Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Nasty part of EULA not valid in the following states
ArcAngel3
Member Posts: 2,931
You know that part of an MMO EULA that says you agree to purchase the game "as is," and that you are waiving your consumer rights to any implied warranty? Well, it's not valid in numerous states, according to the Federal Trade Commission:
"Some states do not allow you to sell consumer products "as is." At this time, these states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In those states, sellers have implied warranty obligations that cannot be avoided." (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm)
If you live in these states and your MMO company thinks they can take your cash and give you anything they want, in any condition, they may have to think again.
Comments
Looking for apartments in New Hampshire
fly safe and carry a big ship
Antiquated law that applied more to physical hard goods where its a bit easier to define what sufficient quality/utility should be for an item.
Be hard to prove an MMORPG didn't deliver the proper gaming experience.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
The game not working as advertised wouldn't be hard to prove at all; and the law is in current use. In fact, Dell computers were hammered by the FTC to the tune of 3.35 million dollars for warranty violations.
www.obsessable.com/news/2009/01/12/dell-settles-deceptive-practices-lawsuit-for-3-35-million
You are very incorrect.
Gamers should also know that they can have the cost of attorney fees covered if they win their case. So, the cost of legal fees need not stand in the way of them standing up for their rights as citizens.
MMO companies can only abuse consumer rights if consumers remain ignorant or misinformed.
I think if you tried to take this to court the most you could do is get the money back for the box, and that only in the first 30 days. Once you make the 2nd monthly payment you have implied that you are happy enough to keep paying so you lose the right for a refund on the box. And forget about ever resubbing.
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
LOL
Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like some products and services (movies, graphic games, artwork, etc.) just aren't going to be enjoyable for blind people, and no one should be forced to bend over backwards to alter products or services with a crucial visual element to accommodate the blind.
Currently Playing: EVE Online
Retired From: UO, FFXI, AO, SWG, Ryzom, GW, WoW, WAR
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
LOL
Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like some products and services (movies, graphic games, artwork, etc.) just aren't going to be enjoyable for blind people, and no one should be forced to bend over backwards to alter products or services with a crucial visual element to accommodate the blind.
No... it's not just you. I honestly feel with the deepest sympathy for people who are impaired, and do think it's an awesome thing if people can accommodate others so they can enjoy the same things in the same manner that everyone else does. But, the analogy that kept running in my head is "What if they made Mt. Everest wheelchair accessible for mountain climbers?" I wonder what the statute of limitations is concerning Everquest and its misleading name when I played back in 99... lol.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Considering most of the "fun" part of the MMO occurs at the end-game, and depending on how long the game has been out, if you have friends in-game to play with, and all that, it might take you a few months. Thats a few months of investing money in the hopes of getting to said "happiness". Hell, it took me eight months to hit 70 in World of Warcraft because I'd get bored and make an alt to play on for a bit (this was back in TBC before all the quest updates and the lowered mount levels). If the real part of the game, the end-game, didn't play as its supposed to, and if I lived in those states, who knows! I might of had a case!
Living in Connecticut FTW!
Wait for an EULA Fanboi to show up to tell us all that by clicking "[I agree]" in an EULA that says "in accordance with the laws of American Samoa" you have waived your rights... just had this argument last week.
Good find OP. Score one for 'gamers rights' :-D
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I love watching people on a message boards, most with negligible, if any, legal background debate the merits of the legalese of EULA agreements and how they apply to the consumer laws which were created well before the computer age in most instances.
/e gets popcorn......
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
That's a new approach...
So are you saying that consumer laws created before the 'computer age' are somehow invalid?
Please clarify.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Yet no one wonders why there hasn't been a succesfull lawsuite yet?
Interesting phasing.
It implies that there have been lawsuits and they have failed?
Whereas I would assume that the law was untested and there have been no successes or failures?
So which is it? Has this law been tested?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
That's a new approach...
So are you saying that consumer laws created before the 'computer age' are somehow invalid?
Please clarify.
What I am saying is that those laws were not created with the internet in mind.
And to answer your question, yes they are invalid insomuch as dealing with the internet is concerned. Making laws that apply to brick and mortar institutions is far different than ones meant to deal with internet commerce. If you need an explanation why, I would suggest doing some more research into the topic, and why you're doing that ask yourself why there have been none, or very few successful lawsuits concerning these types of matters where old consumer laws were used as the basis for the complaint. Yes there have been lawsuits concerning this and most I am familiar with went no where because the laws created for brick and mortar stores was not adaptable enough to fit the scenarios brought about by internet commerce.
Posting stuff like in the OP as an "end all be all" of consumer protection serves no one here. It is ridiculous and dangerously naive.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Perhaps so, Einherjar, but the fact remains: The law is the law, whether or not it was designed with the Internet in mind. Until the law is changed, it still applies as written, and it certainly overrides EULAs, because a contract that contradicts the law isn't binding. There's no provision for waiving laws simply because you (and/or MMORPG developers) don't think it's appropriate for said laws to apply to online services.
