Games

32178 readers

1456 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

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.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

807

Steam does the opposite of forcing Arbitration on its users (lemdro.id)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Arbitration is overwhelmingly resolved in favor of corporations. The company pays the arbitrator, which means they will generally rule in their favor if they want to continue to be hired. Complainants get a fraction of the amount of money they'd get from a court case from arbitration, and it keeps the public from knowing what the company did. That's why so many companies are trying to force arbitration clauses on consumers.

It's speculated that the reason why Steam backed down from their clause in this case is that it was getting too expensive for them. Paying so many individual arbitrators and lawyers was costing them way more than resolving a single class action lawsuit. Hopefully more companies are forced to come to this realization in the future.

Edit: Article about why they may have removed the clause TL;DR Valve doesn't want to deal with 50,000 separate court cases at one time