São Paulo court orders Sony to “unblock” PS5, a video game console that costs more than R $ 5,000

[Asriel]

I'm the last person that defends shitty corporate stuff. You can dig through my post history to see that if you want lol. But abusing systems or breaking the law and clearly clearly defined TOS. You don't have much sympathy from me there. It's not easy to get banned like that. They're literally doing something illegal.

specifically in the case of people selling account access. Not talking about people being banned for other things. This is specific to those users who break TOS and the law.

Click to shrink...

Indeed, this has always been the case with TOS, which, let's be real, no one ever reads. As unfair as it is to people, the user agreed to these precise terms when they signed up for the service and purchased games in the store.

Honestly, with the way people talk about legal policies and what is allowable nowadays on this forum, you would think they were children.

 

[Theswweet]

Doing this to DE PS5s is basically making them e-waste. Anyone that thinks that's ok is seriously out of line.

 

[Golbez]

That's the most expensive brick in Brazil if you own the Digital Edition and get banned.

Sony and Nintendo are so.. overkill with this. You can still use everything you own, digital games included, if your account gets banned on Xbox. Other accounts on the console work normally. Same thing on Steam, even on VAC bans its the multiplayer features of your account that gets restricted, you can still play everything else you own (and I think you can still buy things in their store).

Banning the device should be limited to extreme situations, like a modded console or a pirated copy of a game trying to access online features (see how MS handled modded 360's), or that dude claiming the PS Plus Collection for like 200 different accounts in his console.

=====

Time to look for some banned Ps5 to buy

Click to shrink...

3500 still expensive for a banned console tbh. Unless they're already aware of this news and increased the asking price lol

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

That's the most expensive brick in Brazil if you own the Digital Edition and get banned.

Sony and Nintendo are so.. overkill with this. You can still use everything you own, digital games included, if your account gets banned on Xbox. Other accounts on the console work normally. Same thing on Steam, even on VAC bans its the multiplayer features of your account that gets restricted, you can still play everything else you own (and I think you can still buy things in their store).

Banning the device should be limited to extreme situations, like a modded console or a pirated copy of a game trying to access online features (see how MS handled modded 360's), or that dude claiming the PS Plus Collection for like 200 different accounts in his console.

=====


3500 still expensive for a banned console tbh. Unless they're already aware of this news and increased the asking price lol

Click to shrink...

no, that was 3 weeks ago, which honestly looks like they were in denial for the fact that their consoles lost value

or that dude claiming the PS Plus Collection for like 200 different accounts in his console.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I can't blame Sony for finding these particular cases suspicious
everything else is like you said: Overkill

 

[mentok15]

Bricking the console is a bit much. If it's a charge back thing just ban them from making future purchases (at least for a time), with either the account, console, or payment method.

 

[cmdrshepard]

TBH if someone breaks the ToS, than Sony revoking all previous digital purchases is terrible. It is the same for most of the other competitors too but change needs to happen - if someone breaks TOS than simply block new purchases on that account and if the violation was in regards to online play, disable online play for that title.

 

[svacina]

As unfair as it is to people, the user agreed to these precise terms when they signed up for the service and purchased games in the store.

Click to shrink...

They should put into their TOS that you owe them all money you make in perpetuity, might be unfair, but hey, who reads those, right?

Spoiler alert: any TOS is only good as long as you can get a court to agree with it. Sony hasn't managed that in this instance, at least so far. Might be unfair to them, but eh, laws, who reads them.

 

[Riversands]

Is there any consequence if a company in this case sony doesnt obey the court's demand?

 

[Deleted member 51539]

Is there any consequence if a company in this case sony doesnt obey the court's demand?

Click to shrink...

Says right there, R$200 per day, maxing out at the price of the product.

 

[deathkiller]

Sony PSN+ PS5 collection was a half assed lazy effort. If they wanted to limit the claims per console they could had done so instead of banning people at an arbitrary number.

 

[B1ggRandall]

Someone tell that era member who got a cheap banned PS5 in Brazil.

Click to shrink...

Yoo I remember his thread! Now this a come up lol

 

[Zephy]

It doesn't even make sense to ban the hardware. Restrict the account, not the hardware.

 

[phonicjoy]

No it's not. Ban them from making new purchases or whatever but they essentially brick the console.
Sony made a very easy to exploit system with the collection. If they were actually worried about people doing this, than make it harder to do or restricted.

Click to shrink...

If there's not a lock on that bike you should just steal it huh.

 

[Deleted member 50658]

I have a very hard time feeling sorry for people clearly abusing and violating terms of services knowingly. If you purposefully does something "illegal" you should also face the consequences of getting caught and if you can afford a expensive entertainment device you sure as hell can live without it as well.

 

[GuEiMiRrIRoW]

Nuking an account is ok, but destroying your hardware is not. It's non-sense. If you commit robbery, do I have the right to go inside you house and put it on fire? Are tou Donald Trump!?

