[gregory2590]

(does this **** even go here?)

In September, Sony updated its PlayStation Network terms of service to prevent class-action lawsuits. Now that change has itself instigated a class-action lawsuit.
According to court documents obtained by GameSpot, a Northern California man filed suit against Sony late last month on behalf of all customers who purchased a PlayStation 3 and signed up for PSN access before the September change to Sony's terms of service. The suit alleges that Sony engaged in unfair business practices by forcing consumers to either give up their right to file a class-action lawsuit or give up access to the online gaming network they effectively paid for when they purchased the hardware.

The suit says Sony buried the clause section describing the changes near the bottom of a 21-page form viewable through the PS3 and neglected to post an easily accessible version of the form online, even though it had done so with past user agreement updates. While the suit notes that Sony allowed an opt out from the class-action provision, the only way for consumers to do that was to contact the company in writing (no emails, phone calls, or online forms accepted) within 30 days.
Sony had not responded to a request for comment as of press time.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/sony-sue...update-6347852

Kind of a pointless lawsuit I believe. Especially since the new tos...stops the lawsuits from being effective.

[mack19318]

If this guy had good enough lawyers and enough money he could win. Sueing after signing or accepting a TOS aggrement has been done before.

[STLcardsWS]

I accually contacted my states Attorney general.. I got a response from Sony and the A.G.

Some BS, but basically they claim nothing is illegal since they give the clause.. I may do a follow up on it.. saying that they Intentionally hide the clause and make it difficult..

Not sure if i still have those letters still, will scan them if do and put them up here or in another thread..

I think what needs to be pressed in this situations is the fact that PSN is a service that isnt a gurantee.. So with that said why are people REQUIRED to update a game and agree to new terms if they have no intention on even going online with the game...

The fact that the SYSTEM version required isnt on games and the fact that you must agree to terms AFTER the purchase.. Show the dishonesty of a compnay..

A small buisness couldnt operate like this and that's where the rights of consumers are going away, because Corps have money to pay anyone off.. Sadly Morals can be bought..

(A bit of topic but thats why i am a strong supporter of RON PAUL, he fight for the people and the constitution.. He isnt PAID off by corps or make promises to corps for campaign money..)

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by STLcardsWS A bit of topic but thats why i am a strong supporter of RON PAUL, he fight for the people and the constitution.. He isnt PAID off by corps or make promises to corps for campaign money..

I'm voting for him...but then no one I have ever voted for has won...at any level of government.

[JOshISPoser]

really killerbug?! that bites how many times have you voted? how have you done with voting on propositions?

[STLcardsWS]

Originally Posted by KillerBug I'm voting for him...but then no one I have ever voted for has won...at any level of government.

Well lets hope that changes!!! ..

He is a gift from our founding fathers..

EVERYONE do your own research.. (watching TV and them telling you who to vote for isnt research )

The media doesn't like honest politicians.. They don't pay well...

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by JOshISPoser really killerbug?! that bites how many times have you voted? how have you done with voting on propositions?

I vote every year...so 9 times.

-No candidate I have voted for has ever won.
-1 of all the referendums I voted for passed (by a huge margin), the others all failed.
-No judge I voted to have removed has been removed, except for those who later left voluntarily or because of medical issues.

So far, voting has been nothing but a waste of gas and time for me...although last year I almost got on TV because they wouldn't let me vote...unfortunately, the reporter in the hall was a bit to anxious and the voting staff realized what was about to happen, so they let me vote. Regardless, I still vote just so when government officials get caught committing crimes and f**king everyone over I can say, "I voted against the bastard...it is all your fault for voting for Obama".

[Cheesethief]

Is it me, or doesn't taking away the right to participate in a lawsuit go against some sort of consumer right?

BTW: Ron Paul FTW, if only for the fact that he is against the income tax....
He should make that a bit more clear in his speeches, most people hate taxes.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by Cheesethief Is it me, or doesn't taking away the right to participate in a lawsuit go against some sort of consumer right? BTW: Ron Paul FTW, if only for the fact that he is against the income tax.... He should make that a bit more clear in his speeches, most people hate taxes.

Consumer rights only exist when the consumer is a corporation.

[Cheesethief]

Originally Posted by KillerBug Consumer rights only exist when the consumer is a corporation.

And the more wealthy, the more rights they have.