Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Users Lose Legal Rights in ToS Unless They Opt OutPGO Pokemon Go News - MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Users Lose Legal Rights in ToS Unless They Opt OutPGO Pokemon Go News - MMORPG.com
According to The Consumerist, up to very recently, Pokemon Go players signing the ToS have given up their right to file any sort of lawsuit against Niantic Labs for any reason. The clause strips away a user's right to file an individual lawsuit or to join a class action lawsuit under any circumstance. There is, however, good news in a way in that players can opt out of the prohibition by writing directly to the company.
Comments
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@DMKANO , did you already catch'em all?
The Pokemon Go fad probably won't last too long. If it's anything like the normal pokemon games, it doesn't take THAT long to catch them all. I haven't played this one myself though so I could be wrong about that too.
http://www.addictivetips.com/ios/how-to-opt-out-of-the-arbitration-clause-in-instagram-terms-of-use/
Instagram, LLC
ATTN: Arbitration Opt-out
1601 Willow Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025
Re: Opt-out Notice
To Whom It May Concern:
I do not agree to the Agreement to Arbitrate. By this letter, I am opting out of the Agreement to Arbitrate, including the prohibition on class actions, as authorized by the Instagram Terms of Use effective January 19, 2013. This opt-out applies to the following Instagram accounts:
Email(s):
[List the email address(es) associated with your Instagram account(s)]
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER]
Yes, this one is for Instagram but can be modified for Pokemon Go.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Anyone that considers themselves a "gamer" needs to know this one simple trick.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
can't say for every country, but where I live a tos can't invalidate a person right, it will just be considerated abusive and would just void everything.
There's nothing wrong making someone agree to waive the right to sue before partaking in certain activities (as @GeezerGamer pointed out, a ToS can never invalidate one's legal rights. It can, however, make things not go in your favor in court if you knowingly agree to them. As such, the title is somewhat misleading).
I went wakeboarding via ski rixen last year, and I had to watch an introductory video and sign something stating in so many words that 'this is dangerous. You are aware of the danger, and agree not to sue us' (funnily enough, I injured my shoulder. No intent to sue as I'm still young-ish, I'm sure it will heal, and the company went out of their way to make me aware of the risk).
There are many legal shades to this I'll not dare to get into before some internet lawyer jumps down my throat (i.e. is the activity inherently harmful?).
I think people are just a little spooked because this is a new thing, causing people to behave in new ways. Interestingly enough, Niantic's previous offering had mind control as a major plot device. Watching videos of the way crowds behave under the influence of this game, I can't help but feel they've succeeded somewhat.
That stated, there's nothing wrong with making someone 'sign a waiver' before participating. This was pretty easy to see coming.
By the way, if I'm reading the article correctly all Niantic is having you do is agree to arbitration in order to prevent any sort of class action. This is pretty common. According to the article, it looks like you can even opt out of the agreement within 30 days while continuing to play the game. In short, much ado about little.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
EULA's preventing people from returning opened software, and they fought with some retailers because they didn't accept the EULA/TOS. They ended up getting most of the software returned but it was interesting.
That being said, they've fixed the errors with Poke Go so far (the Google rights thing). BUT just in case, I put in for it already. Can never be too safe. ESPECIALLY when they may have residual account info. (not that it's my primary account)
I am surprised this is news at all. This is standard language. Do any of you actually read all the other stuff you sign for everything you do and use every day?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
This doesn't guarantee that things will go in your favor if you try to take Niantic to court after agreeing to the ToS.
It doesn't mean that I can write up a ToS before I send you off to do something inherently harmful to your being and have that absolve me of all legal liability, either.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Overall we're going to see a ton of misleading articles ranging from "don't play because you'll get mugged" to "you have no rights unless you opt out" an then in a few weeks it'll be "Pokemon Go linked to tiger attacks at zoo"
Chances are, if there's a widespread issue that the company doesn't own up to, class action lawsuits would be put together where plenty of people will opt in. If someone like.. lets take Suzie, is going to personally sue, well, I mean, no disrespect, but if anyone is going to personally sue... I doubt they'd be particularly prepared or happy with the results.
Now if Blizzard put in their ToS that if you play on a PS and you are caught you forfeit your home then let's see how far that would get.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Many people would disagree with the idea that they are inherently legally binding. It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Different circuit courts in the US, for example, will tell you different things. In the EU, precedent seems to suggest that EULA and ToS agreements are not inherently legally binding, and EULA and ToS agreements such as the one being described here - that attempt to prevent or circumvent basic given rights ( such as the right to resale, the right to reasonable legal representation, etc ) - are totally invalid. If EULAs and ToS agreements were so clearly "legally binding", then Blizzard would have been far more successful in using them to take down RMT and botting companies. As it goes, they've never managed to use their EULA or ToS agreements alone to win such cases, and have invariably had to seek rulings on points of law such as breach of the DMCA. They then claim their EULA was demonstrated to be legally binding, when it wasn't ( they've done this a number of times ).
As for the point about people reading EULAs and ToS agreements: research has shown that the vast majority of people do not read such agreements. That's probably why it's been used in many cases, sometimes successfully, to challenge the validity of such agreements. Microsoft have suffered class actions, even though their EULA and ToS agreements invariably try to prevent you from taking part in class actions against them. Again, depends entirely on the jurisdiction and the precedent set in that jurisdiction.
I'd agree with you about this being news, however. It is standard practice to pile such agreements with as many of these clauses as is humanly possible. Almost everything that makes you sign one of these agreements has this particular clause there somewhere, along with many, many other, far more nefarious and troublesome clauses as well.
Seems to me that there's a group of bitter, angry people who hate Pokemon Go and are rather dedicated to bringing it down in any way they can. My Facebook feed is full of preening shits telling me to go and drink beer instead of playing Pokemon Go, as if that's a more productive or worthwhile way to spend my time...
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
What the laws are and what your rights are will depend on the country you live in.
In the US I am not aware of any simple overarching ruling and so this may be as much about trying to fend off law suits. (Me and my brother got shot at late evening by a gun toting maniac; both the maniac and the game are to blame - the game for leading us into such a dangerous neighbourhood.)
In EU countries the EU supreme court ruling was pretty straightforward: ToS and EULAs cannot trump national laws.
I think it would be a good idea for contracts to not allow things like this. Clearly, ToS/EULA are not regulated enough with this respect. Companies should get fined for using clearly invalid paragraphs etc. in it, and customers should get a compensations if it's in a court case.
It's similar to copyright claims. You use material that is illegal, and even if it's a children's choir singing happy birthday, you'll get a fine. But they take down your material, nothing happens. Heck, even NASA struggles with this, they often get their stuff taken down by others who claim the material as theirs when they upload it again, e.g. as part of a news shows or whatever.
Obviously, there is a small line between how it is right now and hitting small businesses too hard, but you could have it start only above a certain limit of total revenue and the fine could be in % of revenue/profit or such, and start out small but rising fast for repeated offenders.
Some such laws are already in place, but they are not really applied, either because you have to win a court case first or because they are only applicable in certain cases, and companies make sure (through legal mumbo jumbo) that it's not applicable in their case.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Agreements to arbitrate "Arbitration Clauses" are for the most part enforceable as long as they are conspicuous and not contrary to public policy.
Numerous jurisdictions have repeatedly maintained that click-wrap/scroll-wrap agreements are conspicuous enough to satisfy the notice requirement.
This is not news. Chances are that by posting on this site you have agreed to a very similar arbitration clause.