• Major update to Steam Subscriber Agreement - Arbitration, Class Action Suits, Valve Luxembourg

    Discussion in 'News' started by ríomhaire, Aug 2, 2012.

    There has been a major update to the Steam Subscriber Agreement. Changes include a clause saying that all EU subscribers are no longer licencing games from Valve Corporation in the United States, but from "Valve S.a.r.l.", Valve's new office in Luxembourg. The terms of service for both EU and non-EU subscribers are mostly the same.

    Most importantly for US-residents is section 12 which includes a clause saying that you waive the right to bring a class-action suit against Valve. One can still bring Valve to small claims court or through a binding arbitration process outlined in the agreement. If you are seeking $10,000 or less Valve will reimburse you the cost of the arbitration process unless the arbitrator determines that the claims were frivolous or amount of money sought unreasonable. This section is likely not legally binding to anyone living outside of the United States.

    Valve is aware that these changes are, at the every least, rather controversial but has said that "We think this new dispute resolution process is faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a whole." Despite this assurance they have set up a feedback form for those who wish to share their thoughts or complaints regarding the policy change. You can find it here.
    ríomhaire, Aug 2, 2012
    #1
    Categories:

Comments

Discussion in 'News' started by ríomhaire, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. Lubci50cal
    so far I was pretty much satisfied with their service and I hope this will have no negative impact on that
    Lubci50cal, Aug 2, 2012
    #2
  2. Solver
    I find this update legally interesting. I'm no expert on American law, so it would be good to hear clarification from someone as to how Section 12 is legal. I understand that arbitration agreements are legally binding in themselves, but is it possible to waive the right to sue in a contract? I'd expect any such clause to be unconscionable.
    Solver, Aug 2, 2012
    #3
  3. ríomhaire
    I believe the US Supreme Court ruled them to be legally binding. I don't know of any other country where you can legally waive rights.
    ríomhaire, Aug 2, 2012
    #4
  4. Hectic Glenn
    Without straying into water too deep for me, I recall looking at s.a.r.l companies based in Luxembourg before (interest stemming from Amazon s.a.r.l as a reseller on Amazon). I believe it has connections to tax avoidance / evasion, not that I'm saying Valve are doing this. I'm just aware companies set up subsidiaries in places as mentioned above in order to manage their finances in Europe differently to how they do in North America. Make your own mind up, go read about s.a.r.l on google.

    Possibly a controversial move given the economic situation.
    Hectic Glenn, Aug 2, 2012
    #5
  5. TechnoHippyChic
    Having to waive the right to sue is pretty much the standard for license agreements here it seems, but yes, it's a crock. The thing about them paying for arb cost is fairly unusually generous actually. Usually whoever loses pays.
    TechnoHippyChic, Aug 2, 2012
    #6