so he wants to break the rules

and then get paid for it? How did he come up with $55k in damages anyway? I'm not to sure about pre-paid points either, since sony usually only takes money from your account, when you buy something. Sony should just refund whatever money this is, and call it a day.

mm

no just tell him too ***** off

huh...

Erik Estavillo has a good case there. But the contract everyone has to agree on will probably put down his case depending on what it says. I personally never read the contracts so I don't what will happen. This guy probably only had $10 worth of money in his PSN account. Here's a thought: next time don't get banned or f-ing just make a new account. Losing a trial will only result in more money loss.

....

he probably bought a $20 or $50 PSN card. im pretty sure they dont refund those once they are in your account. if he should have been banned i say give him his money back and call it even.

lol?

@papajag Uhhh no he doesn't. The person suing SE had a better reason than this person.

WTF!?!?!?!?!

Exactly! He has no case at all. His lawyer must be taking him for a ride. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with or has any place when using a PAID SERVICE. If you let yourself into my home and start spouting crap I don't want to hear, guess what? You're going to find your a$$ put out on the street talking to yourself! When you are on or using someone elses property you DO AS THEY TELL YOU TO DO. Or GTFO. Simple as that.

WHAT A

*****

He has no case papajag

I've read a bit of the MS ToS for XBL, there is a clause in it that states something along the lines of "Microsoft reserves the right to suspend any account for any reason, at Microsoft's discretion". I'm sure the same clause is in the PSN and Wii ToS. So these companies can essentially ban you for nothing if they feel like it. They don't of course, but they do have that ability And like ISOHaven said, there is no such thing as freedom of speech on online services. The same even applies to this site right here and all private websites on the internet, you follow their rules or you get the boot.

lmao

The ToS is like a legal agreement that you won't use "hateful, racist, etc, etc" speech online. He violated that after agreeing to it and entering into what was, for all intents and purposes, a legally binding contract. I don't give a damn if he is agoraphobic. He shouldn't have been such a douchebag. The internet is not America. It's the internet.

stupid

If you were just speaking publicly, this would be different. but since he was speaking in SONY'S forum, you have to follow the rules. Plain and Simple

For those that didn't know like me

Agoraphobia is a condition where they fear the outside world and therefore only stay in there home. I say this banning has a positive effect on his life if anything. It will get his ass off the couch, stop playing the PS3 and face the real world. Of course if its so serious there is no amount of fear that a couple of medications cant solve. Of course he'll be drooling and hallucinating or something.

agoraphobia?

really? ps3 is the only source of communicating? how about the internet.. BS PARTY!!

Regardless of contracts

He may actually have a valid case. I think it's funny how people think just because they sign a 10-pg-long digital contract full of fine print, that then there is absolutely no recourse. Yes, it's going to be an uphill battle, but if the action taken is not a proper/appropriate remedy to the 'crime', then they could still lose such a case. Think of it: I know everyone's joking that the guy probably has $10 worth of downloads..... but what if he doesn't? If he's downloaded a LOT of content, and now he is blocked from being able to use any of that content to the extent promised/licensed when he downloaded/paid for it .....then I think (hope) he has a valid case. In other words, isn't purchase and usage of the content really a 'separate thing' from being able to go online and make an $!#@ out of himself? It's not fair to block him from potentially 100's of dollars of content he legally paid for, just because he said something inappropriate in a forum (or some mod just didn't like him, and gratuitously banned him).

yeah

I've touched into agoraphobia in psych and theres couple of treatments and stuff. Playing on the PS3 isn't going to help it.

***** it pay him

pay the money and make sure the stupid fu(K don't ever make an account with sony ever since he wants it like that fu(king di(k

get a xbox

cuz you will never get online with sony LOL..HAHAHAHA or better yet get a JOB

You hope he has a case?

Well I don't lol. I don't exactly follow the ToS to the letter either, I swear like mad and talk sh*t quite a bit on XBL and PSN (both of which are against the ToS for each), and the most I've ever got is a one week voice ban on Xbox. So this guy must've been doing something he really shouldn't have been doing to get banned, or just did it waaay too much. Good riddance

LOL

Another situation where ISOHaven and I agree 100%. The First Amendment DOES NOT EXTEND TO PROTECTING YOUR SPEECH IN A PRIVATE CONTEXT! It's SPECIFICALLY about actions taken by GOVERNMENT representatives. This guy has absolutely zero case whatsoever!

