“Caution light sensitivity” discussion

1234689

Comments

  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,539 ★★★★★

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    So I looked it up briefly, and there are a few instances in which a contract (which the TOS is, essentially) can be rendered null and void. Such instances include things such as mistake and capacity to contract, but what we're focusing on right now is unconscionability.

    A contract can be rendered unconscionable due to many factors, such as undue influence/duress (I grouped them together because they share the element of influence), unequal bargaining power, unfair surprise, and limiting warranty, none of which could be really argued against Kabam's contract in this case.
  • DaddriedaDaddrieda Posts: 1,186 ★★★

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    yes. knowing i agreed to play the game because the game created something that other mobile games couldn't... and that's family so yeah it somehow was an force of agreement. if the game didn't create a way to get a family or friends because the chat system function is not 100% function then hence why everyone found another way to take advantage of Discord, whatsapp and Line group chat to easily contact each other for Aq/AW movement by tagging for faster result. If the game didn't do that then i definitely would deny the EULA signing.
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,539 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, but rather that it's not Kabam's fault that you suffered a seizure.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Daddrieda said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    yes. knowing i agreed to play the game because the game created something that other mobile games couldn't... and that's family so yeah it somehow was an force of agreement. if the game didn't create a way to get a family or friends because the chat system function is not 100% function then hence why everyone found another way to take advantage of Discord, whatsapp and Line group chat to easily contact each other for Aq/AW movement by tagging for faster result. If the game didn't do that then i definitely would deny the EULA signing.
    It was not a forced agreement. Kabam did not force you to play the game or sign the TOS.
  • Lucasjones98Lucasjones98 Posts: 318 ★★
    Crcrcrc said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
    Okay wether it’s there fault or not, it is unacceptable not to have a warning. It could’ve ended a lot worse, there may be more people that we don’t know of. Luckily I was fine, how do we know there’s not someone out there that plays the game, who just lost his speech to a severe epileptic fit?

    If there was a pre load warning, then that could’ve been easily avoided. It is there job, to inform the player of bright and flashing lights.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    So I looked it up briefly, and there are a few instances in which a contract (which the TOS is, essentially) can be rendered null and void. Such instances include things such as mistake and capacity to contract, but what we're focusing on right now is unconscionability.

    A contract can be rendered unconscionable due to many factors, such as undue influence/duress (I grouped them together because they share the element of influence), unequal bargaining power, unfair surprise, and limiting warranty, none of which could be really argued against Kabam's contract in this case.
    Pshychi man's epilepsy causing animations could be included as an "unfair surprise" to a person trying to do a fight don't you think? Or maybe it's a technical term with clear cut parameters . But considering many weren't even aware, it qualifies as a surprise
    My bad, I should have clarified the terms. "Unfair surprise" means the party that creates the contract adds a clause/term without the other party's knowledge, and it exceeds reasonable expectation.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,215 ★★★★★

    Crcrcrc said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
    Okay wether it’s there fault or not, it is unacceptable not to have a warning. It could’ve ended a lot worse, there may be more people that we don’t know of. Luckily I was fine, how do we know there’s not someone out there that plays the game, who just lost his speech to a severe epileptic fit?

    If there was a pre load warning, then that could’ve been easily avoided. It is there job, to inform the player of bright and flashing lights.
    Just curious, how long have you known about your epilepsy?
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★

    Crcrcrc said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
    Okay wether it’s there fault or not, it is unacceptable not to have a warning. It could’ve ended a lot worse, there may be more people that we don’t know of. Luckily I was fine, how do we know there’s not someone out there that plays the game, who just lost his speech to a severe epileptic fit?

    If there was a pre load warning, then that could’ve been easily avoided. It is there job, to inform the player of bright and flashing lights.
    Of course there should be a warning. No one is arguing against that. We're just saying that legally, Kabam cannot be held liable for any damages (in your case, seizures) that could happen as a result of their product.
  • Lucasjones98Lucasjones98 Posts: 318 ★★

    Crcrcrc said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
    Okay wether it’s there fault or not, it is unacceptable not to have a warning. It could’ve ended a lot worse, there may be more people that we don’t know of. Luckily I was fine, how do we know there’s not someone out there that plays the game, who just lost his speech to a severe epileptic fit?

    If there was a pre load warning, then that could’ve been easily avoided. It is there job, to inform the player of bright and flashing lights.
    Just curious, how long have you known about your epilepsy?
    About a year and a half.
  • DaddriedaDaddrieda Posts: 1,186 ★★★

    Daddrieda said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    yes. knowing i agreed to play the game because the game created something that other mobile games couldn't... and that's family so yeah it somehow was an force of agreement. if the game didn't create a way to get a family or friends because the chat system function is not 100% function then hence why everyone found another way to take advantage of Discord, whatsapp and Line group chat to easily contact each other for Aq/AW movement by tagging for faster result. If the game didn't do that then i definitely would deny the EULA signing.
    It was not a forced agreement. Kabam did not force you to play the game or sign the TOS.
    i failed to write ' it somehow was an feeling of an force of agreement'' forgetful me in a moment of an heat
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    edited February 6
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
    I'm 99.9% sure no child showed the agreement to their parents beofre clicking "I agree"
    Then it's not Kabam's fault. If you're not either over the age of 13 with the permission of a parent or guardian (older in other regions), you are technically not allowed to play the game.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 14,215 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
    I'm 99.9% sure no child showed the agreement to their parents beofre clicking "I agree"
    My kids have to get my permission to download games. I'm sure there's a lot more parents out there like me. 99.99% is you just being overly sarcastic.
  • Lucasjones98Lucasjones98 Posts: 318 ★★

    Crcrcrc said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    So what you’re saying is, it’s my fault that there was no warning to flashing lights which then led to my seizure? Because I signed a EULA?

