this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
191 points (99.5% liked)

Steam

10290 readers
69 users here now

Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.

Steam News | Steam Beta Client news

Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20230080

Noticed this update got pushed just now.

Edit: Seems they’re doing this to prevent costs from arbitration.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Regardless of their motivations this seems like a big positive. Forced arbitration clauses should be illegal and unenforceable in any context where it isn't customary for both parties to have legal counsel reading over the contract. And it's appalling that waivers for class action lawsuits are legal at all.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago

After the Disney debacle I've started noticing how many I see. It's really infuriating. I already had the opinion that they should be illegal but holy fuck they're everywhere.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a major _de-_enshitification step on the part of Steam.

I'm not missing something big, am I?

[–] Promethiel@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Software has been leveraged to do mass arbitrations against companies that insist on enforcing it, somewhat leveling the playing field in the power imbalance, at no less a cost than courts ultimately for the corps. Tricky enough they've found it hard to make language against them too.

So in a sense, it is de-enshitification but it is more likely borne from Steam throwing in the towel against a losing proposition (preventing costly mass-arbitration) than doing so because they want every user to have the maximum legal recourse.

A W is a W though, imo.

[–] MarcomachtKuchen@feddit.org 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I have not idea what this means. Can someone ELI5 me?

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

Previously if you had a dispute with Steam you would go to a mediator appointed Valve and you discuss things with Valve and come to an agreement. Sounds good, as it doesn't mean you have to involve lawyers.
Until you realise, Valve is paying for the mediator so the mediator has an incentive to agree with Valve to keep the business. In addition, any agreement is purely between you and Valve. It effects no one else, any previous agreement between Valve and the previous person has no bearing.

Contrast that to going to court, court decisions are binding and are able to be used in other court proceedings.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

forced arbitration means you can't go through the normal court system if you want to sue them, instead resolving it through a private neutral third party.

and before, the waiver meant that you gave up your right to sue them in a class action lawsuit

getting rid of those is a massive W

[–] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Without getting into the weeds of arbitration—if you want to sue Valve for some reason, you now have to file in King county, Washington. This makes it too expensive to be worth it for any amount less than the cost of flying to and staying in Seattle for a lawsuit. Even if you're right and Valve is wrong.

Amazon recently did this too and it worked out well for them I guess, since other companies seem to have followed suit.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago

There are much less expensive ways of suing someone than just flying there and staying until the lawsuit is done. They're still not cheap, but that's a pretty absurd way of doing it.

Forced arbitration is also complete bullshit. The fact that corporations are starting to realize it's almost as bad for them as it is for us doesn't make it any less bullshit.

[–] grandma@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

Rare corporation w?

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What does it mean? Also, does it affect everyone or just the US; because I did not see a popup about it in the EU.

[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Forced arbitration is already unenforceable in the EU, so it doesn't change anything for you. It just makes it so it works for the rest of the world the same way it already did for you.

[–] sovietknuckles@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It means that the key to getting a company to ditch arbitration is for enough people to win individual arbitration cases. There's arbitration lawyers who hedge their whole careers on arbitration payouts

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And that i good because.....?

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It means ipso facto, habeas corpus, magico, arbitration, parliamentarian moo deng, lorem ipsum.

[–] bazingabrain@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

avada kedavra, taco tuesday, avocado toast

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

This means I have won this debate. Checkmate, Valve.