EA has been SUED 5 TIMES MERRY CHRISTMAS EA MUHAHA ARR!

[CodenameEndure]

I am thrilled to hear this, rum for all *hands out rum to all around*. Three cheers to the one who sued!
I hope he/she wins and that EA will be forced to stop using SecuROM.

[gayle_afcb]

The lawyers representing the named lady have been very clever in their wording as they have added in an unknown amount of unnamed plaintiffs so literally anyone who has spore can join forces with them at any stage as one of the previously unnamed. And a lot of the wording implies it is being bought on behalf of everyone.

I anticipate the release date for sims3 gets put back until this has been decided one way or another.

[Anouk]

EA threatens DRM complainers with Spore account deletion (meaning they'd have to buy a new copy of Spore)
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=243355

EA lies and tries to keep people from pirating
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=239766

Self destruct in 10... 9....

[Missbonbon]

I really hope the little guy wins this one. It was wrong from the beginning for EA to put that type of crap on people's computers. Maybe they will finally realize they should listen to their customers instead of "We know what's best for you" type attitude.

[Paleoanth]

The lawyers representing the named lady have been very clever in their wording as they have added in an unknown amount of unnamed plaintiffs so literally anyone who has spore can join forces with them at any stage as one of the previously unnamed. And a lot of the wording implies it is being bought on behalf of everyone.

I anticipate the release date for sims3 gets put back until this has been decided one way or another.

I think the wording is due to the fact that this is a class action lawsuit.  I looked at a couple of others and that wording seems pretty standard. 

[lexilove]

Hah! It's about time someone proposed a serious lawsuit against EA.  I just installed Spore AND Apartment Life on my computer a week ago, and now I'm quite afraid that my machine is going to blow. I wouldn't be surprised!
I really hope this lady wins.
 

[mustluvcatz]

Since this is a class action suit- anyone who wants to can contact the lawyers involved in this suit and ask to be added to it (if I'm wrong about that, correct me, please!). Nobody's likely to actually get anything from this lawsuit- any monies involved would be split amongst everyone- BUT, EA might actually be forced to stop including SecuRom on the disks OR admit that it's there and admit what it's for and what it can do to computers.

When it comes to The Sims 2 expansions that have SecuRom- it'd be really interesting to see what would happen if the lawyers involved in this suit were informed that Spore isn't the only EA game involved.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to resume pointing and laughing at EA.

[calalily]

The lawyers representing the named lady have been very clever in their wording as they have added in an unknown amount of unnamed plaintiffs so literally anyone who has spore can join forces with them at any stage as one of the previously unnamed. And a lot of the wording implies it is being bought on behalf of everyone.

I anticipate the release date for sims3 gets put back until this has been decided one way or another.

I think the wording is due to the fact that this is a class action lawsuit.  I looked at a couple of others and that wording seems pretty standard. 

Normally though, it's about damage - this is just anyone who owns Spore, with proof of damage or not.  That's what makes it clever.

[JMZ]

I just heard about this 5 minutes ago and I'm still sitting here with a big grin on my face. 

The more waves created by this, the better!

ARR!!!

[Quinctia]

The only reason you wouldn't want to get in on something like this is that if you are part of a class-action suit that gets settled, joining it waives your right to get in on another suit, or raise one of your own.  As an avid music-buyer, I got in on one nearly ten years ago after several big record companies were found to be price-fixing CDs.  I got about $10-15 by check, if I remember correctly.

[Witchboy]

I posted this in the spore thread in Sharkbait but saw this thread & thought i'd add it here too.

Seems EA has violated 3 CLRA's (Consumers Legal Remedies Act).

http://www.harp.org/clra.htm

California Civil Code 1770 (a) 5, 7, & 14.

1770.