 

[eonden]

Indeed, this has always been the case with TOS, which, let's be real, no one ever reads. As unfair as it is to people, the user agreed to these precise terms when they signed up for the service and purchased games in the store.

Honestly, with the way people talk about legal policies and what is allowable nowadays on this forum, you would think they were children.

Click to shrink...

TOS arent enforceable in the EU because no one ever reads them and (most of them) violate other laws by removing user rights. If this were a law case in the EU, a user signing a TOS allowing this to happen would mean absolutely nothing.

 

[score01]

Full console bans shouldn't be allowed unless they have been hacked or exploited in someway.

For account bans you should still have access to anything you have purchased while preventing you from making new purchases and taking that account online.

Digital rights have a long way to go.

 

[Asriel]

TOS arent enforceable in the EU because no one ever reads them and (most of them) violate other laws by removing user rights. If this were a law case in the EU, a user signing a TOS allowing this to happen would mean absolutely nothing.

Click to shrink...

People need to stop saying this. Terms of Services are completely legal in the EU and are still enforceable.

 

[eonden]

People need to stop saying this. Terms of Services are completely legal in the EU and are still enforceable.

Click to shrink...

Not for most end users and if they are made in the normal TOS way which makes them full of legalese that most people arent able to understand / read. So in the end is a case by case (and clause by clause). And given the punishment for this is way more exagerated than the harm, its pretty likely it wouldnt be accepted.

 

[Asriel]

Not for most end users and if they are made in the normal TOS way which makes them full of legalese that most people arent able to understand / read. So in the end is a case by case (and clause by clause). And given the punishment for this is way more exaggerated than the harm, its pretty likely it wouldnt be accepted.

Click to shrink...

Is there are an article or the like indicating this? And in this specific instance, the violator was severely acting in bad faith, so I really understand the assumption about the court's rulings.

 

[eonden]

Is there are an article or the like indicating this? And in this specific instance, the violator was severely acting in bad faith, so I really understand the assumption about the court's rulings.

Click to shrink...

TOS in the EU are normally treated as unfair contract terms which makes them non liable:

Unfair contract terms - Your Europe

Think you've been a victim of unfair contract terms? Check out your consumer rights.

europa.eu

Under EU law, standard contract terms used by traders have to be fair. This doesn't change if they're called "terms and conditions" or are part of a detailed contract that you actually have to sign. The contract is not allowed to create an imbalance between your rights and obligations as a consumer and the rights and obligations of sellers and suppliers.

Contract terms must be drafted in plain, understandable language. Any ambiguities will be interpreted in your favour.

Click to shrink...

They tend to be considered unfair because they are written in a way the user does not understand what they are signing (long contracts with a ton of legalese to ofuscate the point).


In this case (the one in Brazil), the problem is more related to the punishment over breaking the TOS beign too severe. It basically bricks the console making it basically useless, which is way more power than a company should have. Yes, Sony has the right to rescind the user access and punish him, but not to the degree where a multimedia device that uses more than Sony things is rendered useless.

 

[IIFloodyII]

It doesn't even make sense to ban the hardware. Restrict the account, not the hardware.

Click to shrink...

It's not done through a single account, it's people with PS+ having people with PS5s sign into their account to redeem them, so any sort of account punishment is a no go and probably very hard to detect, unlike someone signing into 50+ PS+ account in a short time. The obvious solution should just be stop people needing others to do it for them and just block the games working on PS4 if they are owned through the Collection, but I wouldn't be surprised if PSN would be a issue there given they are PS4 games.

 

[Heromanz]

Everyone knows that term of service are basically bullshit. and are just like a thousand words that no same person would ever read.

 

[Asriel]

TOS in the EU are normally treated as unfair contract terms which makes them non liable:

Unfair contract terms - Your Europe

Think you've been a victim of unfair contract terms? Check out your consumer rights.

europa.eu

They tend to be considered unfair because they are written in a way the user does not understand what they are signing (long contracts with a ton of legalese to ofuscate the point).


In this case (the one in Brazil), the problem is more related to the punishment over breaking the TOS beign too severe. It basically bricks the console making it basically useless, which is way more power than a company should have. Yes, Sony has the right to rescind the user access and punish him, but not to the degree where a multimedia device that uses more than Sony things is rendered useless.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but this is simply more evidence of people in this forum and their lack of an ability to grapple with legal concepts. Just because the terms of services are long doesn't mean they're enforceable. And if you actually read the Sony PSN terms of service, they're perfectly legible without legalese, and there's a clear reason Sony's lawyers had made it that way.

Clickwrap in the EU - TermsFeed

As more privacy laws require affirmative consent from users, clickwrap becomes more and more essential. Unlike the passive acceptance long advanced by browsewrap, clickwrap provides certainty when it comes to ensuring users accept your online terms. This is especially true if...

www.termsfeed.com

 

[hanshen]

"game access account - similar to accounts on streaming services - on different devices."

