Gaming

20180 readers

18 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

207

Steam doesn’t want to pay arbitration fees, tells gamers to sue instead (arstechnica.com)

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

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] away2thestars 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Anyone can ELI5 this thing? I'm pretty lost

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Twofold: One, they lost a case in arbitration that basically said arbitration isn't usable.

Two: Lot of companies do arbitration to avoid court, which works fine and is cheaper if you're not getting taken to court much. If 75,000 people that could do a class action suit all go to arbitration though, the benefit is lost. Lawyers threatened that. 3 grand a arbitration case x 75,000 people == 225 million dollars on fees alone.

[–] away2thestars 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, when does steam need to do arbitration?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Previously, any time they'd normally go to court, which was fairly rare, per the article.