In a recent post from a couple of months ago, it was reported that Nintendo had updated their End-User License Agreement (EULA), in which they specified that the user cannot sue Nintendo through a class-action lawsuit, and that if the user of a Nintendo hardware was detected to have been using the console in an unauthorized way by Nintendo, be it homebrew or any other modification to the console, that Nintendo could not only ban, but even render "the applicable Nintendo device unusable".

The update sparked quite the debate online about the implications of said changes, with some saying that the changes made to the EULA were referring to the right of Nintendo the ban the console from online services, to others saying that Nintendo will outright brick the console that the consumer purchased.

All that heated debate seems to have gotten into the ears of higher-ups in Brazil, with the consumer protection agency, Procon-SP, claiming that the changes to the clauses made by Nintendo in their EULA are flat-out abusive to Brazilian customers, with the main complaint being the unjustified and unilateral cancellation of subscriptions to the online services. The main risk that Procon-SP explains when it comes to this issue is that "the consumer may be left without a product, without a response and without assistance".

However, there's another issue related to this conflict, as Nintendo doesn't have formal legal representation based on Brazil. Given this instance, Procon-SP had to contact the company's HQ based in the United States, to which Nintendo appointed a law firm in Brazil to handle such case, but only in regards to the disputed clause.

Nintendo will review the case, and they will respond within 20 days, but Brazilian users and customers are recommended by Procon-SP to report any irregularity to their main website to assist with the case.

Source

 

[Blavla]

A license agreement does not change from country to country a license agreement is written up for your companies needs usually by a legal team and that is concrete anyone that uses your company’s services must abide by those conditions. By the way it’s called a legal and binding license agreement not a user agreement

Agreements must comply with local law and Brasil has CDC. It would be ok to bann online services to that device but!!!!
What N did is when you are banned and you do the factory settings your devie will not be usable . That is a big no no

If Nintendo caused the device to stop working via remote updates, bans, or software locks, the user can:

File a formal complaint with Procon (easy, low cost).
Sue in small claims court (Juizado Especial) — no lawyer needed under ~40x minimum wage claims.
Possibly join or start a class action if others face the same issue.

The whole EU has the same or similiar Laws, if Nintendo disables your device you can sue them even if they changed that in there EULA

 

[AshWeststar]

Considering Nintendo previously left the Brazilian market in 2015 due to circumstances they did not like. With the Brazilian market still being minimal and the cost of consoles being above what people can afford, is it likely Nintendo would just leave Brazil again instead of making changes?

 

[IssMare]

This reminds me of that zombie clause in the Amazon terms, and nothing came out of it (yet)

 

[mrsha]

Considering Nintendo previously left the Brazilian market in 2015 due to circumstances they did not like. With the Brazilian market still being minimal and the cost of consoles being above what people can afford, is it likely Nintendo would just leave Brazil again instead of making changes?

I don't think so, it's bad marketing. Anyway I don't think Procon will go far with the claims, I would dare say if you ask the person that created this, he/she doesn't even fully understand how the ban works and it's just picking on the wording Nintendo changed for S2 which got people's attention.

 

[AshWeststar]

I don't think so, it's bad marketing.

Fair enough.

Anyway I don't think Procon will go far with the claims, I would dare say if you ask the person that created this, he/she doesn't even fully understand how the ban works and it's just picking on the wording Nintendo changed for S2 which got people's attention.

Even if it were proven not to meet the legal thresholds, Brazil is well known for officials abusing regulatory powers, including the imposition of fines, to extort multi-nationals (see superfaturamento, Lava Jato, Operation Zealots, Carne Fraca). I would not be surprised if they fined anyway.

 

[alshore]

Considering Nintendo previously left the Brazilian market in 2015 due to circumstances they did not like. With the Brazilian market still being minimal and the cost of consoles being above what people can afford, is it likely Nintendo would just leave Brazil again instead of making changes?

The same could have been said about X (formerly known as Twitter) when the platform was briefly banned in Brazil late last year. Despite Musk's huffing and puffing, claiming X wouldn't comply, they did. Why? Brazil still holds strategic importance.

South America in general has a poorer populace, sure. But it also has a lot of wealthy consumers, and an enormous gap between rich and poor. It remains the richest country in South America, with a growing economy, and a huge base of gamers. Brazil hosts BGS, the third biggest gaming convention in the world (by number of attendees). Otaku culture is huge there too, especially in São Paulo, which is home to the world's biggest Japanese community outside of Japan. Ironically Procon-SP is based in Liberdade, São Paulo's Japanese neighbourhood.

None of this is to say Nintendo would never pull out of Brazil. Even big companies make major blunders all the time.

 

[dreassica]

The same could have been said about X (formerly known as Twitter) when the platform was briefly banned in Brazil late last year. Despite Musk's huffing and puffing, claiming X wouldn't comply, they did. Why? Brazil still holds strategic importance.

South America in general has a poorer populace, sure. But it also has a lot of wealthy consumers, and an enormous gap between rich and poor. It remains the richest country in South America, with a growing economy, and a huge base of gamers. Brazil hosts BGS, the third biggest gaming convention in the world (by number of attendees). Otaku culture is huge there too, especially in São Paulo, which is home to the world's biggest Japanese community outside of Japan. Ironically Procon-SP is based in Liberdade, São Paulo's Japanese neighbourhood.

None of this is to say Nintendo would never pull out of Brazil. Even big companies make major blunders all the time.

Likening it to X is pointless, that is a free platform that is easily available to a ton of people in Brazil, and thus much more valueable to Musk to try to stay in, for monetary and other more nerfarious reasons. The market for Nintendo there is tiny, espescially Switch 2, where the system is not affordable for the majority of people there, so for them it is easier to just say F it, if the benefits of being able to sell to a few 100k people is being outweighted to a massive security risk and potential many more being able to pirate their stuff.