I think they are banning console that are using "stolen" accounts.

I see this everywhere
People and groups are selling accounts that have several games for cheap, for switch and ps4, recently they started for ps5, Sony said before they knew about this and they will ban the consoles that using this method.

One person sent me a picture of his banned switch, can't use online at all, i asked him if his switch is hacked, he said no, but he bought an account that have several switch games on it, and though it was legit, some people still think that those account are real, but most of them if not all are stolen.

Click to shrink...

I think this is the more likely reason for people to get banned than selling access to ps plus. Sometimes it's not even stolen. It's just an account shared by a dozen people so you can buy access to games for cheap. It's basically piracy.

Bricking the console for this is excessive though.

 

[eonden]

Sorry, but this is simply more evidence of people in this forum and their lack of an ability to grapple with legal concepts. Just because the terms of services are long doesn't mean they're enforceable. And if you actually read the Sony PSN terms of service, they're perfectly legible without legalese, and there's a clear reason Sony's lawyers had made it that way.

Clickwrap in the EU - TermsFeed

As more privacy laws require affirmative consent from users, clickwrap becomes more and more essential. Unlike the passive acceptance long advanced by browsewrap, clickwrap provides certainty when it comes to ensuring users accept your online terms. This is especially true if...

www.termsfeed.com

Click to shrink...

Terms of service being long and not encouraged to be read due to the complexity of the language (and size) counts as a way for making them non liable (as well as given too much punishment power to the creator of the TOS). They end up in a gray area where as long as the punishment isnt too bad, they could stand in law, but if they go too far into the opposite direction (such as THIS case), it wouldnt.

Edit: for instance, reading the US Sony TOS it basically forces you into legal neutral arbitration unless you notify them within 30 days of signing up which... lol

14.1. Purpose. The term "Dispute" means any dispute, claim, or controversy between you and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc., or any of their current or former affiliates, including parents or subsidiaries, and any predecessor or successor entity to any of the foregoing, including Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, and Sony Interactive Entertainment America LLC (collectively, "Sony Entities") regarding PSN or PSN Content, or the use of any PlayStation Devices or other devices sold by a Sony Entity to access PSN Content, whether based in contract, statute, regulation, ordinance, tort (including fraud, misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, or negligence), or any other legal or equitable theory, and includes the validity, enforceability or scope of this "BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION" section (with the exception of the enforceability of the Class Action Waiver clause below). "Dispute" is to be given the broadest possible meaning that will be enforced. If you have a Dispute with any Sony Entity or any of a Sony Entity's officers, directors, employees and agents that cannot be resolved through negotiation within the time frame described in the "Notice of Dispute" clause below, you and the Sony Entity that you have a Dispute with agree to seek resolution of the Dispute only through arbitration of that Dispute in accordance with the terms of this section, and not litigate any Dispute in court, except for those matters listed in the Exclusions from Arbitration clause. Arbitration means that the Dispute will be resolved by a neutral arbitrator instead of in a court by a judge or jury.
14.2. Exclusions from Arbitration. YOU AND THE SONY ENTITIES AGREE THAT ANY CLAIM FILED BY YOU OR BY A SONY ENTITY IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION.
14.3. Opt-Out Right. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION, YOU MUST NOTIFY US IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT UNLESS A LONGER PERIOD IS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN SERVICES ONLINE ID, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.

Click to shrink...

 

[Asriel]

Terms of service being long and not encouraged to be read due to the complexity of the language (and size) counts as a way for making them non liable (as well as given too much punishment power to the creator of the TOS). They end up in a gray area where as long as the punishment isnt too bad, they could stand in law, but if they go too far into the opposite direction (such as THIS case), it wouldnt.

Click to shrink...

Is there any indication of this ever being the case? EIther by a legal expert or a previous court decision?

 

[Kolibri]

Great decision.
Disgustingly wasteful and unacceptable to make a console entirely unusable like that.

 

[Spedfrom]

I'm a fan of Sony's consoles and games, not some of their policies. Their stance to ban consoles instead of accounts is unacceptable. They are not entitled to effectively destroying someone's 500 dollars/euros purchase.

 

[spman2099]

Yeah, Sony's policy when it comes to blocking consoles, and removing the ability for people to access the games they purchased, is absolutely fucking awful. There is no justification for that. They need to get dragged publicly so that they can be incentivized to implement less draconian measures.

 

[Deleted member 17638]

Yeah, no one's gonna defend Sony on this...

*checks first page*

Oh.

 

[Deleted member 14080]

In some cases it's warranted. When you sell access to the ps+ games collection and sign over 50 accounts into one ps5 you deserve it.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Deleted member 6511]

No it's not. Ban them from making new purchases or whatever but they essentially brick the console.
Sony made a very easy to exploit system with the collection. If they were actually worried about people doing this, than make it harder to do or restricted.

