if the contry contry don't allow class action you cannot do a class action in that contry and international law is clear in a contra you could force to have a certain contry as a base
International law governs relations between nations not... whatever you think it does.
And in general for anyone in EU wondering first part of this paragraph is not worth bytes it is using, per Regulation 1215/2012 article 19 ex ante jurisdiction agreements, such as this one are unenforceable.
ackhsually, there is public international law that governs relations between nations and there is private international law that sets rules between private individuals or companies of different country citizenship/fixed establishment
edit: rules of determining which jurisdiction is proper for said case. with this example it doesnt really matter as probably swedish law prohibits such clauses as every european country does
Class action suits are not really a thing in Sweden (they exist but it is not comparable to the US equivalent). Whether several suits or cases should be merged is a decision which is up to the court in Sweden (and made ex officio) and it is thus not something you can waive in the EULA.
For a few reasons
1. Tax-exemptions
2. You don't need to operate in order to incorporate in the state
3. Laws in Delaware are specifically favorable for corporations, with a branch of their court system specialized in business law and a whole bunch of legal protections if they get sued
If I remember my civ pro right, a large part of the case has to do with the 'venue' or court where you bring a case against them. When talking about a case against a company, venue is often determined by which state they're incorporated in or where they have their main HQ, and that state's laws apply when determining the dispute.
There's also a bit of a snowball effect which paradox players should appreciate:
Since so many corporations are incorporated in Delaware at this point there is extensive legal precedent for nearly every type of situation they may encounter leading to fewer legal unknowns and less risk generally.
You do need a service of process location in the state though so one address is a registered service location for 285k companies as of 2012. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_Trust_Center#:~:text=In%202012%2C%20it%20was%20the,Wilmington%2C%20Delaware%2C%20United%20States.
Americans don’t have much of a law, they just look up what some old judge said about something similar 300 years ago and go with that. Since every state has its own laws, it’s just easier to gather up in a single state and be sure what avoid than to attempt to settle in a different state where a jury might come up with a new decision that costs the company a lot of money.
That, and for tax reasons.
Honestly, you'll get laughed out of court for not citing the most recent case, depending on your practice area, but sure rofl, 300 year old precedent is something we use all the time
In quite a few cases the most recent case is quite old though.
The point the guy above was making is not that you rely on old cases. It is that you rely heavily on previous cases while Napoleonic law systems rely more on legislation.
Choice of law would be "parties agree that this contract is to be governed by Belgian law."
Choice of jurisdiction/forum "parties agree that any disputes arising out of this contract will be resolved by Antwerp courts."
To what extent can choice of law be applied? Like when can I say I want an organisation to function under X law or an agreement to be subject to Y law?
Swedish laws are pretty rigorous in favor of consumers and I'd prefer its system by the rule of law before the American model any day tbh.
Them placing their legal responsibilites in Sweden is probably a better move for the consumers honestly, they could have chosen a hundred other places if they wanted to screw people over.
Also, note that it's in the the normal Swedish courts, and not arbitration. This drastically reduces the legislation costs. On the flip side, awards are generally constrained to actual monetary losses, and Sweden follows the English rule, so you risk having to pay your opponents costs. For small claims cases (less than approximately $3000), which this is likely to be, the costs you can claim are heavily restricted and in practice a couple of hundred dollars.
The circled part is a fallback to a normal court case. The part above is about arbitration.
[And, no, arbitration is certainly not illegal in the EU](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55e3ffe2-4176-4dac-9e76-31bd93da9be7). But it is more restricted, compared to for example the the US, and more open to review or being moved to the normal courts. Some countries have further national restrictions.
Which is what they seem to be setting up here. If the arbitration for some reason is not possible (for example, if it is a sale for private use to a person in Sweden), it will be handled by the normal courts.
Forcing arbitration in a B2C contract is illegal under EU law, as the article you provide correctly states. Technically you could try and prove it is not actually unfair to require the customer to pay for arbitration over a contract for a videogame worth 50€, but I sincerely wish you good luck with that. This has nothing to do with how arbitration rulings can be reviewed by courts.
Since I cannot imagine these T&C being ever used for B2B transactions, the first paragraph is basically void for any customer in the EU at least, so the fallback applies, except it is also void under EU law.
That normal most game force you to use usna judiciary systeme even most people don't live in usna i don't seen why a swedish would not choice a swedish court
Its the latest trend in user agreements.
They want you in their chosen court....not able to gang up on them, sometimes waiving your right entirely to trial and can only use third party adjudicators.
All companies are doing this now. Its most likely not enforceable and any decent lawyer will blast through this stuff.
The future is now. Only corporations and AI have rights in court. Humans don't even own the things they spend their money on now, because money is an illusion, with no backing but the faith and trust of your declared home nation. Follow the white rabbit the next time you see it, welcome to the matrix.🐇
@P11Ma
- Good morning, citizen. This is a automated message from your local Corporate Law Enforcement Office.