(a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
(1). Passing off goods or services as those of another.
(2). Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.
(3). Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another.
(4). Using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services.
(5). Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have.
(6). Representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand.
(7). Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.
(8 ). Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.
(9). Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.
(10). Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity.
(11). Advertising furniture without clearly indicating that it is unassembled if that is the case.
(12). Advertising the price of unassembled furniture without clearly indicating the assembled price of that furniture if the same furniture is available assembled from the seller.
(13). Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.
(14). Representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law.
(15). Representing that a part, replacement, or repair service is needed when it is not.
(16). Representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.
(17). Representing that the consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other economic benefit, if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction.
(18). Misrepresenting the authority of a salesperson, representative, or agent to negotiate the final terms of a transaction with a consumer.
(19). Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.
(20). Advertising that a product is being offered at a specific price plus a specific percentage of that price unless (1) the total price is set forth in the advertisement, which may include, but is not limited to, shelf tags, displays, and media advertising, in a size larger than any other price in that advertisement, and (2) the specific price plus a specific percentage of that price represents a markup from the seller's costs or from the wholesale price of the product. This subdivision shall not apply to in-store advertising by businesses which are open only to members or cooperative organizations organized pursuant to Division 3 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 1 of the Corporations Code where more than 50 percent of purchases are made at the specific price set forth in the advertisement.
(21). Selling or leasing goods in violation of Chapter 4 ( commencing with Section 1797.8 ) of Title 1.7.
(22). (A) Disseminating an unsolicited prerecorded message by telephone without an unrecorded, natural voice first informing the person answering the telephone of the name of the caller or the organization being represented, and either the address or the telephone number of the caller, and without obtaining the consent of that person to listen to the prerecorded message.
(B) This subdivision does not apply to a message disseminated to a business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with the person or organization making the call, to a call for the purpose of collecting an existing obligation, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient.
(23). The home solicitation, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 1761, of a consumer who is a senior citizen where a loan is made encumbering the primary residence of that consumer for the purposes of paying for home improvements and where the transaction is part of a pattern or practice in violation of either subsection (h) or (i) of Section 1639 of Title 15 of the United States Code or subsection (e) of Section 226.32 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A third party shall not be liable under this subdivision unless (1) there was an agency relationship between the party who engaged in home solicitation and the third party or (2) the third party had actual knowledge of, or participated in, the unfair or deceptive transaction. A third party who is a holder in due course under a home solicitation transaction shall not be liable under this subdivision.
 
(b)

(1). It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a mortgage broker or lender, directly or indirectly, to use a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of any loan that is secured, whether in whole or in part, by the residence of the borrower and which is used to finance a home improvement contract or any portion thereof. For purposes of this subdivision, "mortgage broker or lender" includes a finance lender licensed pursuant to the California Finance Lenders Law (Division 9 (commencing with Section 22000) of the Financial Code), a residential mortgage lender licensed pursuant to the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Financial Code), or a real estate broker licensed under the Real Estate Law (Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code).

(2). This section shall not be construed to either authorize or prohibit a home improvement contractor from referring a consumer to a mortgage broker or lender by this subdivision. However, a home improvement contractor may refer a consumer to a mortgage lender or broker if that referral does not violate Section 7157 of the Business and Professions Code or any other provision of law. A mortgage lender or broker may purchase an executed home improvement contract if that purchase does not violate Section 7157 of the Business and Professions Code or any other provision of law. Nothing in this paragraph shall have any effect on the application of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1801) of Title 2 to a home improvement transaction or the financing thereof.

I see a few in there that could be applied to sims 2 paysites if one decided to sue them 

[cookiepirate]

EA could have avoided this by just asking separately for you to click Accept or Cancel for installing Suckurom.  Accept, you get to install the game, knowing upfront that securom would be installed.  Cancel, and no game, no Securom.  But at least they would have given you the choice.  They way they did it with TS2 EP's and Spore and whatever else game, was just wrong, 

You don't go into a class action suit for the money.  You do it to make big companies own up for doing something illegal and/or harmful.  If the defendant (EA) loses the suit they pay all the legal fees as part of the settlement and if the defendants win, the plaintiffs (people) don't receive anything, but they don't pay either.  Plaintiff's lawyer fees are usually determined by a certain percentage of what is won, so they try REALLY hard to win.

[Paden]

Wouldn't they also have to stop using the program? That is my biggest hope about all of this.

[Missbonbon]

Wouldn't they also have to stop using the program? That is my biggest hope about all of this.

It depends. If the court rules that EA has to stop using it then yes. But they could also rule that from now on EA has to be upfront about SecuROM. All depends on how the lawyers handle it and it plays out. What could also happen is the courts could ban EA from using SecuROM, but EA could develop another program similar to it, give it another name, and just be upfront about it and have the horrid nightmare all over again.

[Saraswati]

which is why we were so definate about not including the word "Securom" in RYG's title.. Gamers have already been through this nightmare with Ubisoft and Starforce, and unfortunately it's happening all over again.

EA being forced to disclose Securom would not be a bad outcome.. because if people get on the net, find out what it is and what it does, it's going to dent EA's sales which is where it will hurt them in the longrun.