Just so ya’ll know, EULAs are routinely thrown out of court.
They straight up don’t matter, and anything that is extremely long and asks you to ‘agree’ to it is subject to the same scrutiny.
All of the times we clicked agree without reading actually helped us, because now courts can say “nobody reads that stuff before hitting accept.”
Anyone still buying Nintendo products at this point isn’t paying attention.
At this point, I guess they are either ignorant, unethical, or they are just lying to themselves because they can’t resist the temptation to play their games.
Look I don’t fault developers for kissing the ring. I know and have spoken with multiple devs at different Nintendo affiliated companies and they don’t enjoy it either but it lets them make the games they love for the people that they want to entertain.
I can’t say I support hating a full group of people because that’s not great either. “… except for the Amish but it’ll never get back to them” - John Pinette
In my case, I don’t hate them. I respect those devs, people have to put food on their tables somehow, and this way isn’t one of the worst… I just believe that by doing so, we are helping to perpetuate vicious corporativism.
Just how an NDA won’t protect a(n) person/entity from legal repercussions when committing crimes from being “leaked” doesn’t mean it’ll hold in court, just how these highly illegal and predatory EULAs shouldn’t either. There’s a reason why this bullshit only happens in America, this EULA elsewhere wouldn’t work unless it’s modified to not contain this blatant shit of a thing. It’s a shame we’re the few dumb enough to allow our own downfall while parading our aggressors. 🫠🫠🫠
I am very happy to be living in Austria. We have this law right here https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002462&Artikel=&Paragraf=6&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht= (And yes, our laws are available for free and up-to-date for everyone)
Section 6(1)(14) of the Austrian Consumer Protection Act states that any contractual provision requiring a consumer to waive their right to assert claims is invalid.
What sort of half assed reporting came up with this story? This is not a new policy. If I remember right, Nintendo added a forced arbitration clause to their EULA about 10 years ago (I would try to find an exact date, but Google is flooded with articles parroting this story).
It came up with regards to Joy-Con drift in 2017: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2020cv01694/292704/21/
Should companies be allowed to force arbitration as a shield against all law suits? Hell fucking no, but their lawyers say they can, so any company with a EULA written by a half decent lawyer includes the wording.
At this point, the only reason anyone would complain that a company includes the clause is rage bait.
I was so happy to go through the Steam EULA and find that it explicitly states that all disputes will be heard in the court local to the customers.
There’s a good chance that clause won’t hold up in court, but proving that would require a lot of time and money.
