cross-posted from: https://lemmy.kde.social/post/1227204
Image shows screenshot of XCOM2: War of The Chosen: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Terms of Service, with an added Mandatory Arbitration clause in Section 15.
Came back to the game after a year or so, just to see this:
At least they let us disagree to the ToC. Not sure if I can play the game after that though, since I just exited after clicking the
disagreebutton.Also, at least they show us the changes on the top, so we know what happened.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s good to live in the EU where such terms don’t apply.
I don’t get this part.
How come they explicitly state the European Economic Area, while at the same time, it doesn’t apply there?Or do the European Economic Area and EU refer to different things?
Or is it that they thought the user will not care to check in case they have a problem big enough to seek legal aid?
The EEA shows up in the list of places it does not apply. They worded it strangely, first calling out the US as a place where it does apply. Then they change it up and say it also applies to anywhere not on this specific list of places
EEA and EU are related but not the same
Take Two are an evil company
What game is this even from.?
XCOM2: War of The Chosen.
Forgot to add the name in the title since I first posted in the XCOM2 sub. 😜
Is this actually meaningful in any way or is it just the corporate equivalent of positive manifestation? Surely no court would take seriously an after the fact imposition of you waiving your rights by default unless you send a physical letter to them informing them you disagree with losing your right to sue (for no gain on your part).
Why not? Arbitration clauses work in the US. The funnier things that happen is when something is so bad, thousands of people go in for arbitration and the company cannot afford that. Then it backfires hard on them since you need to get every person to arbitrate and there is tens of thousands of them.
The whole forced arbitration is bad enough, but retroactively enforcing it on something you already own while deliberately making it difficult to opt out just seems like its begging to fall foul of anti-consumer rules. The whole “this applies to the extent that its not really fucking illegal” clause just makes it seem like an intimidation tactic rather than actually something they think they have any chance of enforcing if it came to it.
Anti-consumer rules…? What are those? Sounds like communist propaganda to me. All hail the
corporate overlordsjob creators!
