First Sony and now EA as well.
For any lawyer-types who might be reading this... is this actually a thing that they can do? Well, I know that they can do it, because they've already done it, but what I'm really asking here is if this is something that would just be laughed out of court or would it actually be taken seriously? Like, say, if someone were to take EA to court over the clause in the EULA preventing them from taking EA to court, for example. I'm guessing this is a "try it and hope it sticks, and if not, oh well, we're no worse off than we were before" kind of thing.
For any lawyer-types who might be reading this... is this actually a thing that they can do? Well, I know that they can do it, because they've already done it, but what I'm really asking here is if this is something that would just be laughed out of court or would it actually be taken seriously? Like, say, if someone were to take EA to court over the clause in the EULA preventing them from taking EA to court, for example. I'm guessing this is a "try it and hope it sticks, and if not, oh well, we're no worse off than we were before" kind of thing.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 04:05 am (UTC)From:Hmm... whether or not hte specific clause is bad would depend on how it was presented (font size and weight), its location (blank space around it, whether or not it's buried in the document), actual verbiage, what similar non-digital contracts say/how non-digital contracts that said the same thing were/are treated, and the individual facts of the case (how egregious the error/breach was that caused the suit, how dickish the company/defendant acted, how much the plaintiff lied, etc).
but on the *other* other hand, I could be completely wrong, too.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 08:37 am (UTC)From:(Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that EULAs are, at best, completely useless anyway. Even when they're not being used in a scuzzy way like this. But that's a rant for another time.)
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 01:23 pm (UTC)From: