Yo, if your account has been banned before weather it was 2 weeks or permanent hit me up. Let's sue Riot and all game companies to own our accounts, why should they be allowed to ban us if we have paid or put a significant amount of time into a game? Would a furniture store come take your couch back after you paid for it for tearing up a flamer with your words? Why should game companies be allowed to do it? Hit me up mang....lets do this and OWN OUR ACCOUNTS!
Randomonium9 votesYou don't own your account. They make that very clear in the TOS. You agreed to the TOS every time a new patch came out. You won't get a cent out of them because legally they are in the right. If you want to waste your money on a lawyer though be my guest.
Blind Gaming1 votesBLAH BLAH BLAH MISINFORMED ONE.....LEARN TO ACCPET THAT EVERY LAW AND EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO MODIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION IN A COURT ROOM! DERP!
Randomonium7 votesYou sound like you've watched too many courthouse dramas. Either that or you're a kid who doesn't really understand how the legal system works. Modification and interpretation happens very rarely in the real world because laws and contracts are designed to not have loopholes that people like you can exploit. Its only when you get up to the Supreme Court that real interpretation occurs. Maybe if a bunch of amateurs wrote the TOS you'd have a shot at finding a loophole but Riot hired professional lawyers who know the law inside and out. Like I said though, if you want to waste your money on a lawyer then you're free to do so. I'm just trying to be nice and let you know that you're wasting your time and money. No need to be a rude asshole.
oSEXYPLATYPUSo7 votesdid you read the TOS ? or how bout the part for arbitration? do you know what arbitration is? do you know how much $ they have ? and how long the can drag it out making you spend thousands upon thousands of $$$ til you give up ?
midnight oil241 votesGiven that another guy made the same argument and then started talking about how he's losing his sight, I think he's just trying to say the same thing but without looking like the bad guy.
midnight oil246 votesI can guarantee you that case would get thrown out very quickly.
Blind Gaming1 votesLIES TO TRY AND DETOUR US!
midnight oil246 votesFirst off, spell deter right. Second, I don't lie. Unlike you.
Miss Luxanna5 votesThat's...not how that works.
Blind Gaming1 votesEVERY law, EVER contract is open to interpretation and modification within a courtroom. That is how it works.......DERP
Miss Luxanna7 votes"You acknowledge and agree that you shall have no ownership or other property interest in your account, and you further acknowledge and agree that, other than your limited access to use the account, all rights in and to the account are and shall forever be owned by and inure to the benefit of Riot Games. You acknowledge and agree that you have no claim, right, title, ownership or other proprietary interest in the game assets."
Miss Luxanna1 votesIt's a good troll though
Chønklord5 votesNo one owns anything on their account according to the ToS
You waiver the right to a class action lawsuit according to the ToS
When you clicked ACCEPT, you accepted the ToS
GankedByWindows5 votesGood luck getting any lawyer to even look at your case. You agreed that you DO NOT own your account at sign up, download, and every new patch. You're allowed a license to play the game that can be revoked at any time for any reason. Your furniture store analogy isn't the same thing. Its more like if the furniture store allowed you to take home the furniture for a trial period then taking it back. You still don't own the furniture just because you have access to it.
Blind Gaming1 votesBLAH BLAH BLAH.....I DONT WANT A LAWYER I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO SIGN A PETITION ONLY NEED 10K SIGNATURES AND ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.....LEARN THE REAL LEGAL SYSTEM FOOL....QUIT BELIEVE EVERYTHING IS CONCRETE! CUZ ITS NOT
KVbqbFsC8e4 votesYeah, good luck with that.
fixating304 votesI sued riot and won you should go for it. They had to give me my account back along with all the ip I lost while not playing and a free hex tech Annie skin for damages. You just need a good lawyer here's the one I used https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wqnHtGgVAUE
This Is Your Dad3 votesWell considering it's free to play, and only cosmetic skins that do not boost your ability to win cost money, a judge would throw your case out, especially when Riot presented your chat logs to the court. If it's bad enough, they may even turn it over on you as harassment.
Partybringer3 votesdid you read the terms of service? cause it says so in the terms of service...
scazzman2 votesIf you ARE going to sue riot. Here is the legal arguement i would use. Don't say they took your money. The judge will just laugh at you.
