Judge largely dismisses suit against Sony over PSN breach

[Matthew DeCarlo]

US District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia has largely dismissed (PDF) a class action suit over Sony's 2011 hacking fiasco. Shortly after Sony revealed that hackers had swiped the personal details of tens of millions of PlayStation customers in a massive security breach, users retaliated with a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the company negligently failed to provide adequate safeguards, despite knowing that its network was vulnerable.

Judge Battaglia crushed that complaint, citing clauses in the privacy policy that Sony users must agree to. In that document, the company says that it'll take reasonable measures to protect the personal data collected from customers, including encryption on credit card numbers, but that it can't promise hackers will never gain unauthorized access. "There is no such thing as perfect security," the policy reads, adding that it can't ensure the security of any user information transmitted to the company's sites or services.

The plaintiffs also sought compensation for the loss of services that were inaccessible during the outage, such as Netflix, but Sony's Terms of Service has that covered. To access the PlayStation Network, users agree to terms that state no warranty is given for the quality, functionality or availability of Sony Online Services or any content offered through the platform. Additionally, if something is knocked offline, as PSN was for many weeks last year, Sony doesn't assume liability for users' inability to access content.

Those policies effectively neutered the plaintiffs' complaints, and it doesn't help that they've been unable to show a plausible loss of money or property. The judge also didn't buy that Sony intentionally deceived users about the security and availability of its services. Nonetheless, he hasn't fully dismissed the case, granting the plaintiffs until November 9 to amend their filing based on this week's ruling. It's unclear if they will take that opportunity, though it doesn't seem like they have a leg to stand on at this point.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/50598-judge-largely-dismisses-suit-against-sony-over-psn-breach.html

 

[cliffordcooley]

Score one for the deserving side. Sony may have their faults, but this is one time they didn't deserve having rocks thrown at them.

 

[BlueDrake]

Really now? I'm not going to take Sony's side only here. Just WHEN was the policy introduced, in relation to the whole hacking incident? Things get changed all the time, users have to accept a new ToS or be locked out. Which is how fair in the long run, when you basically can't defend yourself, because it's a ball and chain on the new ToS?

If you say no, you're locked out of various things. If you say yes then really, you're bound to those new rules. How is it fair to a consumer really, that you're legally bound to that ToS, when it's an "agree or don't use" kind of ruling? It's why I hate these locking kind of ToS's really, the companies get away with this all the time.

Steam is another example though. You spend hundreds or thousands on games, you suddenly get a new ToS update. You'd either agree to their terms so you can access everything, or say no and basically be locked out of your digital goods. The reason people prefer digital I find over physical copies, you don't have to lug it everywhere to install. It's just a sign in and install, also less losing keys for said games also.


I can understand protecting yourself with a new ToS, but doing it with a legal ball and chain is hardly fair. Not to mention people will blindly click accept, so they can get on with everything and agree to anything. Who would want to spend all their time, reading each and every ToS when not everyone wants to? You never know what's packed in there secretly to protect them, from you in possible future issues.

 

[Guest]

Sonys ToS its a not above the law, its common sense...how much did they pay to the judge?, obviously they are crushing universal rights.....its like labor rights no matter what you sign...if the company or the business owner its doing things against you bcuz of your contract, the labor rights goes in and undo any stuff, what ever it is, so.that only happens in extrreme neoliberal countries like the US.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This case alone is proof of all the vultures circling around just waiting for a chance at a quick buck. If you want to blame anyone for for such ToS clauses, look to the vultures not the company that create the terms. A company protecting itself, is the only way for the company to survive. I'm willing to bet non of you would run a company and leave the door open to be bit more than once per issue.

 

[Guest]

I agree with cliff, a company has to protect itself from those people looking at a opportunity to make a quick buck from a successful company or person. Blame the greed of this current society for this type of business. If you own ur own business and knew what you can be sued on on the advice of ur lawyer you would do the same. Don't like the new tos, don't agree to it. Can't get the service u want because u don't agree to their terms...too bad. That's the world, move on.

 

[Per Hansson]

Uhh, when handling credit card infomation you must adhere to PCI specs, and if my understanding is correct Sony did not.
So how can this case be dismissed based on some EULA?
Maybe it's only in Europe where EULA's are not able to override the national laws?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard

 

[Burty117]

Uhh, when handling credit card infomation you must adhere to PCI specs, and if my understanding is correct Sony did not.
So how can this case be dismissed based on some EULA?
Maybe it's only in Europe where EULA's are not able to override the national laws?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard

Hi Per,

Just thought I'd chime in here, I recently needed to secure a London based Client so they are PCI compliant to use a credit card machine, I'm not going to lie, PCI compliance isn't as harsh as I first thought it would be, Literally just wanted us to lock down the firewall, update OWA and vola! they did a scan on our clients system and passed them.

I'm all for security but they should be more rigorous, like asking the client if they were going to store details, where and how and maybe run a hacking test onto the storing server?

Although I think your right about the law overriding ToS's in Europe, I've never seen a case where the ToS has won anyway.

 

[Sunny87]

ToS here in the UK means bugger all, Sony changed the ToS during the hacking scandal because they new this day would come, you can't tell me that's fare practise to update a ToS while you're under attack, to me that means that if the ToS means anything it means the non revised ToS is the one that was agreed to by the user and the one that should stand up in court, not the revised edition to suit Sony needs because they rolled that out as far as I'm concerned while still under potential threat and they really rushed that out to suit them, they wouldn't have even made that revised ToS if they didn't get hacked.

As far as I'm concerned the UK trading law has got it right, if no longer fit for purpose = full refund without question from place of purchase, and lets face it Sony wouldn't have got hacked in the first place if they just played ball, instead annoy everyone, at some point you are going to piss off a hacking group and thats what they did by illegally removing features from a system you own not sony you because of some wiz kid, how about you hire that wiz kid to make better security for you?

Or at least try to patch the problem out as opposed to remove and entire section of the OS because your to lazy to code better security into it, Nintendo and Microsoft get on with hacking just fine by releasing updates that work and don't remove features that they advertised in the beginning.

Sony they deserve everything bad they can get sorry I used to love them as a company but they really are corrupt now and possibly then.

 

[Tygerstrike]

So all Im really hearing is "wah wah wah". Yea I was affected by the Sony downtime. You know what, I found other things to do. In this world of ever changing tech advances, you cannot hold Sony responsable for the actions of a hacker group. Im 100% sure Sony did everything LEGALLY required of them to protect the data under their stewardship. Just because a third party found a way into their system, doesnt give everyone the right to just start sueing. Guess what, its frivilous lawsuits such as this one that has put America into the boat its in. The reality of the situation is simple. Ppl got butthurt that they couldnt entertain themselves and they think they deserve money because of it. And they will grab onto ANY excuse to validate or justify their actions. Every dime that Sony has to pay out for their defence is yet another dime that they dont get to put into beefing up their system. Try and keep in mind that no one is perfect. Nothing is. $h!t happends, its called life. Sometimes you have to roll with what it tosses at you. Sony and its consumers were the victims here. Try and keep that in mind instead of the millions you wont get trying to sue.

 

[NTAPRO]

Kind of surprised I haven't seen any news about the recent state of the ps3, with lvl0 being breached and all.