    So basically I caused my own seizure?
    No, it’s just not Kabam’s fault. That’s the point of the TOS
    Okay wether it’s there fault or not, it is unacceptable not to have a warning. It could’ve ended a lot worse, there may be more people that we don’t know of. Luckily I was fine, how do we know there’s not someone out there that plays the game, who just lost his speech to a severe epileptic fit?

    If there was a pre load warning, then that could’ve been easily avoided. It is there job, to inform the player of bright and flashing lights.
    Just curious, how long have you known about your epilepsy?
    About a year and a half.
    Ok so you're educated on what can cause a seizure to happen. I'm not saying Kabam shouldn't do anything as I think the warning at the start of the game is a good way to do it. But as someone that has epilepsy, shouldn't you be more self aware that ANY video game can cause a seizure? There's a lot that can trigger you, but most of it comes from TV shows, movies or some form of digital entertainment.

    Kabam absolutely should have a warning but anyone with epilepsy should know, warning or not, that this is something that could cause you to trigger a seizure.
    Any video game I’ve played, has given warning about potential epilepsy triggers.... no character animation on this game (aside from king groots sp3) is this bright. There is no reason for his animations to be this bright, the fact they added the warning AFTER they released the character shows that they knew he is going to potentially values fits/seizures
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
    I'm 99.9% sure no child showed the agreement to their parents beofre clicking "I agree"
    Then it's not Kabam's fault.
    That's not the point. If the parents didn't sign or agree on the contract then the child can choose to void it hold Kabam accountable
    No, because the child is not technically allowed to play the game, therefore anything that happens to said child is not in the scope of Kabam's powers.
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,539 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
    I'm 99.9% sure no child showed the agreement to their parents beofre clicking "I agree"
    Then it's not Kabam's fault.
    That's not the point. If the parents didn't sign or agree on the contract then the child can choose to void it hold Kabam accountable
    Parents own the phone, and therefore are liable. If a child signs a contract in real life, not on a device legally owned by their guardian, then it can be voided
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    Daddrieda said:

    whelps, this discussion moved from Psycho-man issue to contract issue

    Well because some people think Kabam could be held liable, but they really can't be in this case.
  • Notsavage19Notsavage19 Posts: 2,817 ★★★★★
    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    HI_guys said:

    HI_guys said:

    Daddrieda said:

    The problem Is, I don’t think kabam have noticed, is that this can surely lead to a law suit? I’d never take it further, but for all they know someone else who suffered could easily take this to court and announce the fact that they didn’t have a warning the first time.

    the problem is that we signed up the EULA contract back then causing us to lose our right to waive. even though we signed up for that we didn't sign up to get more damaged.
    But you agreed to not hold Kabam liable for damages...

    It doesn't matter if you didn't know you were going to get more damaged. (At least that's how I think it works. I don't work in corporate law.)
    I might be completely wrong but I think there are I stances where agreements even if signed by both parties can be nullfied if terms were unreasonable and is taken to court or if the issues are serious enough
    There's probably a looot of kids in here. Don't think they can sign and agree to legally binding contracts and agreements anyway which would make Kabam liable.


    Nb : not a legal expert but rather googling expert
    Googling expert is not reliable. If they have a contract that says they are not liable, that’s it. They are not liable. Every person here agreed to that when they started.
    I mean, both of us are talking off of google searches unless ofcourse you are pursuing a legal career.

    And upon further "research" contracts with minors can be voided by said minor to the disadvantage of the company should they(minor) choose to. So yeah Kabam can be liable.
    Ah, but you missed the clause in which parents can provide consent on behalf of their children, therefore the contract is still intact.
    I'm 99.9% sure no child showed the agreement to their parents beofre clicking "I agree"
    Then it's not Kabam's fault.
    That's not the point. If the parents didn't sign or agree on the contract then the child can choose to void it hold Kabam accountable
    No, because the child is not technically allowed to play the game,
    Source?
    TOS, Clause 1, Eligibility:

    "Except as set forth herein, you must be at least 13 years of age to use the Services, or anything accessible or available through the Services or through third party platforms, register for an Account (defined below), or transmit or post any Submission (defined below) or any personal information to any Forum (defined below) or Blog or anywhere else through the Services. By accessing, using and/or submitting content or messages to or through the Services, including Services available through third party platforms, you represent that you are at least 13 years old or older if you are a resident of the United States, United Kingdom or Canada, 16 years old if you are a resident of the European Economic Area, or an adult in any other jurisdictions.

    Users Aged 13-18: if you are a parent or guardian and you provide your consent to your child’s registration with the Services, you agree to be bound by these terms in respect of such child’s use of the Services and/or anything accessible or available through the Services or through third party platforms. You also agree that any payments authorized by your child shall be your sole responsibility."
This discussion has been closed.