Harrison Man Sues Microsoft For $500 Billion Over XBox 360 Live Contract
By: Marci Manley and Sean Leach
Updated: August 23, 2011
"Send a message to corporations consumers aren't willing to be pushed around like that," he said holding a stack of legal papers.
That's David Stebbins' motivation for suing Microsoft for 500 billion dollars.
"They can and often do just impose unilateral changes to the contract on a whim," Stebbins said. "We don't even have to agree to them in the purest sense. We can agree by just not canceling the service. So, I thought why not give them a taste of their own medicine. There's no law that says I can't do that.
So, over three months ago, he wrot the Microsoft Corporation to present the terms he'd like to change.
"If they don't cancel my account within 10 days then these terms take effect. As you might have guessed, they didn't cancel the account," he said.
Stebbins included a clause, in which the company would have to respond to an invitation of legal arbitration within 24 hours.
"Also what I like to refer to as a forfeit victory clause," he said smiling.
Since Microsoft didn't answer, that clause, according to Stebbins, would force Microsoft to fork over all 500 billion without going to court.
"So, I do expect to actually get that, and the court might throw it out. But I'm confident of it being overturned on appeal, even if it goes to the Supreme Court."
University of Arkansas Associate Professor of Law Sharon Foster is not so certain of Stebbins' victory.
"I wouldn't say it's competely out of the question. I would just be 99 and 9/10ths sure it wouldn't happen," she said of Stebbins being awarded the 500 billion.
Professor Foster wouldn't venture to categorize Stebbins' case as absurd, but she certainly sees some legal obstacles he might have to overcome if he were to head to court.
"There are some issues of what modifying the contract requires," she said. ""Like the modification has to be in writing. Not having the actual filings or contract in front of me, these are just general concerns that could be an issue."
Aside from how, when and where the contract was modified and sent, there's the question of did Microsoft agree to the terms.
"A contract requires an agreement and an intent to be bound by that agreement," Foster said. "Can we have that kind of agreement by silence or inaction?"
Stebbins argues that because Microsoft failed to cancel his subscription, that in itself was the same type of implicit action consumers are often penalized for doing.
"If I am silent but my conduct indicates to you that I do intend to be bound and do accept, then we may be able to have an agreement may be able to have a modification that is legally enforceable" Foster said. "That could, possibly be sufficient conduct to show modification, but again what courts are really concerned with is the intent to be bound by the agreement."
Another question, did Stebbins provide enough time for the terms to be considered?
"With a shortened time period like 10 days, there may not be a sufficient amount of time for the company to respond," Foster said.
"They can send you like these giant booklets of 20 pages, 10 point font. Heaven forbid you actually have time to read all of that. I only sent them two pages," Stebbins said. "What goes around comes around. They're going to be predatory, why can't I?"
Foster is not aware of a contractual law case in which a customer was the one trying to change the terms of the agreement, as in Stebbins' case. But not because the law doesn't provide for that type of case.
"It seems to be more of a problem of not that the law allows this to happen but a problem of there aren't enough resources for people who are consumers who have this happen to them to actually litigate it," Foster said.
Stebbins does not feel that he is abusing the judicial system, as some bloggers have criticized him of doing. In fact, he believes he has the right, under the 14th Amendment, to take legal action as much as any corporation, holding them responsible for not abiding by the terms of a contract.
It remains to be seen if a Seattle judge will find that Microsoft is liable for doing $500 billion worth of damage.
However, Stebbins did provide a copy of a court document, apparently issued from District Court Judge John C. Coughenour outlining the regulations regarding discovery and depositions in the case of David Stebbins v. Microsoft, Inc. So, the case may not be dismissed outright.
Stebbins does have a history of filing civil suits. In Arkansas alone, court records show he has filed at least 11 civil suits ranging from allegations of Breach of Contract to Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, Stebbins believes each case should be considered as it stands alone, not in comparison to how many others he has filed.