Say that you have mental health issues. And that riot as a business failed to provide reasonable accomodations allowing you to play the game in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which is something businesses CANNOT weasel thier way out of via contract
As your claim. Say that riot has the capability to restrict your chat use in game. However they refuse to do so unless you have already been punished. And after a certain amount of punishments they just ban you outright.. Make the claim that the ability to turn off in game chat would have prevented you from being banned. This argument MIGHT hold up in court.
Wolfess1 votesIf you ARE going to sue riot. Here is the legal arguement i would use. Don't say they took your money. The judge will just laugh at you.
Say that you have mental health issues. And that riot as a business failed to provide reasonable accomodations allowing you to play the game in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which is something businesses CANNOT weasel thier way out of via contract
As your claim. Say that riot has the capability to restrict your chat use in game. However they refuse to do so unless you have already been punished. And after a certain amount of punishments they just ban you outright.. Make the claim that the ability to turn off in game chat would have prevented you from being banned. This argument MIGHT hold up in court.
it won't hold. they reserve the right to ban you for any or no reason whatsoever.
scazzman1 votesit won't hold. they reserve the right to ban you for any or no reason whatsoever.
the argument wouldn't be that they illegally banned you at that point. the argument would be that riot could have taken steps to accommodate your disability "manually disabling your chat" before actually banning you.
ALSO. even with that part of the terms of use.
they CANNOT ban you for
having a disability
because of race
sexual orientation
gender
national origin
Wolfess1 votesthe argument wouldn't be that they illegally banned you at that point. the argument would be that riot could have taken steps to accommodate your disability "manually disabling your chat" before actually banning you.
ALSO. even with that part of the terms of use.
they CANNOT ban you for
- having a disability
- because of race
- sexual orientation
- gender
- national origin
scazzman1 votesi can read. im saying. federal anti discrimination law trumps the terms of use. as does the ADA act.
its the same reason a building can say "no pets" but they still cannot refuse service to someone with a service animal
any lawyer would tell you the exact same thing
Wolfess1 votesi can read. im saying. federal anti discrimination law trumps the terms of use. as does the ADA act.
its the same reason a building can say "no pets" but they still cannot refuse service to someone with a service animal
any lawyer would tell you the exact same thing
except you can't prove discrimination in this case.
scazzman1 votesexcept you can't prove discrimination in this case.
not discrimination, however you MIGHT be able to make an ADA violation claim though it would be a longshot. under failure to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities with the assumption that
Online businesses still have to obey the act.
removal or restriction of the in game chat feature would be considered "reasonable accomodation
Wolfess2 votesnot discrimination, however you MIGHT be able to make an ADA violation claim though it would be a longshot. under failure to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities with the assumption that
Online businesses still have to obey the act.
removal or restriction of the in game chat feature would be considered "reasonable accomodation
that's the thing though you cannot prove that they would know that you are disabled
also that would mean that perma chat restriction could be a "reasonable" accommodation for all toxic chat however riot has already set their behavioral rules in place and stated that they may suspend or terminate your account if doing so would be in the best interest of their community or Riot Services.
just gave this a quick skim through and it seems to basically apply to PUBLIC places. An online game is not a public place, it is privately owned.
scazzman1 votesthat's the thing though you cannot prove that they would know that you are disabled
also that would mean that perma chat restriction could be a "reasonable" accommodation for all toxic chat however riot has already set their behavioral rules in place and stated that they may suspend or terminate your account if doing so would be in the best interest of their community or Riot Services.
just gave this a quick skim through and it seems to basically apply to PUBLIC places. An online game is not a public place, it is privately owned.
they are not required to prove you're disabled, just provide accommodations in the event you MIGHT be.
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm
Use benefits accruing to persons without disabilities. Improved accessibility can affect more than just the rule’s target population; persons without disabilities may also benefit from many of the requirements. Even though the requirements were not designed to benefit persons without disabilities, any time savings or easier access to a facility experienced by persons without disabilities are also benefits that should properly be attributed to that change in accessibility. Curb cuts in sidewalks make life easier for those using wheeled suitcases or pushing a baby stroller. For people with a lot of luggage or a need to change clothes, the larger bathroom stalls can be highly valued. A ramp into a pool can allow a child (or adult) with a fear of water to ease into that pool. All are examples of ‘‘unintended’’ benefits of the rule. And ideally, all should be part of the calculus of the benefits to society of the rule.
