Discord ToS update revokes users' right to sue

[themctipers]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Telegram uses weaker encryption which isn't as well tested.

Signal also supports IOS and has a good UI.

i mean your chat thing 

I'm not installing another fucking app

[Noctus]

10 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Roger Wilco > Ventrilo

Noooooooo

[ZacoAttaco]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

This doesn't apply in Australia.  Fortunately Australian law forbids EULA and consumer contracts (even business) that ban you from taking legal action.   In fact not only would the judicial system allow you to sue them but they would lose the first part of the whatever case was brought against them for that contract alone.

I was going to say, as an Aussie this seems to be something that wouldn't be tolerated here. Isn't funny how all these companies like OnePlus and Discord all start off by being the saviour of the internet and they give the consumer what they really want? Then as they mature they just turn into every other big corporation...

15 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

discord as Discord disallows legal discord for times of discord

You just won the internet, congratulations  

You should write for The Onion with headlines like that 

[abjd]

So. Turns out Discord's CEO apparently has a shady past in which he sold his previous social platform to a Japanese company without any notice to users. The company then harvested all the data and shut down the platform.

From:
https://www.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/9pbpc4/people_who_are_employed_at_discord_should_not_be/e814v5j/

Specifically described by this image included in that post: 

[abjd]

The person whose comments were deleted also made this thread outlining all the info regarding the CEO's past: https://www.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/9peikv/in_light_of_the_tos_update_regarding_class_action/

[desertcomputer]

14 hours ago, ivan134 said:

You never go on discord because you predicted they would do this? You go lottery numbers too?

I mean discord TOS wasn't great to begin with.

 

I mean hosting a mumble server/teamspeak isn't hard.

[Delicieuxz]

 

 

In the reddit thread, someone commented that they weren't sure that the Wikipedia page on the AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion US Supreme Court judgment was meaning to apply only to class-action lawsuits and not also individual lawsuits.

 

This was their comment:

 

Quote

" is pertaining to waiving class-action lawsuits, and not individual lawsuits. Nowhere in the Wiki page does it say that individual lawsuits are prevented, but only that class-action lawsuits are moved to arbitration. "

 

I'm not sure this is the case. See section I of the majority opinion:

The contract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties’ “individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

So, arbitration of ALL disputes. The lower courts didn't seem to find this controversial except in that it specifically precluded class-action claims:

Nevertheless, relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100 (2005), the court found that the arbitration provision was unconscionable because AT&T had not shown that bilateral arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effects of class actions.

 

And this is what I responded to it with on reddit:

 

Sure, the contract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties - but one party providing an avenue for something doesn't mean that other avenues don't exist. And if you continue on with the sentence, the next part of it shines some light on the context of the previous part of it:

" but required that claims be brought in the parties’ “individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.” "

 

In an individual capacity as opposed to a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.

 

A class and a representative proceeding are the same thing: A class-action lawsuit, not an individual lawsuit. So, the entire sentence is only talking about disallowing class-action lawsuits.

Like I said previously, there is no claim on the Wikipedia page that says this decision applies to individual lawsuits. Also, it can be seen that legal firms are practising and advising from the standpoint that liability waivers can be invalid even if the targeted company claims otherwise.

 

https://www.frickey.com/need-know-liability-waivers/
https://www.frickey.com/denver-personal-injury-lawyers/products-liability-lawyer/

My guess is that the Wikipedia page has been carefully edited and worded by corporate lawyers to trick and mislead readers into having the impression that you have, in an act of pro-corporate propaganda. That is normal (though not good) corporate practice and the type that is seen in most every EULA written.

[Fetzie]

@AluminiumTech @DKL I got a response to my email: according to Discord's Privacy Team, the arbitration clause does not apply to European users, but we are still free to opt-out regardless. (tagging you two because you responded to my post)

[NateGSR117]

On 10/18/2018 at 7:39 AM, Delicieuxz said:

I haven't looked into this thoroughly, but there are some things to note about the Discord EULA that make it seem that Discord is doing what software and service publishers routinely do, which is talk about of their ass and claim things that are not legally enforceable, relying on the daunting and intimidating impression that their EULA makes to ward off challenges before they occur.

So my initial impression was correct that this isn't really enforceable in the USA either? I remember on multiple occasions that EULA with this clause never stop ppl to make a class action lawsuit since like you still have the legal right to seek justice. 

[Melon_Cooler]

Does this affect Canadians too or no?

[abjd]

Update: They changed it. The opt-out period is now 90 days and the arbitration clause now only applies to users within the US.

https://blog.discordapp.com/terms-of-service-feedback-and-changes-c58a530c7693

[Mooshi]

What nerd is going to take the time to sue a FREE chat service? Don't like Discord? Go to Skype, Ventrillo, Telegram, etc.

[Delicieuxz]

3 hours ago, NateGSR117 said:

So my initial impression was correct that this isn't really enforceable in the USA either? I remember on multiple occasions that EULA with this clause never stop ppl to make a class action lawsuit since like you still have the legal right to seek justice. 

I don't know. It appears that in the US companies can waive people's right to sue as part of a class-action lawsuit. But, I'm not sure that means that individual lawsuits cannot be brought against Microsoft.

 

1 hour ago, abjd said:

Update: They changed it. The opt-out period is now 90 days and the arbitration clause now only applies to users within the US.

https://blog.discordapp.com/terms-of-service-feedback-and-changes-c58a530c7693

A positive adjustment. Though, the arbitration clause never applied to people outside the US before, either, since US laws don't apply to people outside the US. Discord merely reframed their EULA to more accurately reflect reality after many people pointed out in the discussion that other countries don't allow for a company waive its customers and users' right to sue.

 

Just another example that EULAs are generally made-up and ignorable BS intended as propaganda and psychological manipulation tools. The company changed their EULA to save face and to preserve an appearance of authority by bringing a bogus part of their EULA into conformity with actual law, after that bogus part of the EULA was called out by the public - something that they probably didn't expect to happen. There was no actual change in non-US people's legal rights, only the removal of ineffectual words from the EULA.

[Fetzie]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:53 PM, Mooshi said:

What nerd is going to take the time to sue a FREE chat service? Don't like Discord? Go to Skype, Ventrillo, Telegram, etc.

Discord made this change after adding a game store and game-ownership-through-subscription to their service. This is to deter a class action in case of them failing to deliver the expected service.