346
Nintendo is Trying to Stop You From Filing Lawsuits Against Them With New EULA Amendment
(insider-gaming.com)
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
346 points (98.1% liked)
Games
38467 readers
1990 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
There's a good chance that clause won't hold up in court, but proving that would require a lot of time and money.
Exactly why they put it. You would first need to win a trial to get the clause voided and then win another trial to get actual damages or you can go to arbitration and get a modest settlement. Most people will take the latter.
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.
Yeah, if I recall the change was because so many people took them to arbitration at the same time that the cost wasn't worth it, so they changed the policy to 'local court' to avoid the situation repeating while also sidestepping any large class action attempts.
That was a recent change, and it's still anti-consumer. It's an attempt to block class action suits.