Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

An American judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Nintendo for its Joy-Con drift issues, saying the case cannot proceed because the owners agreed to Nintendo's End User License Agreement (EULA) that "disallows lawsuits".

Despite attempts to argue that underaged children - who used the handheld system - cannot enter into the agreement, the federal judge ultimately ruled that the agreement was with the "de facto owners", the parents, and not the children who actually used the console. Consequently, the judge dismissed the action, stating that the parents should have entered legal arbitration rather than a lawsuit, as instructed by the EULA (thanks, NE).

 

[Dr.Morris79]

saying the case cannot proceed because the owners agreed to Nintendo's End User License Agreement (EULA) that "disallows lawsuits".​

How can that in itself be in anyway legal?

If so, that means that any company can be beyond reproach, ever?

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Sakura]

How can that in itself be in anyway legal?

If so, that means that any company can be beyond reproach, ever?

It is not that a company is beyond reproach.
Reading the thing, it sounds like the premise for the suit is that minors cannot enter in a contract, and as such the EULA doesn't apply to them. But there is disagreement that the console(s?) actually belong to them legally, which is why it was thrown out I think.

Minors did not buy the consoles, so they are not the ones who suffered injury due to unfair competition or false advertising — their parents suffered that injury, if any injury there be. Because the assignment of claims arising under Sections 17200 and 17500 does not confer standing on an uninjured assignee, minors cannot allege standing. See Amalgamated Transit Union, 209 P.3d at 942–43. Similarly, minors do not have standing to pursue claims under the Song-Beverly Act because gifting and assignment of rights do not confer standing to sue. See Dagher, 238 Cal. App. 4th at 926–27. Minors next say they have standing to pursue claims under the CLRA and unjust enrichment based on the ownership and assignment arguments (Br. 10–13). First, as already explained, minors failed to allege ownership of the consoles, so they lack standing under this theory. Second, they also failed to allege valid assignment of rights. The complaint contains a statement, purportedly attributable to parents, that they now “assign” rights to pursue their claims as purchasers to minors (See Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35, 43). These statements of nonparties placed in the complaint are not “clear and positive evidence” of assignment. See Cockerell, 267 P.2d at 21. Because minors failed to allege ownership of the console and assignment of right to sue, they lack standing to pursue the CLRA and unjust enrichment claims.
CONCLUSION
Minors failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the amended complaint corrects deficiencies identified in the September 2022 order, namely, that minors have sufficiently alleged the “constitutional minimum of standing.” This order, therefore, finds the amendment futile and subject to dismissal. Accordingly, minors’ motion for leave to file second amended complaint is DENIED. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

I don't think they are saying you can never sue for anything if you agree to an EULA.

 

[ReBurn]

It is not that a company is beyond reproach.
Reading the thing, it sounds like the premise for the suit is that minors cannot enter in a contract, and as such the EULA doesn't apply to them. But there is disagreement that the console(s?) actually belong to them legally, which is why it was thrown out I think.

I don't think they are saying you can never sue for anything if you agree to an EULA.

Yeah the lawyers tried a risky end-around and it didn't work.

 

[Jennings]

How can that in itself be in anyway legal?

If so, that means that any company can be beyond reproach, ever?

Arbitration.

 

[jigglet]

Well, I think this lawsuit achieved its purpose by putting some bad publicity on Nintendo. I mean not that many people are going to be that hard on cash that they are willing to go through a multi-year lawsuit for the chance to be compensated the $60 or whatever their controller is worth.

I know a number of (casual) Switch owners who experienced drift, assumed it was an isolated issue, and would have bought another but learned of the law suit and realised they weren't alone and buying a replacement would just be a waste of money. So from that perspective, the bad press has been effective IMO.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

How can that in itself be in anyway legal?

If so, that means that any company can be beyond reproach, ever?

It’s poor phrasing in the reporting. Lawsuits can overcome contractual remedies for legal disputes, but it depends on the kind of legal right the contract is having a party waive and what is being proposed as the alternative. Where a court would impose a fee and order restitution, the process would be slow and subject to attorneys’ billable rates. In theory, an arbitrator would do the same thing but faster+cheaper. In practice, the arbitrator(s) is cashing their paycheck from Nintendo and there is an auger of conflicting interest, plus the damages will be far smaller and not worth the attorneys’ time (since they’re likely contingent and want a slice of the final judgment amount).

The judge’s ruling makes sense on its face, but I disagree with his presupposition that parents are the de facto contracting party. That could be contested in litigation and a class could be curated to exclude certain persons, but I doubt the attorneys representing the plaintiffs will try to appeal simply due to costs. You gotta win those arguments the day of, otherwise the case is dead.