:D

you've got a point, the xbox will probably heat up, get ring of death, and burn his house down :D it would help him get out of the house more often, in turn doing him a huge favor.

Lmfao

"The internet is not America its the internet" __- basically won the case in Sony's favor with that line. This prick was probably spouting some kinda racist or offensive crap with some other internet prick and went too far, the kinda crap people say over mics on games is bad already but they never get caught but when you're dumb enough to take that crap onto a forum you're basically asking to get banned. If Sony is smart they'll nip this in the bud and just refund the chumps money so other tards don't try and get rich off dumb crap. And wtf, 55k? That seems like a pretty small amount for a lawsuit (like a waste of time ) and too much for "damages". Did he have a heart attack after being banned and have to pay hospital bills? Sheesh, American stupidity knows no bounds...and yet I wouldn't want to live anywhere else sigh.

"American stupidity knows no bounds"

no, it's more like American greed. Whenever someone is slightly discomforted, they usually want to sue.

makes this an actual plausibly winning case

Or, the supposed prick was reported by an even bigger prick who claimed he did something he didn't do, and then even bigger pricks banned him from using his content without any actual evidence beyond one (or a few, I've seen social "swarming" of liars like this before) persons claim. And then a bunch of OTHER pricks came to QJ and started ranting about it without having any of the said evidence or complete facts for that matter.

...

Why not just read the court filing and find out for yourself? http://cdn4.libsyn.com/gamepolitics/Sony-Estavillo.pdf

Massive fail

The primary reasons this case will fail: 1. Not being an agent of the government, Sony is not required to uphold the First Amendment. Ignoring that: 2. His complaint is that Sony caused him pain and suffering because the PSN is "the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize". This is clearly false. If all he's looking for is socialization in a way that uses voice and text interaction, there are plenty of alternate pathways. By claiming that the PSN is the ONLY means of socialization, the plaintiff has essentially committed perjury. 3. They make the claim that he was kicked out of games and banned because of the biases of the moderators, not because of the rules of the PSN. This invalidates the claim that *Sony* caused him pain and suffering, since the proper target of this suit would be the moderators in question. He would also have to prevent convincing evidence that he did not, in fact, violate the rules, and that the moderators violated their own rules. 4. He attempts to say that the entire user agreement for the PSN is invalid and unenforceable because it never verifies beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person sitting at the controller is actually old enough to play the game in question. This is irrelevant to his case. The plaintiff is a UCLA graduate. Were he under 17, the claim of an unenforceable agreement would apply. But he's not, so it doesn't. 5. The court filing lies by saying that only Sony does network-wide bans. It then goes on to say that Nintendo never does and Microsoft only does rarely... so it instantly contradicts its own claim. 6. He considers buying a PSN Card in a store to be theft committed by Sony because they won't refund him after he redeemed it. This guy has an INCOMPETENT lawyer. No lawyer worth his salt would feel professionally comfortable filing such a vapid claim. It says he has video evidence to help prove his claim. I'd LOVE to see that.

He has no case.

Simply put, when signing up for PSN or playing a game online you must agree to a Terms of Service that Sony puts up saying you must follow the rules they state about what is and isn't appropriate to say, with banning being a consequence if you break that. He has no case.

God what a *****

Sure, you have freedom of speech, but if you use it all the time and say what's on your mind you're gunna get the crap beaten out of you. The point is, people take offence to it, and Sony has to protect their users from that, or they'll lose them. And yeah, terms of service, all of that. If you want freedom of speech, don't sign the terms of service and don't join :P

srsly

There should be an outright ban on frivolous lawsuits. It would save taxpayers alot of money, and the courts would be alot less filled with BS like this. It could involve a group of reasonable, wellminded people who review cases and decide whether or not somebody deserves thousands of dollars because they did not know their coffee was hot, or other such ridiculous claims.