Currently Playing: EVE Online
Retired From: UO, FFXI, AO, SWG, Ryzom, GW, WoW, WAR
Unfortunately legal precedence at this point in time doesn't side with you on this DoktorTuefel.
Many of the laws were not made with interstate, and sometimes international commerce in mind. They were mostly brought about to pertain to commerce within those states and give consumers protection therein.
When you move out of the state the law was written for, things become much more complicated, such as the EULA is binding in the state where the product is being sold...now whose laws apply because technically you're doing business in two states with two different sets of laws. Many current consumer laws are not capable of dealing with those types of scenarios.
Just for clarification, I am not against consumer laws and in fact I support them as they are needed, but to post an out of context quote and claim "fear no more consumers", as in the OP is like I said, dangerously naive because it arms people with incomplete information.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The game not working as advertised wouldn't be hard to prove at all; and the law is in current use. In fact, Dell computers were hammered by the FTC to the tune of 3.35 million dollars for warranty violations.
www.obsessable.com/news/2009/01/12/dell-settles-deceptive-practices-lawsuit-for-3-35-million
You are very incorrect.
Gamers should also know that they can have the cost of attorney fees covered if they win their case. So, the cost of legal fees need not stand in the way of them standing up for their rights as citizens.
MMO companies can only abuse consumer rights if consumers remain ignorant or misinformed.
You're quoting a lawsuit that was about hardware and warranty servicing to back up your claim from your OP about software and it's warranties? Software that by it's very nature is everchanging especially in the world of MMO's?
Well done in proving his point.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Unfortunately legal precedence at this point in time doesn't side with you on this DoktorTuefel.
It doesn't side with you either. Many laws with regard to software and e-commerce remain improperly tested.
Then there is the complication that a suit with regard to one type of software (ie an OS) might not set a precedence for another type of software (ie games) because of the purpose of use and implied standards due to that.
Many of the laws were not made with interstate, and sometimes international commerce in mind. They were mostly brought about to pertain to commerce within those states and give consumers protection therein.
So? That is for a court to decide. Show me the cases?
As i say, much of this is still untested.
When you move out of the state the law was written for, things become much more complicated, such as the EULA is binding in the state where the product is being sold...
Um... no. Re read the OP. In some states and countries you cannot override statutory conditions.
now whose laws apply because technically you're doing business in two states with two different sets of laws. Many current consumer laws are not capable of dealing with those types of scenarios.
Again, not always. Some consumer laws are very clear on this and apply statutory rules on commerce within that state. Depends on how well the law was written in each case.
Just for clarification, I am not against consumer laws and in fact I support them as they are needed, but to post an out of context quote and claim "fear no more consumers", as in the OP is like I said, dangerously naive because it arms people with incomplete information.
I don't think that's what was said. The OP simply said that the "as is" provision could be challenged in some cases in some states.
He did not say "Consumers always win".
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Unfortunately legal precedence at this point in time doesn't side with you on this DoktorTuefel.
It doesn't side with you either. Many laws with regard to software and e-commerce remain improperly tested.
Then there is the complication that a suit with regard to one type of software (ie an OS) might not set a precedence for another type of software (ie games) because of the purpose of use and implied standards due to that.
Agreed that it is improperly tested but of the small sample that have challenged EULA's, to my knowledge, more have failed than succeeded. So I would argue there is more case precedence to substantiate the inability of current law to apply to e-commerce sufficiently, and my position.
A few cases if you want to peruse: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center, and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
Most of those cases, as you'll note if you read them, pertain to a certain part of the EULA more than the EULA in general but the bigger picture which we are discussing is it's enforceability, whether it's one part or the whole is ostensibly moot for this discussion. That being said the small sample also lends creedence to what we both agree on and that is it has yet to be seriously tested.
Many of the laws were not made with interstate, and sometimes international commerce in mind. They were mostly brought about to pertain to commerce within those states and give consumers protection therein.
So? That is for a court to decide. Show me the cases?
As i say, much of this is still untested.
Show you cases of what? It's fairly simple to research the fact that many states are or have just recently started looking into altering their consumer laws to accommodate easier enforcement in cyberspace.
To put it simply, as I have already. Many of the consumer laws were brought about when brick and mortar stores were the standard, a standard that isn't necessarily adaptable to or sufficient enough to cover e-commerce consumers.
When you move out of the state the law was written for, things become much more complicated, such as the EULA is binding in the state where the product is being sold...
Um... no. Re read the OP. In some states and countries you cannot override statutory conditions.
I read it just fine. Just because that's what it says in black and white doesn't always mean that's how it's going to play out. It all depends on the court hearing the case. That will dictate what laws pertain and apply to said case.
now whose laws apply because technically you're doing business in two states with two different sets of laws. Many current consumer laws are not capable of dealing with those types of scenarios.
Again, not always. Some consumer laws are very clear on this and apply statutory rules on commerce within that state. Depends on how well the law was written in each case.
