Forcing you to shut up or go to court isn’t great either, though.
On the big stuff where they’re liable for a lot of money and you might be able to get a pro bono lawyer, sure.
On the small stuff, though, the prospect of having to pay for a lawyer and likely have your case thrown out by a judge for not being worth the expense and effort of suing a foreign company is probably going to deter a LOT of legitimate claims.
If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.
If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.
While supposedly being a lot cheaper than litigation, arbitration isn’t free either. Besides, arbitration makes it near-impossible to appeal a decision, and the outcome won’t set binding legal precedent. Furthermore, arbitration often comes with a class action waiver. Valve also removed that from the SSA.
I’m far from an expert in law, especially US law, but as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it’s just not a requirement anymore. I’m sure they’re making this move because it somehow benefits them, but it still seems to me that consumers are getting more options which is usually a good thing.
as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it’s just not a requirement anymore.
Unless the OP is a forgery of some sort, you evidently DON’T understand it.
still seems to me that consumers are getting more options which is usually a good thing.
Nope. They’re switching from one mandatory method which favors companies liable to get into big disputes where a court case is advantageous to the consumer, which isn’t the case with them, to one that favors a company wanting to avoid a lot of issues too small to warrant a lawyer.
It’s not anywhere near as bad for consumers as when a utility company that poisons thousands of people forces everyone to corporate-friendly arbitration procedure (likely with the “neutral” third party much less neutral than the ones Valve used), but it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.
Which is why it’s best to let the user choose rather than force one or the other.
The reason why we always hear about companies forcing arbitration is because arbitration is best for them when it comes to the big stuff that the news report on, compared to court.
The reason why we never hear about the opposite is twofold:
it doesn’t happen as often and
“yamanii didn’t get their refund approved even though they were entitled to according to the rules” isn’t something that makes headlines or even makes it to court.
Forcing you to shut up or go to court isn’t great either, though.
On the big stuff where they’re liable for a lot of money and you might be able to get a pro bono lawyer, sure.
On the small stuff, though, the prospect of having to pay for a lawyer and likely have your case thrown out by a judge for not being worth the expense and effort of suing a foreign company is probably going to deter a LOT of legitimate claims.
If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.
While supposedly being a lot cheaper than litigation, arbitration isn’t free either. Besides, arbitration makes it near-impossible to appeal a decision, and the outcome won’t set binding legal precedent. Furthermore, arbitration often comes with a class action waiver. Valve also removed that from the SSA.
I’m far from an expert in law, especially US law, but as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it’s just not a requirement anymore. I’m sure they’re making this move because it somehow benefits them, but it still seems to me that consumers are getting more options which is usually a good thing.
Unless the OP is a forgery of some sort, you evidently DON’T understand it.
Nope. They’re switching from one mandatory method which favors companies liable to get into big disputes where a court case is advantageous to the consumer, which isn’t the case with them, to one that favors a company wanting to avoid a lot of issues too small to warrant a lawyer.
It’s not anywhere near as bad for consumers as when a utility company that poisons thousands of people forces everyone to corporate-friendly arbitration procedure (likely with the “neutral” third party much less neutral than the ones Valve used), but it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.
Good point.
What’s the alternative?
Let the user choose. Arbitration is great for small things, not huge damages. Court is better for that.
If companies always try to force arbitration on users I have my doubts about how good it is for us.
Which is why it’s best to let the user choose rather than force one or the other.
The reason why we always hear about companies forcing arbitration is because arbitration is best for them when it comes to the big stuff that the news report on, compared to court.
The reason why we never hear about the opposite is twofold:
it doesn’t happen as often and
“yamanii didn’t get their refund approved even though they were entitled to according to the rules” isn’t something that makes headlines or even makes it to court.