(businesses that are generally open to the public and that fall into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day care facilities, recreation facilities, and doctors' offices) and requires newly constructed or altered places of public accommodation—as well as commercial facilities (privately owned, nonresidential facilities such as factories, warehouses, or office buildings)—to comply with the ADA Standards.
it applies to privately owned businesses as well. however, as written, does not cover online business, but the act was put in place before the internet existed, so a judge would have to make a ruling on whether in the spirit of the act, online business would qualify
Wolfess1 votesthey are not required to prove you're disabled, just provide accommodations in the event you MIGHT be.
(businesses that are generally open to the public and that fall into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day care facilities, recreation facilities, and doctors' offices) and requires newly constructed or altered places of public accommodation—as well as commercial facilities (privately owned, nonresidential facilities such as factories, warehouses, or office buildings)—to comply with the ADA Standards.
it applies to privately owned businesses as well. however, as written, does not cover online business, but the act was put in place before the internet existed, so a judge would have to make a ruling on whether in the spirit of the act, online business would qualify
this is not a facility, and providing the chat restriction in the event that someone MIGHT be disabled is not a reasonable claim as they would have to apply it to EVERYONE equally, disabled or not. Regardless of disability or not, if they cannot control themselves and are being overly disruptive then they are asked to leave or the proper authority or guardian comes in and escorts them off the premises. disability is not a buzzword for "You have to put up with me and give me what I want."
scazzman1 votesthis is not a facility, and providing the chat restriction in the event that someone MIGHT be disabled is not a reasonable claim as they would have to apply it to EVERYONE equally, disabled or not. Regardless of disability or not, if they cannot control themselves and are being overly disruptive then they are asked to leave or the proper authority or guardian comes in and escorts them off the premises. disability is not a buzzword for "You have to put up with me and give me what I want.
you are correct. they would have to provide it to anyone who asks. I also have to ask, are you a lawyer, or do you have any Legal background
Wolfess1 votesyou are correct. they would have to provide it to anyone who asks. I also have to ask, are you a lawyer, or do you have any Legal background
Some legal background from family, but I myself am not a lawyer.
Also not sure if It should be necessary to point it out at this point but...... you realize OP is troll and this is pretty much a shitpost thread right?
scazzman1 votesSome legal background from family, but I myself am not a lawyer.
Also not sure if It should be necessary to point it out at this point but...... you realize OP is troll and this is pretty much a shitpost thread right?
yes. im aware the OP is a troll. but im also not technically wrong. im actually a law student myself. not a full on lawyer. but once i pass my bar exam, i plan on becoming a disability attorney. and ADA violation claims would be some of the cases i would eventually handle.
the law specifically says that non disabled people may use accommodations meant for disabled people, provided that it not restrict access to those accommodations for actual disabled people, "such as public wheelchairs/power scooters, or handicapped parking"
The only question would be whether or not an online game is bound by the ADA act. which currently has not been settled by a judge. though there are currently cases being handled in court pertaining to the subject, and the odds look in favor of the answer being yes.
the reason for this. THE ADA act was passed in 1990 when the internet was still in its infancy, and online business would have been unheard of
Wolfess1 votesyes. im aware the OP is a troll. but im also not technically wrong. im actually a law student myself. not a full on lawyer. but once i pass my bar exam, i plan on becoming a disability attorney. and ADA violation claims would be some of the cases i would eventually handle.
the law specifically says that non disabled people may use accommodations meant for disabled people, provided that it not restrict access to those accommodations for actual disabled people, "such as public wheelchairs/power scooters, or handicapped parking"
The only question would be whether or not an online game is bound by the ADA act. which currently has not been settled by a judge. though there are currently cases being handled in court pertaining to the subject, and the odds look in favor of the answer being yes.
the reason for this. THE ADA act was passed in 1990 when the internet was still in its infancy, and online business would have been unheard of
Disability attorney huh, actually sounds like pretty good stuff, and at least I can say that the back and forth (with the exclusion of op) going on is actually somewhat entertaining.
So here's my next question. It's true that restricting access and accommodations is against the law, though nothing was restricting his access to the game to begin with, it is only after unruly behavior defined by the rules that they were, most likely, muted, given a timed suspension, and then ultimately banned after giving them a chance to adjust their behavior pattern. Not only that but if they were as legally incompetent as they claim, then they should most certainly try to avoid anything that pertains to them agreeing to anything and would likely be adviced by the court to steer clear in lieu of them being denied services for failure to abide by established rules and potential future claims be denied for not heeding court's advice. In fact it's likely that they would bring this up quite early in the case and look at precedents.