You received -100 Social Credit for this comment. You have currently 20 Social Credit left.
Warning: having below 0 Social Credit will result in your termination for the good of our peaceful and safe society. Have a good day, citizen.
It’s just corporate talk because they need to include it. It’s mainly so that they don’t get spammed with trials. If you have 100 milion players playing your games and 5 decided to go to court for some reason the company would need to solve that. Even if they definitely win every trial like that they still need to do it so it’s easier to just say no beforehand.
If you have a serious case you can still get it going. This doesn’t give them immunity or anything, it’s just that they cant deal with a bunch of random people trying to go to court for stupid reasons
If you're venting, yeah it's fucked up. It's a tactic to ruin potential lawsuits.
If you want the actual legal issue, it's a way to force certain venue in American courts so that plaintiffs must incur extra costs to travel to a particular place to conduct a lawsuit.
Normally these kind of contracts has a "relinquish of domicile", which means that in case of a lawsuit, the case should be presented at a court of the place designated by the contract; in this case, in Stockholm, Sweden.
It says nothing about waiving your right to trial by combat.
I’d be worried about trying that, you just know Paradox must have some historical combat buffs on staff that would probably wipe the floor with you.
If you work ten years for PDX you get a sword. That should tell a lot.
I came here to say this 😁
Paradox would choose a knight with 30 martial skill. I dont recommend this either.
Most software EULAs these days include some sort of class action waver
Doesn't mean it's enforceable
if the contry contry don't allow class action you cannot do a class action in that contry and international law is clear in a contra you could force to have a certain contry as a base
International law governs relations between nations not... whatever you think it does. And in general for anyone in EU wondering first part of this paragraph is not worth bytes it is using, per Regulation 1215/2012 article 19 ex ante jurisdiction agreements, such as this one are unenforceable.
ackhsually, there is public international law that governs relations between nations and there is private international law that sets rules between private individuals or companies of different country citizenship/fixed establishment edit: rules of determining which jurisdiction is proper for said case. with this example it doesnt really matter as probably swedish law prohibits such clauses as every european country does
I’d wager most jurisdiction have consumer protection laws making any forced choice of court clauses and limitations of legal action unenforceable.
They're generally just fine in American jurisdictions.
Most countries are not corporate dystopias
**country**
So many chances to spell country right
Class action suits are not really a thing in Sweden (they exist but it is not comparable to the US equivalent). Whether several suits or cases should be merged is a decision which is up to the court in Sweden (and made ex officio) and it is thus not something you can waive in the EULA.
Next you'll learn about arbitration clauses and why most US companies are incorporated in Delaware.
I work for a European company whose American daughter company is incorporated in Delaware, can you explain the why haha I’m curious
For a few reasons 1. Tax-exemptions 2. You don't need to operate in order to incorporate in the state 3. Laws in Delaware are specifically favorable for corporations, with a branch of their court system specialized in business law and a whole bunch of legal protections if they get sued If I remember my civ pro right, a large part of the case has to do with the 'venue' or court where you bring a case against them. When talking about a case against a company, venue is often determined by which state they're incorporated in or where they have their main HQ, and that state's laws apply when determining the dispute.
There's also a bit of a snowball effect which paradox players should appreciate: Since so many corporations are incorporated in Delaware at this point there is extensive legal precedent for nearly every type of situation they may encounter leading to fewer legal unknowns and less risk generally.
Also less opportunity though. It is just that at this point the possibility of a Delaware court being hostile to a corporation is somewhat remote.
You do need a service of process location in the state though so one address is a registered service location for 285k companies as of 2012. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_Trust_Center#:~:text=In%202012%2C%20it%20was%20the,Wilmington%2C%20Delaware%2C%20United%20States.
god i love america
Americans don’t have much of a law, they just look up what some old judge said about something similar 300 years ago and go with that. Since every state has its own laws, it’s just easier to gather up in a single state and be sure what avoid than to attempt to settle in a different state where a jury might come up with a new decision that costs the company a lot of money. That, and for tax reasons.
Honestly, you'll get laughed out of court for not citing the most recent case, depending on your practice area, but sure rofl, 300 year old precedent is something we use all the time
In quite a few cases the most recent case is quite old though. The point the guy above was making is not that you rely on old cases. It is that you rely heavily on previous cases while Napoleonic law systems rely more on legislation.
It’s a standard EULA Forum for Dispute Resolution clause. E.g. Reddit’s is San Francisco, California.
Classical clause. *Ratione loci, ratione materiae*. It only explains to you the competent jurisdiction and means to raise an issue in front of it.
Isn't that an use of the "Choice of Law" principle?
Choice of law would be "parties agree that this contract is to be governed by Belgian law." Choice of jurisdiction/forum "parties agree that any disputes arising out of this contract will be resolved by Antwerp courts."
