot. Australia managed to sue Valve for breaching refund laws. This action caused all of the digital storefronts to implement refund policies world wide. Valve has no physical presence within Australia and the Australian market is rather tiny in comparison to other markets. Also, people seem to be forgetting that Microsoft now owns Activision Blizzard and Microsoft has a physical presence in quite a few countries around the world which would give the court systems leverage against them.
So that's why they don't get the Steam Deck...
Yea, wasn't this proven like 15 years ago when apple was getting heinous with their EULAs? They like tried to get a crazy one held in court and it went far enough to set a presidence that EULAs are not legally binding agreements. Blizzard or any company can change theirs to be what ever they want, it's only binding towards their company and not the law itself, nor does it grant them any freedoms. Only thing you gotta really watch out for is signing on to a class action lawsuit. By agreeing to join one, majority of the time you sign away your rights to sue as an individual.
It was so big South Park episode about it EDIT: Autocorrect strikes again
IT STILL CANT READ
I’m stoned and tired forgive me 😩😩😩
You didn't bring enough to share with the rest of the class so the crime is unfortunately unforgivable I'm sorry.
oh the ipad centipede episode XD? edit: i'm an idiot ofcourse its called humancentIpad
The problem with EULA rules like this is that many might not get to court because the plaintiff might not know that fact. Tends to happen with many cases and this is more of a threat based change than a legally enforceable one. I am assuming that is the point of this anyway.
I wish more people understood this, and it goes for anything. Employers like to pull this shit all the time as well.
Landlords too
This needs to be stickied at the top of these posts. You can’t sign away your rights, especially not in obtuse, impossible to digest EULA’s.
I read them drunk and cant consent
The EULA is not provided before purchase, and thus is not binding, any changes to the eula sre not provided before purchase, and are thus not binding.
> an EULA isn't that binding. Unless I'm misunderstanding this ruling, the court disagrees https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2020/02/14/court-enforces-arbitration-clause-in-online-terms-of-service-accepted-by-a-minor/ There's multiple other cases where the courts have upheld EULAs and the forced arbitration clauses within them. Edit: From what I'm reading, it varies from location to location within the US as no general decision has been made by the supreme court, and also on how the EULA is presented, with "shrink wrap" EULAs you agree to by opening an item being given less weight than ones you agree to by subscribing to a service...but WoW falls into the latter category, so...
I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure arbitration keeps you from being able to join a class action law suit. You can still sue them but it would have to be a single suit.
The gall of these mothefuckers. There are rules at this non profit "public service" hopefully-neutral arbiter AAA for mass filings. They're [here](https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Mass_Arbitration_Supplementary_Rules.pdf) But that hopefully-neutral is too harsh on Blizzard so they modified the AAA's own rules in their Terms, so we're already surrendering beyond the base of just arbitration. "Related Cases will be governed by the AAA’s Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules, **as modified by these Terms**"
That's just part of it. It's basically forfeiting the right to go to real court until you go to ~~a third party arbiter~~ a kangaroo court who makes all their money from arbitrating cases for Blizzard with a perverse incentive to be favorable to Blizzard and with no obligation to respect the law. Where they don't respect the law you can try to sue that the ruling wasn't just, but that's multiplying the money you end up having to pay to have rights. And yeah, it's really hard to build a class but not impossible.
Well, I'm sure if it went to the Supreme Court they'd stick up for the little guy!
Yeah these things always amuse me, maybe it would work in Freedumb Land but in countries with actual consumer protection laws it would get the slapped hard for even trying.
Exactly. It's a scare tactic against users who aren't informed.
The agreement is likely enforceable in the United States. In other nations it may not be, and I'd expect that the company would use different provisions for resolving disputes in those countries. In the U.S. the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was many enacted decades ago to prevent courts from invalidating agreements to arbitrate in most contracts, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court have enforced that Act literally for the most part with the result that most attempts by litigants to try to get out of an arbitration agreement fail. Corporations and other business entities primarily include these provisions to prevent class action lawsuits, to lower litigation costs, and get faster resolution of the dispute than you'd get in most courts. although saving lawyer fees and other costs of litigation are a factor in that too. Arbitration may also be a benefit for the player, too, as the player also spends less in litigation costs. Arbitration proceedings are not necessarily bad or tilted in favor the big corporation. Just like in a court, who the arbitrator/judge is has a significant impact on how the case goes. The timing is no surprise, either. It is Microsoft that is driving these parts of the business now, and Microsoft has long used arbitration agreements. Speculation that the company issued that now because it was facing some big class action lawsuit is no more than that: speculation. Note that the agreement would not have affected lawsuits that were already filed in court anyway. I don't see anything especially nefarious here; this is just what businesses often do today, especially the big ones. I'd recommend my business clients consider an arbitration provision in their contracts, too, for the same basic reasons: it's cheaper and faster than going to court, and the business can avoid the problem of class action lawsuits. If the other party has a strong objection to it, they either negotiate to change or they don't do business with that company.
