On the small stuff, though, the prospect of having to pay for a lawyer and likely have your case thrown out by a judge for not being worth the expense and effort of suing a foreign company is probably going to deter a LOT of legitimate claims.

If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won't let me, I'm not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.

While supposedly being a lot cheaper than litigation, arbitration isn't free either. Besides, arbitration makes it near-impossible to appeal a decision, and the outcome won't set binding legal precedent. Furthermore, arbitration often comes with a class action waiver. Valve also removed that from the SSA.

I'm far from an expert in law, especially US law, but as I understand it, ~~arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it's just not a requirement anymore~~ [edit: nevermind, I didn't understand it]. I'm sure they're making this move because it somehow benefits them, but it still seems to me that consumers are getting more options [edit: they're not] which is usually a good thing.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it's just not a requirement anymore.

Unless the OP is a forgery of some sort, you evidently DON'T understand it.

still seems to me that consumers are getting more options which is usually a good thing.

Nope. They're switching from one mandatory method which favors companies liable to get into big disputes where a court case is advantageous to the consumer, which isn't the case with them, to one that favors a company wanting to avoid a lot of issues too small to warrant a lawyer.

It's not anywhere near as bad for consumers as when a utility company that poisons thousands of people forces everyone to corporate-friendly arbitration procedure (likely with the "neutral" third party much less neutral than the ones Valve used), but it's certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I've edited my comment to reflect that. I didn't read OP's image but rather the news post by Valve on Steam, but missed the part that said: "the updated SSA now provides that any disputes are to go forward in court instead of arbitration".

it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

But doesn't the change open up for litigation in small claims court? (Again, I'm in no way knowledgeable in US law, so I'm just asking.)

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But doesn't the change open up for litigation in small claims court?

More like mandates it. For those who live in the country to even have ACCESS to it. The vast majority of Steam users don't (while the US has more users than any other single country, it's still only ~14m out of 120m) and would also need a lawyer licensed to practice in both countries afaik.

So nah, I don't suspect that this change will benefit the users in general, rather the opposite..

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I have no idea how accurate this info on FindLaw.com is, but according to it, you don't need a lawyer in small claims court (in the US). And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court there are many other countries with similar small claim courts: "Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States". I know the list of countries is not even close to covering a large amount of Steam users, but I suspect that us Europeans are covered in other ways, so there's that.

The Wikipedia page also mentions the lawyer thing, by the way:

A usual guiding principle in these courts is that individuals ought to be able to conduct their own cases and represent themselves without a lawyer. Rules are relaxed but still apply to some degree. In some jurisdictions, corporations must still be represented by a lawyer in small-claims court.

And I don't think you need to sue Valve in the US. I think they're required to have legal representation in the countries in which they operate, which should enable you to sue them "locally" in many cases. Again, not an expert, so I'm making quite a few assumptions here.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the US small claims court is meant to handle situations like this (although I know little about it). I wonder if it's available to litigants from other countries.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't think it is. If it's anything like the US court systems I know more about (criminal, juvenile, immigration, main civil court), it's extremely backlogged already.

And that's even before considering jurisdiction and how much more a lawyer licensed to practice in at least two countries charges.

Even IF you decided to go through with it in spite of everything, you could easily end up spending thousands of dollars fighting an $80 case and STILL be likely to lose.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have heard that you don't need a lawyer in small claims court (in the sense that it's not really expected). Like I said, though, I know little about it. Maybe someone in a position to know will show up in this thread and fill us all in.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You don't need a lawyer in small claims. Can also go with a paralegal or just represent yourself.

But that's not why the small claims is backlogged anyway. I have actually no idea why it's backlogged. I've been a defendant in a small claims court case since 2021 and nothing has progressed except for an arbitration hearing in 2022.

Edit: 2020s, not early 2000s. Fuck, it hasn't been twenty years yet.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good point.

What's the alternative?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let the user choose. Arbitration is great for small things, not huge damages. Court is better for that.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If companies always try to force arbitration on users I have my doubts about how good it is for us.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Which is why it's best to let the user choose rather than force one or the other.

The reason why we always hear about companies forcing arbitration is because arbitration is best for them when it comes to the big stuff that the news report on, compared to court.

The reason why we never hear about the opposite is twofold:

it doesn't happen as often and
"yamanii didn't get their refund approved even though they were entitled to according to the rules" isn't something that makes headlines or even makes it to court.