As for the ADA act not being fully updated for internet use, well I do like that some websites may try to adapt their site for ease of access for persons disabilities, it is really a nice effort to show that they care and welcome all equally as customers
scazzman1 votesDisability attorney huh, actually sounds like pretty good stuff, and at least I can say that the back and forth (with the exclusion of op) going on is actually somewhat entertaining.
So here's my next question. It's true that restricting access and accommodations is against the law, though nothing was restricting his access to the game to begin with, it is only after unruly behavior defined by the rules that they were, most likely, muted, given a timed suspension, and then ultimately banned after giving them a chance to adjust their behavior pattern. Not only that but if they were as legally incompetent as they claim, then they should most certainly try to avoid anything that pertains to them agreeing to anything and would likely be adviced by the court to steer clear in lieu of them being denied services for failure to abide by established rules and potential future claims be denied for not heeding court's advice. In fact it's likely that they would bring this up quite early in the case and look at precedents.
As for the ADA act not being fully updated for internet use, well I do like that some websites may try to adapt their site for ease of access for persons disabilities, it is really a nice effort to show that they care and welcome all equally as customers
While this is true. This isnt to say someone else won't try and make this claim and win.
The question becomes.
is a mental health disorder what is causing them to be punished by riot
would manually chat restricting an account be considered a "reasonable accommodation"
Blind Gaming1 votesWould netflix suspend or ban you account for talking crap to people while you watch it? NO, cuz it's illegal! Why should any game company be able to take away or suspend an account we've either put money into or a lot of time into?? If they perma ban me I want about $7.50/hr x every hour i've played. plus the amount of money Ive have put into the game as well.
oSEXYPLATYPUSo7 votesits not illegal if you agree to the TOS and violate the TOS you are found in breech of contract . also riots states the account and all the material in game belong to RIOT you are just giving permission to use it
scazzman1 votesthe question then becomes
A. do online businesses have to follow the ADA act. the same as brick and mortar stores
B. is a manual chat restriction a "reasonable accomodation" considering riot is a multibillion dollar company, and the ability to restrict chat already exists. i would say so.
Bettnachleger1 votesWhat an unfunny troll ;/
Doxa Hermes1 votesyou also dont own anything you buy in league its pretty gay cuz they can just perma ban you for no reason like me and then just take all them money you spent on this game and tell you to fuck off... verry gay
Who is Taliyah1 votesBy making an account and playing this game, you accepted the ToS (which you clearly didn't read). You are not forced to pay any money to play the game. You should read the ToS if you want more information
HalcyonDweller1 votesI don't see what homosexuality has to do with losing money on a game... Care to clarify?
Mindspeaker1 votesPaying money does not give you the right to act any way you want , If you cannot act like a positive respectful civilized human being you don't deserve to be here .
You can only blame yourself for losing everything and I applaud riot for taking such actions.
I'm tied of playing this especially in ranked and having someone freak out over the outcome or status of a video game.
HalcyonDweller1 votesA) This was a troll thread, and should be locked down so nobody else can be baited into commenting.
B) This thread is half a year old. The OP was probably banned from the boards a while ago, seeing as they haven't been active for 5 months.
Mindspeaker1 votesA) This was a troll thread, and should be locked down so nobody else can be baited into commenting.
B) This thread is half a year old. The OP was probably banned from the boards a while ago, seeing as they haven't been active for 5 months.
didn't look at the date ......my bad
HalcyonDweller1 votesIt's ok amigo/a, everyone makes the mistake eventually. It's not really your fault anyway you didn't revive the thread, someone else did first.
airwave181 votesI also had my account permanently suspended for BS reasons despite having spend a considerable amount of cash on a 5 year old account, I wasn't even logged in for the last 2 months, and when I did the other day, surprise surprise, perma ban. Apparently in that time I went through all the phases of warnings and stuff. Regardless, I'm quite sure that I can't sue them because I won't get a single penny out of them, but what we can do is try to raise awareness in other players, that Riot doesn't give a damn about any of them. Spending money on their game is like throwing it straight into the garbage can. Their Player Support teams are not willing to assist.