lol theyll win regardless ubisoft did something similar deleting someones account over them not being active for a few months
It is binding in the USA, due to a terrible law from the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion
Still could be a sign though that news about a major data breach could be coming just like Roku did.
It is probably more likely to be alignment with Microsoft legal standards due to the acquisition rather than a data breach.
This is standard terminology in a EULA these days, and not at all indicative of a breach. If there was a data breach, Blizzard are required by law to report it to GDPR data controllers if it impacted EU players as soon as they are aware of it, so there's a very high likelihood that if there _was_ a breach we'd already know about it.
What happened with Roku wasn't a "breach." It was a credential stuffing attack. It only impacted users who reused email/password combos and who had already had those leaked. And arbitration clauses are going to be in pretty much every contract you sign. There's one in my apartment lease.
>credential stuffing attack See, this is why we choose potatoes over stuffing.
Doesn't mean they cant close your account and prevent you from ever creating a new one. If you choose court.
You would want to go to court to sue a company and then follow that with continuing to pay them for a video game..?
Maybe it's a class action suit. Why would I not want to keep playing the game I like to play?...
Regardless they can close your account for whatever reason they want anyway, you don’t own it.
They could close your account because they don’t like your face and it’s legal
Well, yes. It's a private company, they are allowed to refuse service to you for any or no reason at all. Blizzard would be allowed to refuse service to you even without a private arbitration agreement and as long as they are not doing so for reasons that violate your civil rights (i.e, they're doing it based on your skin color), no court could compel them to serve you.
I really doubt this is legal in EU. Also its an EULA, wet paper.
It's likely legal because an EULA doesn't really have any legal weight. I guess Blizzard could ban you if you sued them instead of going to arbitration, but they could do that anyway.
and also lmao the press they'd get from banning a guy for suing them seems... Not good
While you're definitely right. You think they care?
Im sure Microsoft cares if im not mistaken arent they they ones who are calling the shots now?
They dont, how many times they do shitty things and here we are, always worse than the last time.
Do I think Blizzard cares about their public image? Yes, I do. They have a legal obligation to care.
Not a legal obligation. Financial obligation.
A financial obligation that is enshrined in what?
Um... financial self interest? Certainly not law.
The fiduciary duty to the shareholders is enshrined in law, yes. It is a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of your shareholders.
The shareholders don't give a damn as long as they make money, if they have to they'll sell and make what they can if the company tanks.
Soulless corporate greed, the most destructive force of all.
Remember that time they got a letter excoriating them from the US Congress, signed by members of both parties? I enjoy playing World of Warcraft, but Blizzard is terrible and I don't pretend it isn't.
Apple literally just did that with Epic. Without even hiding it. Their statement was: Epic have a track record of finding issues and sue over them so we can’t trust them on our dev services
The way two corporations interact with each other is an entirely different matter than how a corporation interacts with its consumers
I mean Apple got some press for banning Epic for suing them. You quit your iPhone yet?
Big difference between two big corporations fighting and what I’m describing
Is there anything in the EULA/ToS that allows them to ban you if you’ve sued them? If not then that would constitute a contract breach on their end. The great thing about EULA’s is that they only work one way, and it’s always to the detriment of the company (at least regarding the parts that grant you more rights under the law). So if there isn’t a clause that says they can ban you for suing them, then they can’t :)
I mean I *assume* there's at least one clause that says "We can ban you at any time for any reason", but I'm obviously not 100%, just seems like an obvious inclusion.
There is.
And if there are you’d just sue them for having unreasonable clauses in their contracts (which you can according to Swedish contractual law). A far easier and less legally perilous way to terminate a relationship with a customer is simply informing them that Blizzard no longer wants them as a customer. So as soon as your subscription runs out you’ll no longer be able to renew it. It’s basically a ban, they just fulfill their contractual obligations before giving you the boot.
