Post: Player sues Sony after being banned from PlayStation Network
Options
07-22-2009, 01:09 PM
#1
Originally posted by another user
It's pretty difficult to get banned from the PlayStation Network. You have to be a total jerk-face to get booted off PS3's online community. However, that's what Erik Estavallo managed to do whilst playing Resistance. With access to the game cut off, Estavallo decided to take part in the most appropriate action possible: a lawsuit.
Estavallo argues that a ban from the PlayStation Network goes against his First Amendment rights. "The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network," a court document retrieved by GamePolitics reveals. This, in turn, has caused "pain and suffering" because the PS3 is "the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia."
Estavallo is asking for $55,000 in punitive damages and demands Sony no longer implement bans of any sort. He alleges that "PlayStation 3 is the only system that incorporates this type of wide-ranged ban. As where Nintendo does not ban customers at all. And Microsoft Xbox rarely bans."
Estavallo argues that a ban from the PlayStation Network goes against his First Amendment rights. "The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network," a court document retrieved by GamePolitics reveals. This, in turn, has caused "pain and suffering" because the PS3 is "the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia."
Estavallo is asking for $55,000 in punitive damages and demands Sony no longer implement bans of any sort. He alleges that "PlayStation 3 is the only system that incorporates this type of wide-ranged ban. As where Nintendo does not ban customers at all. And Microsoft Xbox rarely bans."
i find this funny, this guy is never going to win against sony lol.
The following 5 users say thank you to chris2k7sears for this useful post:
07-24-2009, 01:04 AM
#29
blizzard94
Vault dweller
Lmao well hell if your that pissed and have the time go for the lawsuit! but it is a problem how sony actually bans when online is "not rated by esrb" or any other rating system so freedom of speech should be alloud. Oh and did anyone forget resistance is for MATURE players why the **** do they ban on games that you have to be 17 plus!!(going by esrb's rating). My brother got banned for a week and the reason some off shored worker told us was that "a moderator heard you talking offensivly on call of duty world at war" now thats a load of bull**** because the game is not rated online and is rated mature(17+) offline. This is a problem, sure a lawsuits extreme but if i called and they didnt unban me i would be extremly irritated.
07-24-2009, 03:38 AM
#31
Daehnkalicious
More About Nothing
Originally posted by blizzard94
Lmao well hell if your that pissed and have the time go for the lawsuit! but it is a problem how sony actually bans when online is "not rated by esrb" or any other rating system so freedom of speech should be alloud. Oh and did anyone forget resistance is for MATURE players why the **** do they ban on games that you have to be 17 plus!!(going by esrb's rating). My brother got banned for a week and the reason some off shored worker told us was that "a moderator heard you talking offensivly on call of duty world at war" now thats a load of bull**** because the game is not rated online and is rated mature(17+) offline. This is a problem, sure a lawsuits extreme but if i called and they didnt unban me i would be extremly irritated.
I think its partially due to Sony's need to protect the consumer. I mean if some guy said I'm going to kill you and followed through, Sony would be in hot water because it was reported. I know thats an out there example but its the measures that sony uses to protect that also end up hurting people.
07-24-2009, 08:53 AM
#32
Dead_by_default
Banned
@blizzard94: Reading your post almost made my eyes bleed... Btw, CoD 5 doesn't have mods on the game. And PSN isn't a public forum, Your first amendment rights have no legal standing there. They can ban you for saying cat if they decide it goes against their ToS, Which you so blindly agreed to without a second thought. Not a darn thing this kid can do but bend over and let sony ram his ass. The burden of proof is on him to prove the ban was unjustifiable. Which he will not be able to do. I hope sony makes an example and rapes this coward in court, If hes not to scared to leave his house. Lastly, The actual online gameplay is rated along with the game, Its the actual personal interactions with other players(Tea bagging, conversations, ETC.) thats not rated. You still have to be 17+ to play online.
Edit: Re-Reading your post pisses me off more each time, For all you know he was talking about raping a 17 year old handicapped girl on the game. Does this not warrant a ban? Sony's not the problem, Low IQ douche
---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 AM ----------
bags are the problem. *cough* You *cough* Know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Reporting myself for a double post, PS3 has a letter limit for messages. So if a Mod could combine these posts, It'd be nice.
Edit: Re-Reading your post pisses me off more each time, For all you know he was talking about raping a 17 year old handicapped girl on the game. Does this not warrant a ban? Sony's not the problem, Low IQ douche
---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 AM ----------
bags are the problem. *cough* You *cough* Know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Reporting myself for a double post, PS3 has a letter limit for messages. So if a Mod could combine these posts, It'd be nice.
07-24-2009, 01:31 PM
#33
Monkey_With_Fury
Do a barrel roll!
07-24-2009, 03:36 PM
#34
, there shouldn't be anymore banning therefore we can do a lot of things we couldn't do before without getting banned :p, like didn't people get banned from the PS3 for doing the prestige glitch on Co
W@W? Lol
07-24-2009, 05:08 PM
#36
Andros
Body Language Expert
Not saying the guy is gonna win, he probably won't.
However I don't know how it works in the U.S.A., but in many other countries in the world the content of a contract is only valid as long as it doesn't go against the national laws.
Many companies put stupid stuff in the contract that only works when people don't know their rights and don't protest or sue. Or even simply contacts them asking for a refund or w/e.
For example.. in Italy the warranty on most products has to be valid for a minimum of two years. Yet some companies state warranty is only 1 year on the box/manual. But if you go back to the shop or contact the company, they will not protest and will repair your product within the two years, because they know that what they put on the box doesn't matter, the law states the warranty has to be at least 2 years.
In this case I suppose the guy violated the terms of conduct somehow (such as by being abusive, using racial slurs or such) and, if Sony can prove that, then I suppose it would be their right to ban him from the psn (again, I don't know the US laws).
However as I said before, most EULA/TOS would not hold in court in many countries, the fact that you accept a contract doesn't mean the content of the contract is "legal".
However I don't know how it works in the U.S.A., but in many other countries in the world the content of a contract is only valid as long as it doesn't go against the national laws.
Many companies put stupid stuff in the contract that only works when people don't know their rights and don't protest or sue. Or even simply contacts them asking for a refund or w/e.
For example.. in Italy the warranty on most products has to be valid for a minimum of two years. Yet some companies state warranty is only 1 year on the box/manual. But if you go back to the shop or contact the company, they will not protest and will repair your product within the two years, because they know that what they put on the box doesn't matter, the law states the warranty has to be at least 2 years.
In this case I suppose the guy violated the terms of conduct somehow (such as by being abusive, using racial slurs or such) and, if Sony can prove that, then I suppose it would be their right to ban him from the psn (again, I don't know the US laws).
However as I said before, most EULA/TOS would not hold in court in many countries, the fact that you accept a contract doesn't mean the content of the contract is "legal".
07-24-2009, 06:06 PM
#37
DiXiEnOrMoUz28
A.K.A Daboss1288
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