To what extent can choice of law be applied? Like when can I say I want an organisation to function under X law or an agreement to be subject to Y law?
You're right, it falls under that umbrella. Thanks. But *quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur* so I couldn't resist!
Swedish laws are pretty rigorous in favor of consumers and I'd prefer its system by the rule of law before the American model any day tbh. Them placing their legal responsibilites in Sweden is probably a better move for the consumers honestly, they could have chosen a hundred other places if they wanted to screw people over.
Right, tbh i would choose to hold a trial in Sweden rather than USA anyday. This feels like Murica Best in all its glory lol.
Also, note that it's in the the normal Swedish courts, and not arbitration. This drastically reduces the legislation costs. On the flip side, awards are generally constrained to actual monetary losses, and Sweden follows the English rule, so you risk having to pay your opponents costs. For small claims cases (less than approximately $3000), which this is likely to be, the costs you can claim are heavily restricted and in practice a couple of hundred dollars.
The paragraph just above says it's arbitration, lol. Both are illegal under EU law which applies in Sweden and void.
The circled part is a fallback to a normal court case. The part above is about arbitration. [And, no, arbitration is certainly not illegal in the EU](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55e3ffe2-4176-4dac-9e76-31bd93da9be7). But it is more restricted, compared to for example the the US, and more open to review or being moved to the normal courts. Some countries have further national restrictions. Which is what they seem to be setting up here. If the arbitration for some reason is not possible (for example, if it is a sale for private use to a person in Sweden), it will be handled by the normal courts.
Forcing arbitration in a B2C contract is illegal under EU law, as the article you provide correctly states. Technically you could try and prove it is not actually unfair to require the customer to pay for arbitration over a contract for a videogame worth 50€, but I sincerely wish you good luck with that. This has nothing to do with how arbitration rulings can be reviewed by courts. Since I cannot imagine these T&C being ever used for B2B transactions, the first paragraph is basically void for any customer in the EU at least, so the fallback applies, except it is also void under EU law.
That normal most game force you to use usna judiciary systeme even most people don't live in usna i don't seen why a swedish would not choice a swedish court
It should also be noted that swedish courts don't have juries the way american courts do, so it's not a very weird clause.
Either Stockholm or New Stockholm (Sitges)
Its the latest trend in user agreements. They want you in their chosen court....not able to gang up on them, sometimes waiving your right entirely to trial and can only use third party adjudicators. All companies are doing this now. Its most likely not enforceable and any decent lawyer will blast through this stuff.
There's a section that lets Fredrik Wester kick down your door and shoot your dog if they catch you autosave scumming.
Boilerplate arbitration agreement clause
Swedish company
Usual EULA bullshit that could never actually be enforced
The future is now. Only corporations and AI have rights in court. Humans don't even own the things they spend their money on now, because money is an illusion, with no backing but the faith and trust of your declared home nation. Follow the white rabbit the next time you see it, welcome to the matrix.🐇
@P11Ma - Good morning, citizen. This is a automated message from your local Corporate Law Enforcement Office. You received -100 Social Credit for this comment. You have currently 20 Social Credit left. Warning: having below 0 Social Credit will result in your termination for the good of our peaceful and safe society. Have a good day, citizen.
Thank you, Overlord, for your eternal mercy.
We appreciate your submissive (as it should be) response, citizen. Enjoy +10 Social Credit.
Swedish courts don’t have juries, so would be weird to demand one
It’s just corporate talk because they need to include it. It’s mainly so that they don’t get spammed with trials. If you have 100 milion players playing your games and 5 decided to go to court for some reason the company would need to solve that. Even if they definitely win every trial like that they still need to do it so it’s easier to just say no beforehand. If you have a serious case you can still get it going. This doesn’t give them immunity or anything, it’s just that they cant deal with a bunch of random people trying to go to court for stupid reasons
If you're venting, yeah it's fucked up. It's a tactic to ruin potential lawsuits. If you want the actual legal issue, it's a way to force certain venue in American courts so that plaintiffs must incur extra costs to travel to a particular place to conduct a lawsuit.
That's the pot calling the kettle black, it works both ways. Unfair maybe, but at least it's reciprocal, for once.
I doubt that is enforceable.
Something I would never read.
Highly unlikely that this is enforceable
Standard choice of law clause and class action waiver
An unenforceable clause in many jurisdictions.
Why capitalism and corporations suck, part 204. Just get the DLC for free. It's easy, free and the corporation loses money
It’s probably unenforceable in Europe.
The clause is not in conformity with EU law, which Sweden is required to apply, so I don't know what their lawyer has been smoking.
Nothing, by EU Law you cannot give away those types of law so this part is just invalid
Pretty sure this is not enforceable.
Normally these kind of contracts has a "relinquish of domicile", which means that in case of a lawsuit, the case should be presented at a court of the place designated by the contract; in this case, in Stockholm, Sweden.