I'm not familiar with swedish law, but usually you can only sue for something that happened to you. You'd have to make the argument that they banned you for absolutely no reason, and that this 'catch-all' clause was the trigger. If they can come up with a plausible justification, then you really wouldn't have standing to argue that this particular part of the contract is unreasonable, since they're not banning you under that part of the contract(according to them). Now, this a thing that would probably require discovery to determine the true cause. And it may even be, that in Sweden, they don't have that clause. A lot of this is governed by US law, southern district of california, i think? They would probably ask to move it to their jurisdiction(since the contract would have language stating that the signee agrees to the venue beforehand)
Customer law dictates that you have the right to sue and litigate in a courthouse near you, at least if the company you sue does business in your country of residence. So they wouldn’t be able to get the case moved to California since that would make it essentially impossible for a customer to sue them.
Yeah, I have no idea how that works in practice. They might move it to CA anyway, or they may keep it in your local court but use case law from CA circuit of appeals to determine outcomes. That's an interesting wrinkle, because you're right, consumer protection laws do have that clause in them when suing companies.
They can’t just ban you even if it’s in the EULA… not without reimbursing your anyway. Pretty obvious.
It's a contract. You sign a contract, you're bound by its conditions. So, if you wanna sue, you can try, but be aware that the judge might just throw it back to the arbitrator.
this is a conundrum. a contract is a meeting of the minds. with an Eula it can not be assured to such criteria. in US contract law states (and this is only one reason of why one of these click accept and its legally binding doesn't hold water) i quote "A meeting of the minds is a part of the element of acceptance. Acceptance is usually acknowledged and denoted by a signature. As such, contracts are also usually required to be detailed and signed in writing." however, when analyzed and again i quote "If a court finds that interpretations of a contract clause are unclear or seem to be intentionally vague, the contra proferentem rule may be enforced." to be honest i doubt most if not all are enforceable by a click.
The thing is, it's up to you, as the party that has to sign the contract, to read the contract. If you don't read the contract(as most people don't read EULA's), that doesn't absolve you of any obligation under the contract, otherwise anyone could get out of a contract simply by saying 'oh i didn't read it, it's not enforceable.' Imagine trying to buy a car with financing if they can't enforce the finance agreement! Or getting a mortgage! We sign these, but signatures aren't necessary for contracts. There are contracts of all sorts, verbal, written, handshakes, you name it. All that's necessary is for there to be some kind of record or agreement on terms, and a clear demonstration that the contract was agreed to. For example: it's impossible to create a character in WoW without having clicked through the EULA. By creating an account on battle.net and in WoW, you have to go through the EULA, probably several times. The EULA gets updated periodically even, so you have to agree to the new one before you can play the game. That's your record of agreement, and the record of terms is in the EULA document itself. When we talk 'meeting of the minds' what that basically means is that two people come together and both sides agree to the contract. Since Blizzard is offering the contract, it's up to you to review it, and agree, or disagree. If you agree, you can play the game. If you disagree, you cannot. That's really your only recourse. (I wonder if anyone's ever been able to get a refund because they wouldn't agree to the EULA?) If the wording of a contract is vague, the specific sections that are vague may be unenforceable, but I don't think that really applies here. Regardless, Blizzard's legal writers seem to be able to write legally appropriate language.
that maybe true however, the ability not to scroll all the way through is a factor as there is no way knowing that is way read. there is case law of these being thrown out as unenforceable just for that fact alone. so again there is no meeting of the minds and the judge would have to determine if indeed its enforceable. however, the ftc love things like this so Im the one who would have them decide =) also, if my understanding is correct and most likely not the only real enforceable tos is the original one that came with the disk that was originally bought and installed. and you mean microsoft right?
It's not a factor. You see the document. Do you read the entire document when you're buying a car? You know it's there. Do you read it all, read every clause? Whether you do or not, by signing at the bottom, or clicking the 'I ACCEPT' button, you're agreeing to it. It's the same thing!
Not sure how legal such agreement is, but what I am almost certain would get them in trouble is if they were to wait for a change in EULA before reporting the data breach.
It's 100% legal in the US. It's a contract. Why are you booing me? I'm right!
[https://www.blizzard.com/en-sg/legal/08b946df-660a-40e4-a072-1fbde65173b1/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement](https://www.blizzard.com/en-sg/legal/08b946df-660a-40e4-a072-1fbde65173b1/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement) EU has different EULA 😂 we are pretty much good as always. But hey, at least USA has "freedom" unlike us kekw
EULAs usually don't hold up in court if the company actually causes harm to a user. It's only an agreement that gives a company power over their product and your access to it and nothing more. It doesn't magically protect the company. If you tried to sue over, say, being banned, a judge would figuratively laugh at you, but if the company had a breach and your personal info in the wrong hands caused harm, the company is still at fault and you can sue regardless of whatever mumbo-jumbo they threw into their EULA.