"I don't see how the fact that I've filed so many of them means that it's in any way frivolous. I mean, I think if each case independently has merit, then each case has merit, and each case should be determined by on its own ," he said.
That's David Stebbins' motivation for suing Microsoft for 500 billion dollars.
"They can and often do just impose unilateral changes to the contract on a whim," Stebbins said. "We don't even have to agree to them in the purest sense. We can agree by just not canceling the service. So, I thought why not give them a taste of their own medicine. There's no law that says I can't do that.
So, over three months ago, he wrot the Microsoft Corporation to present the terms he'd like to change.
"If they don't cancel my account within 10 days then these terms take effect. As you might have guessed, they didn't cancel the account," he said.
Stebbins included a clause, in which the company would have to respond to an invitation of legal arbitration within 24 hours.
"Also what I like to refer to as a forfeit victory clause," he said smiling.
Since Microsoft didn't answer, that clause, according to Stebbins, would force Microsoft to fork over all 500 billion without going to court.
"So, I do expect to actually get that, and the court might throw it out. But I'm confident of it being overturned on appeal, even if it goes to the Supreme Court."
University of Arkansas Associate Professor of Law Sharon Foster is not so certain of Stebbins' victory.
"I wouldn't say it's competely out of the question. I would just be 99 and 9/10ths sure it wouldn't happen," she said of Stebbins being awarded the 500 billion.
Professor Foster wouldn't venture to categorize Stebbins' case as absurd, but she certainly sees some legal obstacles he might have to overcome if he were to head to court.
"There are some issues of what modifying the contract requires," she said. ""Like the modification has to be in writing. Not having the actual filings or contract in front of me, these are just general concerns that could be an issue."
Aside from how, when and where the contract was modified and sent, there's the question of did Microsoft agree to the terms.
"A contract requires an agreement and an intent to be bound by that agreement," Foster said. "Can we have that kind of agreement by silence or inaction?"
Stebbins argues that because Microsoft failed to cancel his subscription, that in itself was the same type of implicit action consumers are often penalized for doing.
"If I am silent but my conduct indicates to you that I do intend to be bound and do accept, then we may be able to have an agreement may be able to have a modification that is legally enforceable" Foster said. "That could, possibly be sufficient conduct to show modification, but again what courts are really concerned with is the intent to be bound by the agreement."
Another question, did Stebbins provide enough time for the terms to be considered?
"With a shortened time period like 10 days, there may not be a sufficient amount of time for the company to respond," Foster said.
"They can send you like these giant booklets of 20 pages, 10 point font. Heaven forbid you actually have time to read all of that. I only sent them two pages," Stebbins said. "What goes around comes around. They're going to be predatory, why can't I?"
Foster is not aware of a contractual law case in which a customer was the one trying to change the terms of the agreement, as in Stebbins' case. But not because the law doesn't provide for that type of case.
"It seems to be more of a problem of not that the law allows this to happen but a problem of there aren't enough resources for people who are consumers who have this happen to them to actually litigate it," Foster said.
Stebbins does not feel that he is abusing the judicial system, as some bloggers have criticized him of doing. In fact, he believes he has the right, under the 14th Amendment, to take legal action as much as any corporation, holding them responsible for not abiding by the terms of a contract.
It remains to be seen if a Seattle judge will find that Microsoft is liable for doing $500 billion worth of damage.
However, Stebbins did provide a copy of a court document, apparently issued from District Court Judge John C. Coughenour outlining the regulations regarding discovery and depositions in the case of David Stebbins v. Microsoft, Inc. So, the case may not be dismissed outright.
Stebbins does have a history of filing civil suits. In Arkansas alone, court records show he has filed at least 11 civil suits ranging from allegations of Breach of Contract to Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, Stebbins believes each case should be considered as it stands alone, not in comparison to how many others he has filed.
"I don't see how the fact that I've filed so many of them means that it's in any way frivolous. I mean, I think if each case independently has merit, then each case has merit, and each case should be determined by on its own ," he said.
