• Re: Steam Backs Down From Forced Arbitration

    From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 27 21:00:53 2024
    Makes a good case for having other hobbies and passions in life
    besides games, does it not? ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Sat Sep 28 09:07:14 2024
    On 28/09/2024 01:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
    [Fortunately, in many civilized --read, outside the USA--
    jurisdictions, forced arbitration is either illegal or
    greatly restricted. So if you're in the UK, Australia
    or many countries of the EU, any EULAs either won't have
    any forced arbitration clauses, or if they do, those
    clauses are unenforceable]

    I did read about these rules in relation to Disney trying to claim that
    as a husband had signed to to Disney+ many years ago he couldn't take
    them to court after she died when they visited Disney World. My first
    thought was, that's not a good look you're putting forward there Disney
    and my second thought was, heh you can force people to go to
    arbitration, how is that even legal.

    In the UK my understanding is that arbitration courts exist* but they
    can only be used for a civil offences if both parties agree including
    who will be the arbitrator. Overall it seems like a good idea as I think
    a lot of reasoning was to stop expensive legal bills being racked up in
    the likes of divorce cases or as papers love to print, something about a
    house boundary dispute involving hedges.

    So for Steam, I think it's good that they are going to get rid of that
    clause even if it's for the wrong reasons.

    *That's what's normally brought up by people claiming that Sharia Law
    Courts exist in the UK normally followed by London is under Muslim control.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)