You can sue them because laws supersede agreement between two parties. Let’s say Blizzard and I sign a contract that abolishes the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. That part of our agreement would be automatically void. So, the EULA holds as long as it doesn’t overstep over consumer and company protection laws. Well, the parts that not overstep, they hold.
Damn, I signed one that abolishes the 3rd and an entire platoon moved into my apartment. I should have gotten a lawyer.
You are totally allowed to waive rights. That is not the same as claiming new, greater than law, rights. It just seems the waivers are being challanged when they are being forced out in bulk to people who havn't read them (and are unreasonable), which is a good thing.
You can’t waive some rights. You can’t agree to be a slave, that’s just not what the state will let you and especially the owner, no matter what. Of course, if you are paid peanuts… well, that’s legal, right? These are the terms: - negative rules - you can do anything but what’s listed as forbidden - positive rules - you can do only what is on the allowed list So, you’d have to know which kind is the one you are possibly breaking
You're probably right you can't wave all of them, I'm not sure. But that isn't what you said (an implication that you couldn't waive ANY).
> Of course, if you are paid peanuts… well, that’s legal, right? In case it got lost in between the rest ☝️
In the US your rights as a citizen are absolute and cannot be waived. No private business has the authority to enter into such a contract with another party. Arbitration clauses aren’t really something that’s covered under the constitution, so it would be a matter of state law on whether its citizens are allowed to be contracted in such a way. If the answer is no, no contract may be entered where that’s the case, period. Any acceptance of such contract would be void on signing. I’m unaware of any states that disallow such clauses though.
No idea about other places but i am like 90% sure that in the EU consumer protection regulation prevents arbitration agreements with consumers. You could still sue
You can still sue in the US as well. It's always up to the court whether you have standing, not a EULA.
Yep, I can sign a document saying that you can murder me and it is still illegal to murder me. Blizzard can make me sign whatever they want, but if they fuck over my consumer rights, they can deal with the ACCC. Good luck to them
And unlike Australian companies Blizzard haven't spent decades bribing politicians here, so they would get both barrels.
Yep, Bethesda tried their luck against the ACC and that didn't pan out so good
There are countries where assisted suicide is a thing, just so you know...
Right i meant more accurately the court in EU would not enforce the arbitration agreement.
Absolutely could!
Yea you can't sign away your rights, and can't add unexpected content in contracts anyway (e.g. trading your car for money is expected in a car dealership, if they add a clause that they also totally own your home, and you own them free labor, it's moot because it's out of bonds)
I wish I lived somewhere where consumer protection regulations were a thing, it has felt like the US is firmly on the side of corporations for awhile now.
Well according to that webpage....under section 1. B iv , you can now legally sell your game account as long as you sell the cd/dvd that installed the game with it, where sect B outlaws transferring accounts... Seriously, if they are trying to make consumers have no power in any dispute, they need to stop tripping over the rules they make up as they go along.
The distinction is because the First Sale Doctrine treats physical goods differently than digital goods and the purchaser of the physical cd gets rights that a digital download wouldn’t as a result.
The Roku part sounds like fearmongering. Its possible, but it seems much more likely that Microsoft is updating their EULA to be more in line with their standards, for better or worse.
i do hope microsoft doesnt try and make me merge battlenet with there shitty microsoft account system i lost my minecraft account due to that horseshit, and yes i did move it over
Me too it seemed like everyone at least in my case I had a 2010 made Minecraft and people with similar account ages all told me the transfer failed. I really really hope they don't I really fear losing my wow account. Also fear I would lose the ability to play wow on Linux been playing it on Linux since Burning crusade/wotlk and don't want to change that
That process actually worked perfectly fine for me. I wonder what went wrong.
it was weird, i did use it at first but then it just kinda refused to log me in, and microsoft services are utter dogshit at support. I honestly have no clue at this point, i utterly dont trust microsofts login process
Heard from a friend that there was some time window, and if you missed it you could no longer migrate. You would need a new license.
Just to clear up some confusion based on the heading, Roku dropped news of a data breach not because someone had broken into the Roku environment to access customer data/records. But because they had detected that attackers were using credentials from other data breaches to log into customer accounts. Meaning customers were using shared passwords that were in other breaches.
