simpleMay 12, 2024

Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review to access the playtest

https://lemm.ee/post/31738255

Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest - lemm.ee

On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”… Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792 [https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792]

Show threadVespairMay 12, 2024
Fucking bonkers. Between this an McD’s changing their ToS to say using their app waives any right to non-arbitration dispute, something needs to be done about companies trying to effectively write new laws into their ToS. This shit is beyond egregious
Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024
We aren’t talking about something in production, like this app, we are talking about play testing a game in alpha. I would be upset if this was in a released game, or even like the beta test, but if it’s still under serious development it seems incredibly reasonable to me.
Show threadJo MiranMay 12, 2024
The problem is that unless the agreement explicitly states that the non-disparagment section applies only to the test playtest, the agreement would essentially place a gag order on that creator for the life of the game.
Show threadEatATaco
Sure I agree that would be wrong. But I also think that would be unenforceable.
May 12, 2024 at 1:25pmWeb
Show threadJo MiranMay 12, 2024
What makes you think that? The language is fairly boiler plate and easily enforceable. We, “the company”, give you, “the creator”, an asset, “a free game copy”, under the condition that you promise not to do or say anything that could diminish the value of the asset. Not only is it enforceable, it leaves room for compensatory damages if you are found in breach of contract.
Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024
I haven’t read the entire agreement, so I don’t really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they’ve “purchased” it.
Show threadJo MiranMay 12, 2024

Early access to a game is not an asset you can “un-receive” just because you purchase your own copy later. Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.

Other creators chimed in and said that they brought up the section in Discord and legal said they’d look into it. To me, this just seems as lazy copy and paste that they were warned about but did nothing about. Now they have a possible PR disaster on their hands unless they take swift action.

PS: Apparently section 2.6 is way worse but it hasn’t been shared yet.

Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024

Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.

This is what I mean by unenforceable.

Show threadJo MiranMay 12, 2024

I see. That’s not what “unenforceable” means. Unenforceable refers to a contractual responsibility that a court would never enforce. There are many reasons why a court would chosen to not enforce a contract but none of them are because a defendant doesn’t have the means to combat it.

See: nolo.com/…/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.htm…

Unenforceable Contracts: What to Watch Out For

What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?

www.nolo.com
Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024

Your linked to an article literally starts by asking “What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?” and then goes on to explain this as one of these as “For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law.” Basically proving my point.

And I’m universally downvoted, and you’re universally upvoted. Lemmy users crack me up.

Show threadflawedFractionMay 12, 2024
What exactly do you mean by “protected speech”?
Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024
Protected by the law.
Show threadJo MiranMay 12, 2024

I do not think you understand what protected speech is.

In the United States, the first amendment does not protect the following:

  • Incitement to imminent lawless action
  • Harassment
  • True threats
  • Defamation
  • Obscenity and child pornography
  • Fighting words
  • Non-expressive conduct

Notice Defamation.

Show threadflawedFractionMay 12, 2024

What law?

I ask, because many times people point to the first amendment for things like this, but that doesn’t apply here.

Show threadEatATacoMay 12, 2024
The CRFA.
Show threadVespairMay 12, 2024
Just like truth in advertising laws exist, some restrictions are rightly placed on free speech in the interest of consumer protection. Imo this case clearly should fall under similar consideration.
Show threadipkpjersiMay 12, 2024
But it’s just the playtest that is free, not the actual game itself? If they are giving the playtest AND the actual game for free then yeah that makes more sense, but otherwise I think it would likely be considered unconscionable for playtest access to mean they can’t criticize the game they paid for, and thus it would likely be unenforceable.
Show threadJo MiranMay 13, 2024
That is certainly something that can be argued in court, and the case might be very strong…but you’d still have to take it to court. Something else to consider is that if the agreement isn’t clear about its limitations, then it can be argued that it isn’t limited. All the company has to do is send you a key to the full game when it’s available and they are technically still in compliance with the agreement. It would not matter if you tell them that you do not wish to participate anymore, or that you bought your own copy, you’d still be bound.