this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
804 points (99.1% liked)
Games
32670 readers
618 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you have a dispute with Valve you have to hire a lawyer to take them to court. No "third party" mediation
Most disputes most likely fall far below the limit for small claims, where a lawyer is not required, or even allowed in many cases.
Isn't it often in both parties to settle things out of court? For the one that'd sue it's usually more money at less cost and the company gets around possibly having a bad precedent set and the bad publicity to potentially losing in court.
This is probably aimed at people creating issues in the hopes of getting a settlement for something that has a slim (but Nonzero) chance to hold up in court.
It's a company - I think this aims at people only bringing serious claims and reducing the paperwork for them - but since it's Valve people will glorify everything they do
Usually it's forced arbitration, you can't sue
It really favors the company. Steam is explicitly saying no arbitration which levels the playing field.
Arbitration doesn't save money. You still need lawyers.
What's bigger is this explicitly says it allows class actions. Something that most prevent and require individual arbitration, consumers are better off when they can pool resources for lawyers against a giant corporation, especially since most would require an upfront payment for a large class action.
of course - but usually it's way faster than getting a proper court-ruling - and since lawyers are paid per hour that makes a big difference
I've literally never seen any person argue that forced arbitration is a good thing for consumers...
It's always corporations
That's because the arbitrators are hired by the company. Unless it's an egregious situation, who's going to side against the people signing their paycheck?
Oh, I'm fully aware it sucks, just not sure why that person is defending it
I just saw the Uber case and realized that this in definitely way differently in the US. I was not aware that completely getting around the law was such a common practice. I thought that Disney thing was a rarity
How often are you reading about someone suing and then that lawsuit (which is already in court) being dropped because they got a better offer for an arbitration/settlement out of court? For me that's a very common thing to read for bigger cases.
But I agree that forced arbitration with not even a chance to take it to court if you don't like the offer is horrible for the consumer
That's not what arbitration is. This doesn't stop valve from reaching a settlement, it stops them from using fake privately funded bench trials
Binding arbitration means the results are legally binding, non-binding arbitration means a judge needs to approve the arbitration results before it's final. Sometimes it's with an off duty judge, sometimes anyone can be the arbiter
Regardless, on one side you have a repeat customer, on the other you have someone who will probably never be back - there's a built in conflict of interest