Any Land Owners interested in a class action suit?

Refresh my memory; was Mark Bragg the scammer who dishonestly manipulated the land auction system to put land up for auction and then bid on it before any spotted it was being auctionned? If he got a judgement in his favour then it officially means the world has gone mad.

He didn't get a judgment in his favour, because LL settled "out of court". However, it's unlikely they would have done that if Bragg certainly would have lost the suit.

There are some awkward aspects about this, such as - the original SL pages offered the ability to "own virtual land", which was a key point in Bragg's lawsuit. After the settlement, the word "own" was removed from all of LL's advertising. So did all the existing landowners stop owning the land at that point? What legal rights did they have and did they lose them at that time?

He didn't get a judgment in his favour, because LL settled "out of court". However, it's unlikely they would have done that if Bragg certainly would have lost the suit.

He didn't get a judgment in his favour, because LL settled "out of court". However, it's unlikely they would have done that if Bragg certainly would have lost the suit.

There are some awkward aspects about this, such as - the original SL pages offered the ability to "own virtual land", which was a key point in Bragg's lawsuit. After the settlement, the word "own" was removed from all of LL's advertising. So did all the existing landowners stop owning the land at that point? What legal rights did they have and did they lose them at that time?

It's not fair to say they assumed they would loose so they settled. That's a common misconception with civil lawsuits. Other mitigating factors, like the cost of taking the suit through it's entire course vs the cost of settling out of court, the bad publicity a lawsuit would have, etc.

Whatever happened back then, the ToS and other documents have clearly been revised to make it obvious that the land you purchase is simply server space you are leasing from them and the lindens in question have no monetary value.

If such a lawsuit were to happen and be successful it would make a mockery of the very concept of justice. To reiterate - the OP wants to sue LL for lowering their prices. That's possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard since those fat girls tried to sue Macdonalds for them being fat. Moreso infact.

Right I was talking about Yumi's post when I made that comment. But bad publicity has nothing to do with winning or loosing. I hate to bring out the most glaring example but OJ Simpson won his case and it didn't do him a bit of good.

Likely the biggest factor was cost. I'm sure the cost of following through with the lawsuit well outweighed whatever Marc believed he was entitled to by exorbitant numbers. Likely the ToS was improperly worded as well, which may or may not have resulted in a win scenario for Marc. No doubt that's why the current ToS is very explicit about what constitutes virtual land holdings and the license to use them and linden dollars.

Point of interest; most of OJ's publicity problems came when he lost the ensuing civil case. To be fair, we don't know what LL's lawyers charge them per hour, so none of us are really qualified to say whether settling out of court was the cheaper option. You may possibly be right though.

The thing is, the OP here hasn't really put any argument forward to suggest any wrong doing by LL other than that they lowered prices. This may have resulted in a situation where the OP and others lost money, but still doesn't point to any wrong doing by LL - until the OP can actually make an argument of said wrong doing on LL's part, the case will always be described as "suing them for lowering their prices", and will continue to be treated with the disdain it deserves.

if we all get together and compare notes there has to be SMOETHING we can sue for.

There's ALWAYS something you can sue anyone and everyone for. The question is whether you should.

Refresh my memory; was Mark Bragg the scammer who dishonestly manipulated the land auction system to put land up for auction and then bid on it before any spotted it was being auctionned? If he got a judgement in his favour then it officially means the world has gone mad.

Agreed. I personally believe that the best way to get back at someone when they provide me with service that I can no longer tolerate is to stop using their service. If all of the disgruntled land owners pulled their money out of the system instead of continuing to pay for tier fees then maybe it would send a message far greater than attempting to bang their heads against a wall by bringing a fruitless lawsuit.

