Quote Originally Posted by zenga View Post
I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea of the past. But in my country (and many more EU contries) the law supersedes any eula/contract. Even if you sign and agree with it, it doesn't make the contract valid. My point is:

- one asks and official representative if it's ok to multibox: answer = yeah.
- based on that answer & their eula that does not forbid it you spend / invest money
- they change the eula out of the blue and make it no longer possible for you to play the way they agreed with

I'm really curious to know what would happen if someone with enough money/ free time goes to court for fun. Again, it's not because you agree with the eula, that it makes their eula valid. There is still something like 'bait and switch'.

If someone can get mcdonalds because their coffee was too hot, then regardless of all the expensive words in their eula, it wouldn't surprise me if a judge would enforce the rights of the customer in one of the eu countries.

If some have tried that in the past, then consider my post as bs and ignore it.
Looking it up, at least in Massachusetts, it looks like a clear case of "unfair and deceptive practices." I could send them a demand letter threatening court (small claims....MA makes it very very easy.) and I would very likely win a judgement from what I read....However, the fact that SOE (very likely) does not physically do buisness in MA takes it out of MA courts jurisdiction. Lawsuit threats would be like pissing into the wind. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE is already aware of that.
Legal systems have yet to catch up to the internet.

Although, I have threatened to dispute the charges with BoA as fraudulent charges....they claim it would be fraud if I did so. My guess, if I go back and quote the section of M.G.L. dealing w/ "unfair and deceptive practices" I may get further (I've had BoA side againt me on disputes before.).
Either way, SOE drops $400/hour on an attorney for a $90 claim.