Agreed, it comes down to how well the law was written, which I would argue on the whole are not very well in their capability to deal sufficiently with e-commerce. The other deciding factor is going to be where the case is ultimately heard.
Just for clarification, I am not against consumer laws and in fact I support them as they are needed, but to post an out of context quote and claim "fear no more consumers", as in the OP is like I said, dangerously naive because it arms people with incomplete information.
I don't think that's what was said. The OP simply said that the "as is" provision could be challenged in some cases in some states.
He did not say "Consumers always win".
My "fear no more consumers" was tongue and cheek and was meant to reflect the spirit of the OP rather than the literalness of it.
I would be highly surprised, first if a court would even hear something like this unless it was hugely agregious on an unprecedented scale. If you ask why, I submit to you all the failed, or mishap launches of MMO's to date yet not one single successful lawsuit. Realms of Torment/Mourning, Anarchy Online, SWG, ad naseum.....all of those titles either didn't deliver on what they promised, or with the case of SWG, quit offering what they promised and offered something completely different. How many lawsuits sprang about because of it? None that I am aware of, and if there were, none were successful or I'm quite sure it would've been big news as everyone jumped on the CA bandwagon.
Good debate so far!
I enjoyed it over the usual flaming that goes on here.
I wish I could stick around to continue but unfortunately I must be off for awhile.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Someone Sue SOE for Pre CU servers!
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
LOL
Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like some products and services (movies, graphic games, artwork, etc.) just aren't going to be enjoyable for blind people, and no one should be forced to bend over backwards to alter products or services with a crucial visual element to accommodate the blind.
No... it's not just you. I honestly feel with the deepest sympathy for people who are impaired, and do think it's an awesome thing if people can accommodate others so they can enjoy the same things in the same manner that everyone else does. But, the analogy that kept running in my head is "What if they made Mt. Everest wheelchair accessible for mountain climbers?" I wonder what the statute of limitations is concerning Everquest and its misleading name when I played back in 99... lol.
Hey, there's Brail on Drive-up ATM machines.. so you never know
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
LOL
Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like some products and services (movies, graphic games, artwork, etc.) just aren't going to be enjoyable for blind people, and no one should be forced to bend over backwards to alter products or services with a crucial visual element to accommodate the blind.
No... it's not just you. I honestly feel with the deepest sympathy for people who are impaired, and do think it's an awesome thing if people can accommodate others so they can enjoy the same things in the same manner that everyone else does. But, the analogy that kept running in my head is "What if they made Mt. Everest wheelchair accessible for mountain climbers?" I wonder what the statute of limitations is concerning Everquest and its misleading name when I played back in 99... lol.
Hey, there's Brail on Drive-up ATM machines.. so you never know
The whole purpose of the ADA is not to keep people out because you don't think they'll enjoy it, but to allow a minority access to things that they may (or may not) enjoy. It's the same logic that is applied to all legistlation to protect minorities. You're logic is like requiring minorities to pass a complex literacy test back in the day. I'm sure they didn't feel like minorities could fully appreciate voting either and used that as an excuse to deny them.
And I can't imagine that it is really that difficult to include some basic features (like font size changes) that would allow for any reasonable person to agree that at least SOME effort was made. And obviously there ARE disabled people that desperately want to play or there wouldn't be WoW add-ons as were listed as an example. You start adding the social gathering aspect of an MMO and then throw in real money and it gets really close to specifically denying a person an opportunity to make revenue because they are disabled.
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
LOL
Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like some products and services (movies, graphic games, artwork, etc.) just aren't going to be enjoyable for blind people, and no one should be forced to bend over backwards to alter products or services with a crucial visual element to accommodate the blind.
No... it's not just you. I honestly feel with the deepest sympathy for people who are impaired, and do think it's an awesome thing if people can accommodate others so they can enjoy the same things in the same manner that everyone else does. But, the analogy that kept running in my head is "What if they made Mt. Everest wheelchair accessible for mountain climbers?" I wonder what the statute of limitations is concerning Everquest and its misleading name when I played back in 99... lol.
Hey, there's Brail on Drive-up ATM machines.. so you never know
The whole purpose of the ADA is not to keep people out because you don't think they'll enjoy it, but to allow a minority access to things that they may (or may not) enjoy. It's the same logic that is applied to all legistlation to protect minorities. You're logic is like requiring minorities to pass a complex literacy test back in the day. I'm sure they didn't feel like minorities could fully appreciate voting either and used that as an excuse to deny them.
And I can't imagine that it is really that difficult to include some basic features (like font size changes) that would allow for any reasonable person to agree that at least SOME effort was made. And obviously there ARE disabled people that desperately want to play or there wouldn't be WoW add-ons as were listed as an example. You start adding the social gathering aspect of an MMO and then throw in real money and it gets really close to specifically denying a person an opportunity to make revenue because they are disabled.
Hey now..Calm down now, I was just makin' a funny off his Mt Everest comment.