Click to shrink...

So if there is regulation that you agreed with (ToS) and enforced but easy to be bypassed is OK to do so?
How is this different from piracy?

 

[Kill3r7]

They should ban the account and can go as far as banning the console from being able to log in to PSN but they cannot outright brick the device or render it inoperable.

 

[kaputt]

According to the Brazilian consumer law, any contract clause that might cause a limitation to the consumer's right must come with the proper highlight.

So, for this punishment to be somewhat legal here, Sony should have a disclaimer, right before the purchase of PS Plus for example, stating clearly and loudly that using it on more than one console will result in the brickage of the console. But even in this case you could still argue that such punishment is extremely severe and it's an abusive contract clause, and the judge could nullify the clause itself.

Sony's also violating fundamental rights related to due process (such as the right to present your reasons/defense), that are applied to private contracts here. They can't just ban a console out of nowhere without presenting any reasons to the customer, not giving him any way for him to defend against it, this is insane.

So yeah, this is deservedly not looking good for Sony here and I hope they lose. It's such a bullshit behavior.

 

[Adamska]

First off, it's not even the Digital Edition. Feel free to browse the actual lawsuit here. Secondly, it seems like the actual problem here is that Sony failed to explain why the console was banned in the first place, only citing a violation of the terms of service and such. I wonder if the decision will still hold once whatever actually happened comes to light.

 

[apocat]

Good. It's insane that this is even a thing.

 

[Hidant]

Someone tell that era member who got a cheap banned PS5 in Brazil.

Click to shrink...

Lol I saw the headline and immediately thought of him. Did he end up buying it?

 

[Deleted member 8166]

The corporate boot licking in this thread...

 

[Bluelote]

why can't they just better design the rewards/accounts per console system to avoid this mess?
why not just revoke the rights for the games they suspect were obtained abusing it?

 

[Gunny T Highway]

Yeah, outright bricking consoles (which right now not only are expensive, but are in limited quantities currently) is extremely dumb.

 

[SirDante]

I am ignoroand clueless about what I'm about to ask. How does Sony even know who is a guy selling access to the PS+ collection and who is a guy with two PS5s in one household wanting to game share? Game share is legal, right? How many PS5s/PS4s can legitimately gameshare at once?

 

[Bluelote]

I am ignoroand clueless about what I'm about to ask. How does Sony even know who is a guy selling access to the PS+ collection and who is a guy with two PS5s in one household wanting to game share? Game share is legal, right? How many PS5s/PS4s can legitimately gameshare at once?

Click to shrink...

I would think there would be many indications, the amount of accounts per console, and the history of said accounts, the console IDs and locations (IPs) they were used from is likely something Sony can easily keep track of...

 

[Kill3r7]

First off, it's not even the Digital Edition. Feel free to browse the actual lawsuit here. Secondly, it seems like the actual problem here is that Sony failed to explain why the console was banned in the first place, only citing a violation of the terms of service and such. I wonder if the decision will still hold once whatever actually happened comes to light.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean once the information comes to light? Sony presumably present their facts during trial assuming this is not an injunction but rather a final order.

 

[SirDante]

I would think there would be many indications, the amount of accounts per console, and the history of said accounts, the console IDs and locations (IPs) they were used from is likely something Sony can easily keep track of...

Click to shrink...

Say I had to PS5s. Two different accounts on them. One US and one Hong kong account, If I had PS+ on my US account and a the same exact accounts on a second PS5 and did the trick for game share (and PS plus game collection) what's the odds they ban my second console? (Same IPs, same location, same ISP even, same house, but different regions accounts on across two PS5s) are there even grounds for fighting Sony back if they did something bs like ban the hardware?

I don't want them becoming trigger happy after this and blocking everyone with two PS5s / PS4s in one house that game shares after this.

 

[Sulik2]

Don't buy digital with Sony.

 

[SofNascimento]

Yeah, no one's gonna defend Sony on this...

*checks first page*

Oh.

Click to shrink...

Someone needs to think of the multi-billion dollars comporations!

 

[Lashley]

Good.

Not surprised to see the corporate bootlickers out in force though.

 

[Kris1977]

Don't buy digital with Sony.

Click to shrink...

I buy digital with Sony and have done for 7 or 8 years. I'm all digital. Yes they are extremely heavy handed in certain situations and that has to be reigned in, but if you play by the rules, you won't ever get stung its as simple as that.

 

[Kill3r7]

I buy digital with Sony and have done for 7 or 8 years. I'm all digital. Yes they are extremeley heavy handed in certain situations and that has to be reigned in, but if you play by the rules, you won't ever get stung its as simple as that.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that but generally speaking following their rules is best.