Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy
Tons of industries use TOS agreements (that most people do not read). As a consumer you choose whether to agree to them or not, and this person chose that. If a company makes a completely irrational change to their TOS (ie: we can force you to pour a blend of liver and kidney juice on your pets if you win a hand) then that would be noticed by someone (some people read the TOS) and highlighted and then consumers can decide whether a company that makes erratic rules like that is worth doing business with at that time.
Your argument for people's things of value being bound to any and every clause in a TOS is
some people will read it and let everyone know?
You think companies are bulletproof just because someone agrees to their TOS?
I would assume that's one major job of a companies legal team--figuring out what they can legally get away with in their TOS.
I dont see how they could add the no-cussing clause to TOS and keep people's money once lawsuits started flying, even when the customers agreed to the TOS. I also wouldn't think they'd be able to get away with keeping someone's current balance from a TOS infraction from 5 years prior, for example. I personally don't think it's fair if ,hypothetically, Vayo VPN'd and played from the US 6m prior, but they confiscated a current 700k tourney win where he was in Canada.
Maybe I have one or all of those wrong. But I think they're important to know. PS's investigation/confiscation procedure and actions need to be held to a standard. Afaik and have seen they can do whatever they want. That is why I'm interested in this case--I want to see someone challenge their balance confiscation and win.