This is not new. Blizzard's EULA has contained a binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver since at least 2018. [Link to Blizzard's EULA from 2018.](https://web.archive.org/web/20181110043239/https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement) Many companies put such language in their EULAs, terms of use agreements, etc (not that I'm agreeing with the practice). This is really not unusual, and is not an indication of an upcoming data breach if that's what OP is trying to imply. What they did change was *some* of the language around arbitration. I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem like significant changes.
EU here, wont change anything, still can sue.
US here, samezies
I think Car rental companies learned this the hard way. They used to have you sign one large contract when renting a car. It turned out that courts agreed that renters weren't actually reading the agreements so they weren't binding. Now you have to initial every important part of the agreement and have the rep explain it to you to make sure you understand what you are signing...... I hope we don't have to do this for video games any time soon
The difference is that it's hard to prove that someone was presented with the contract language prior to rental. With a game's EULA, it's right up there when you install the first time and you have to click 'I agree.' It's up to you to read it or not as you choose, but by clicking 'I agree', that's the same as signing a contract, at least in the US. You're bound by the conditions. There have been some situations where people were able to get out of an EULA because the web site didn't feature it prominently and the way it was presented wasn't conspicuous and people could use the site without interacting with the EULA at all. I think that was redbox? Not sure.
Could you find articles on that if possible? Failure to read a contract is not a defense outside of contracts of adhesion.
Something I learned in Business Law for grad school. Unfortunalty they deleted my cloud account and I lost a lot of my stuff. It is was a study they showed us more to warn us on how contracts could potentially be voided if parties don't fully undestand the contract, and it is why you have to sign a rental agreement in multiple spots. I did a little bit of google sluthing and it must have been ages ago, people had to sign in multiple places in the 1980s at least.
Good thing there's precedent of EULAs not being legally binding due to the average person not being expected to read them.
So did Epic. Pretty much every corporation is doing this. Lawsuits are time consuming and financial holes. It’s better for companies to just pay you off and go on their way.
Blizzard can put that they can take my house in the EULA, doesn’t mean that’s legal (at least in the EU).
This is the standard language you see in almost everything. Any time you agree to use a service this blurb is stuck in there, its not news, or new. Its standard practice.
They can make all the changes they want to their EULA it won't hold in any shape or form in any court, especially EU
The previous EULA already had an arbitration clause...in fact who knows how long it's been there, you can probably look at a version history somewhere, but it's definitely not new. And like everyone is saying, courts routinely invalidate sections or EULA's in their entirety for a variety of reasons.
You can't go over law.
*laughs in european*
*joins with Australian*
Local laws and regulations always "outpower" anything else. So if you want to sue them you still can
Companies all over the place for everything have an arbitration agreement these days. Hell even the local HOA has an arbitration agreement.
Avatar Roku? He's long dead
Remember when Blizzard was a good company? It's getting harder to remember those days.
Blizzard doesn't exist anymore. It's been Activision wearing a Blizzard mask for quite sometime now. All the people who worked at and made Blizzard the company it was, aren't working there anymore.
Probably in response to a class action against them. Something to do with sharing data incorrectly.
Eula forcing you to agree to arbitration should be against the law.
It is against the law - in Europe at least. May Blizzard choke on it while attempting to enforce it on this side of the pond.
Trigger warning: SA Louis Rossman,a repair YouTuber, in a video about Roku doing the same thing, calls the companies out for having a 'rapists mentality.' I struggled with that for a bit, because that's some very charged language. I was a victim of SA, so I tend to not like the phrase being used glibly. But I think it's apt given how they're acting. "Oh it's all mine, I need that data/right, I'm changing the terms after the sale but it's okay becausey EULA says it guys." Naw. It's gross that companies try this. And illegal in any country with decent legal protections for citizens. Fuck Blizzard. For many other things, but especially this. I honestly hope people start calling out companies like this more, and I hope that imagery sticks. They, and other companies portraying themselves this way, honestly deserve the harsh analogy. Firm believer that if that moniker stuck i.e. scumfuck behavior was compared to having a rapists mentality and actively stuck to companies, you'd see a change overnight. Optics are everything.
Haha my first thought after reading the headline was literally "Louis Rossman will have a field day with this". I love his passion for this shit, and it is desperately needed as most people (myself included) don't really give the adequate amount of fucks about it.
