Games

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.

The real question is how do we slowly bankrupt nintendo ?

Just so ya'll know, EULAs are routinely thrown out of court.

They straight up don't matter, and anything that is extremely long and asks you to 'agree' to it is subject to the same scrutiny.

All of the times we clicked agree without reading actually helped us, because now courts can say "nobody reads that stuff before hitting accept."

Anyone still buying Nintendo products at this point isn't paying attention.

"Except for Claims (i) in which a party is attempting to protect its intellectual property rights (such as its patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, anti-circumvention, or moral rights, but not including its privacy or publicity rights) ..."

So in other words, the types of matters Nintendo thinks it might have a dispute against users, court and class actions are okay, but for everything that they think users might file against Nintendo, they think arbitration is best.

I am very happy to be living in Austria. We have this law right here https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002462&Artikel=&Paragraf=6&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht= (And yes, our laws are available for free and up-to-date for everyone)

Section 6(1)(14) of the Austrian Consumer Protection Act states that any contractual provision requiring a consumer to waive their right to assert claims is invalid.

This shit never holds up in court - you can’t just sign rights away by clicking “accept” on a EULA. This is a scare tactic designed to stop people before they ever try because “well it says i can’t do that in the eula.”

If Nintendo give you a reason to sue them, sue the ever loving shit out of those greedy corporate fucks.

Don't worry Nintendo, even as someone who grew up on SMB, you've thoroughly convinced me to never do business with you ever again. Not even nostalgia...

Good thing that such clauses are null and void in Québec, Canada.

https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-p-40.1/latest/cqlr-c-p-40.1.html#se:11_1

Forced arbitration is unconstitutional. Roberts should be ashamed of himself.

Wow Nintendo is really quadrupling down on being absolutely shitty! Love that I have a Steam Deck instead of a Switch because I'm never buying from these assholes again. I loved a ton of their franchises and have spent thousands of dollars on Nintendo consoles and games, but I'm fed up with their greed.

Welp, fuck playing online anymore, just buying a switch 2 to hack it..