Quite. In this particular instance though it seems that the OPs disatisfaction is being mistargetted. This is not so much a disatisfaction with LL's service as such. My stance on this is that those who invested in SL land, like any other unproven business model, should have perceived the risk involved, even if they were not aware of precisely how that risk could manifest itself, and should have been prepared for a possible loss. From your earlier statement that you had your lawyer look over the TOS, it sounds as if you're no stranger to this sort of investment. As such, I'm sure you haven't invested more than you can afford to lose - and others should have limited themselves in a simillar manner. Those who have lost money in this instance took a gamble which has simply failed to pay off this time, and like all business people they need to suck it up, move on to the next opportunity and try again. It is simply part of the normal rough-and-tumble of the business world; nothing more sinsiter than that. I think here the OP just feels the need to blame someone for a state of affairs for which no one is truly to blame - and looking around, LL is the only target.

IIRC, there was a ruling on the arbitration clause, but that doesn't make the whole TOS invalid. The parts that are valid remain so, thanks to a severability clause that keeps the whole thing from being bunk.

Those who have lost money in this instance took a gamble which has simply failed to pay off this time, and like all business people they need to suck it up, move on to the next opportunity and try again.

I'm sure the internet lawyers and actual lawyers will know better, but since a TOS isn't legislation they don't really throw it out as much as they say in a case, "sorry but it doesn't apply here."

4.1 You agree to abide by certain rules of conduct, including the Community Standards and other rules prohibiting illegal and other practices that Linden Lab deems harmful.
You agree to read and comply with the Community Standards posted on the Websites, (for users 18 years of age and older, at http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php; and for users of the Teen Area, at http://teen.secondlife.com/footer/cs
In addition to abiding at all times by the Community Standards, you agree that you shall not: …
(iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, …&etc

2.6 Linden Lab may suspend or terminate your account at any time, without refund or obligation to you.
Linden Lab has the right at any time for any reason or no reason to suspend or terminate your Account, terminate this Agreement, and/or refuse any and all current or future use of the Service without notice or liability to you. In the event that Linden Lab suspends or terminates your Account or this Agreement, you understand and agree that you shall receive no refund or exchange for any unused time on a subscription, any license or subscription fees, any content or data associated with your Account, or for anything else.

5.4 Linden Lab provides the Service on an "as is" basis, without express or implied warranties.
LINDEN LAB PROVIDES THE SERVICE, THE LINDEN SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND ALL OTHER SERVICES STRICTLY ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, PROVIDED AT YOUR OWN RISK, AND HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WRITTEN OR ORAL, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF TITLE, NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
5.5 Linden Lab's liability to you is expressly limited, to the extent allowable under applicable law.
IN NO EVENT SHALL LINDEN LAB OR ANY OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS, PARTNERS, AFFILIATES, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SUBSIDIARIES, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUPPLIERS, LICENSEES OR DISTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, ARISING (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE) OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE (INCLUDING ITS MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION), THE LINDEN SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT (INCLUDING ITS TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION) OR THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT LINDEN LAB MAY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT ANY SUCH DAMAGES MIGHT OR COULD OCCUR AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY REMEDY. IN ADDITION, IN NO EVENT WILL LINDEN LAB'S CUMULATIVE LIABILITY TO YOU FOR DIRECT DAMAGES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE EXCEED FIFTY DOLLARS (U.S. $50.00).

According to this, this thread and the group inworld are in violation of the Terms of Service: Community Standards
The following may happen:

This portion of the TOS clearly states that LL™ does not assume liability for any portion of the service or fitness for a particular purpose, also limiting any potential damages for liability not excluded by the agreement to $50.

This portion of the TOS clearly states that LL™ does not assume liability for any portion of the service or fitness for a particular purpose, also limiting any potential damages for liability not excluded by the agreement to $50.

Yes and no. A TOS is not a piece of legislation (obviously) that would bind the courts, but it is a contract that we have all signed up to - and in all civilized societies there are rules governing how a contract is to be interpretted and enforced. A TOS can be binding, in the same sense that any other contract is - so long as it follows the rules. That's what the court needs to decide in cases like this - whether the TOS is in line with the relevent contract law. I know nothing about US law though, so can't possibly say whether or not it is. Only the courts could say for sure if a case ever comes before them.

Basically LL argued that because of the TOS Bragg would have to go through the LL arbitration process ..

and the civil court in Penn said, "Nope uh uh LL. Better luck next time. Bragg can sue you here" (paraphrased)