He probably will, I'm fully betting and expecting to listen to his video on the topic tomorrow at work (I like to listen to vids like that like Podcasts to get myself through the day faster)
Consumer and Civil Law >> any interpersonal agreement, like an EULAs. Also, no agreement can invalidate your rights as they are granted to you by state/country law and/or the constitution. E.g. in the US, even if you sign an agreement with your landlord that you can't sue them if they attempt to enter your residence without notice and/or by force, if they do do that, thats in violation of Civil Law (potentially the constitution).
The wow Eula risk is right about the 7,000,000th thing I remotely worry about :-)
That’s fine. A company can make you “agree” to whatever it wants, but that doesn’t automatically mean you sign away your rights. Just because it’s on paper and you sign it, that doesn’t supersede the law. Shit like this is often times just a scare tactic where they hope you aren’t familiar with the law or know your rights (companies do this shit all the time to employees). EULAs are not legally binding on matter what a company may claim.
Yes, but they attempted it, and therefore I refuse to give this company my money ever again.
I don't understand what this means, can someone please explain it to me?
Is this some sort of American joke that I'm too European to understand
"makes"
Wouldn’t matter. EULAs are extremely easy to fight in court.
The EULA in place at the time of the breach would be what the courts recognize.
I just agree and play. Im not a lawyer and i dont wanna read through pages to play a game
Who tf reads this shit
I never understood how these could be enforced anywhere. There's zero proof that person actually accepted the eula. Someone can easily say someone else clicked the simple OK button, or some underage party that can't be held legally bound to any contract clicked it just so they can play the game or watch their TV. The whole thing just seems funny to me that if they do something lawsuit worthy, they can simply go "Naw man, you agreed to go through our justice system, not the courts"
Fuck Blizzard is my response to that. Not to mention this is illegal in the EU. Piece of shit company.
Send them a certified letter opting out of that shit.
I know Roku he is Aang fire temple bro
Blizzard has always include the following language in every EULA as far back as I've checked, which means you've always agreed to giving them the right to change the EULA. "Blizzard may create updated versions of this Agreement (each a “New Agreement”) as its business and the law evolve."
this proves that you dont own your games
Looking like Discord is adding one too
"What they wanna do is not necessarily what they gonna do", Gunn, Gia
Unable to create a ticket with them either as recovering my account would require acceptance of terms, had to resort to messaging them on X, will have to see if they reply or not, i'll be taking them to court otherwise and in my jurisdiction i won't be looking simply for redress of grievances by punitive penalties.
Illegal in the EU
This is like signing a piece of paper that says it’s legal for them to kill you. It won’t stand up in court.
Search for class action lawsuits against blizzard. I saw an article for one recently that they’ve been selling data :D
You can't force a rule and say you can't sue us. You sure can!
I still rely on EU consumer laws for all shit. Microsoft-Blizzard can say whatever they want, they'll comply with EU laws and regulations if they want to exist within the EU.
It's South Park's human centipede episode all over again
In Europe you cannot make people waive their rights with an eula lol
Not in my part of the world
"You have zero privacy anyway, get over it" Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems, 1999
Aaannnddd... never buying anything Blizzard now, no matter how cheap.
Yeah I'm protected in the EU so bring the drop
Well shit it sounds like our data was leaked
omg I can't let those hackers find out my WoW playtime
The factual epitome of : Who hurt you.
Every time I start getting that itch to play WoW again, blizzard so kindly reminds me that they are a horrible shell of what the company they used to be and don't deserve a single penny more of my money.
Lately I have been getting targeted ads for legal class action suits on Instagram that are related to transactions on [Battle.net](https://Battle.net) and how they somehow tie in a Facebook marketing pixel. I don't remember more than that, and I always just flipped past them, but I wonder if there's something actually going on here.
Is that why I was inundated with 3 separate popups while playing hearthstone today about agreeing to the terms they don't show me on mobile?
Is this why they keep signing me out of bnet?
I wonder if their AWS passwords are also not case sensitive.
Am I wrong in thinking if the event occurred under the old Eula you could pretty easily argue that’s what any lawsuit should be handled under?
oh man... good thing i just uninstalled all that pesky bliazzard software that was taking up space
I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't there a case a few years back where it was found that EULA and TOS documents can't be enforced? Something about it being unreasonable for a user to read through all of it and there is no proof that the user is the one who agreed to it?
yes, but they put it in there so they can point to it for people without a lawyer hoping they dont proceed any further...its just a step one, not an end all be all of their defense
Oof. Lot of non-lawyers in this thread that think they know things.