780

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

submitted 2 months ago by potentiallynotfelix@lemdro.id to c/games@lemmy.world

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] CodeHead@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

So, remember... they just 'switched' from forced arbitration to going into the courts. Yes it is good, but note 'Good guy Gabe' didn't start this way.

Maybe consider 'why' he's making the change? It's actually because this forces the money question to the one suing them. It costs them less by doing this. Now I think this is actually good, but don't blindly fawn over the guy for this.

[-] tryp@lemm.ee 19 points 2 months ago

Ars technica provided the two key pieces of context here:

"Zaiger targeted Valve and Steam users for its scheme precisely because the arbitration clause in the SSA [Steam Subscriber Agreement] is 'favorable' to Steam users in that Valve agrees to pay the fees and costs associated with arbitration," Valve said.

Valve said that Zaiger's "extortive plan" was to "offer a settlement slightly less than the [arbitration] charge—$2,900 per claim or so—attempting to induce a quick resolution."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/steam-doesnt-want-to-pay-arbitration-fees-tells-gamers-to-sue-instead/

[-] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Can Zaiger do it to other corpos with forced arbitration?

[-] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

Only if they, too, were willing to foot the bill for the arbitration fees. Hint: nobody else does that, they want the consumer to pay their own way to reduce filings. That's what happened with Twitter's severance filings, they got hit with millions in arbitration fees.