 

[alshore]

Likening it to X is pointless, that is a free platform that is easily available to a ton of people in Brazil, and thus much more valueable to Musk to try to stay in, for monetary and other more nerfarious reasons. The market for Nintendo there is tiny, espescially Switch 2, where the system is not affordable for the majority of people there, so for them it is easier to just say F it, if the benefits of being able to sell to a few 100k people is being outweighted to a massive security risk and potential many more being able to pirate their stuff.

It's true that many would struggle to afford a Switch (average wage, plus very high tariffs on imported technology) but there's a growing middle class in Brazil that absolutely can afford it. Besides that, the collective market has value in itself, even if many (or most) of its members are individually not so well off. It's still around the third biggest country in terms of players, and around the tenth biggest country for video gaming revenue. That's not a 'tiny' market.

Piracy is massive in a lot of developing countries (and developed countries too), but that's never been a reason to pull out entirely (it was taxes that led to Nintendo's departure in 2015). Sony didn't pull out of Brazil after similarly being ordered to unban Brazilian PS5s for piracy.

If anything, multinationals tend to respond to piracy with regionalised (lower) pricing or more accessible distribution. Because it's better to make some money from those countries than none at all, especially where there are a considerable number of potential consumers whose sheer quantity can overcome the individually lower profits from reduced pricing. And that's just considering short-term sales lost to piracy, before even thinking about the longer-term strategic value of retaining (and growing) the market.

 

[Maximo101]

Oh man, suit - countersuit!! This is exciting!

Nintendo would sue their mothers for taking their corporate parking spot... Bring it on!

They should have a game-off to determine who wins this. 72 hours of Zelda and winner takes all.

 

[sapoteo]

I think that you guys and most of English written news are missing some crucial points. PROCON-SP isn't asking Nintendo to let people play pirated games online and do nothing about it. As some people pointed out above, the problem is to purposefully render the console unusable. The device is bought, not rented. If the online services are to be blocked, then fine, let it be, but the console should still be usable, either through physical media or through not banning eshop use.

It's not Nintendo's problem how I use my console, and if they believe that I'm violating copyright laws or pirating or anything, then they have every right to sue me, and Brazilian law will show no resistance to such a thing. Their choice to act on their own and break something that belongs to me for arbitrary reasons is just unacceptable.

In the same idea, a critical point on the new EULA is in section 7: "The arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve all Claims.", and everything else on this section. This is the point that doesn't seem to be on Sony or Microsoft EULAs, and probably is a key point that got PROCON-SP attention, because it simply is unconstitutional in Brasil. Actually I'm quite shocked that this can be constitutional in any country. I mean, it seems to me that this agreement tries to put itself above any nation sovereignty.

 

[Maximo101]

I think that you guys and most of English written news are missing some crucial points. PROCON-SP isn't asking Nintendo to let people play pirated games online and do nothing about it. As some people pointed out above, the problem is to purposefully render the console unusable. The device is bought, not rented. If the online services are to be blocked, then fine, let it be, but the console should still be usable, either through physical media or through not banning eshop use.

It's not Nintendo's problem how I use my console, and if they believe that I'm violating copyright laws or pirating or anything, then they have every right to sue me, and Brazilian law will show no resistance to such a thing. Their choice to act on their own and break something that belongs to me for arbitrary reasons is just unacceptable.

In the same idea, a critical point on the new EULA is in section 7: "The arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve all Claims.", and everything else on this section. This is the point that doesn't seem to be on Sony or Microsoft EULAs, and probably is a key point that got PROCON-SP attention, because it simply is unconstitutional in Brasil. Actually I'm quite shocked that this can be constitutional in any country. I mean, it seems to me that this agreement tries to put itself above any nation sovereignty.

Doesn't Sony brick consoles also? I've heard ps4's being rendered unusable for violations, no?

 

[mrmagicm]

Nintendo has make their own rules concerning their console, but they must understand:
They are not allowed to create their own rules outside of the country of JAPAN. So, if they want to sell swith 2 outside their country, they have to comply to all other countries rules concerning their console.

Post automatically merged: Jul 7, 2025

Nintendo has make their own rules concerning their console, but they must understand:
They are not allowed to create their own rules outside of the country of JAPAN. So, if they want to sell swith 2 outside their country, they have to comply to all other countries rules concerning their console.

 

[RandomUser]

i.e. People started actually reading what they've been agreeing to, because Disney has been trying to exploit the typical ignorance that comes from "clicking without reading". Even when shows like Futurama (only one I can think of off the top of my head that parodied a relevant case) warned of the danger of clicking to agree to a license agreement/EULA without taking the time to read the fine print. (Either because of laziness or wanting to immediately get to the game or product your purchased without delay.)

Ah yes Futurama, what a fantastic show. Too bad the series have ceased. It wasn't wrong about the consequences about the agreeing and not reading the agreement, that for sure. That's agreeable for Disney, but I was thinking due to Disney tried to extend the Disney+ EULA outside the realm where the EULA should not have applied for. In this case wrongful death suit, they tried to get away from it by pointing out the clause in the Disney+ which had nothing to do with the restaurant. I think from there on, the clauses became more apparent, also you have that DAS pass fiasco TOS as well. More and more companies are basically forcing people to accept the TOS to even have services. At which point if EULA is actually binding, then courts would then be impossible to utilize when their services goes south or not as promised, and the corporations can get away with it.

 

[AshWeststar]

That's agreeable for Disney, but I was thinking due to Disney tried to extend the Disney+ EULA outside the realm where the EULA should not have applied for. In this case wrongful death suit, they tried to get away from it by pointing out the clause in the Disney+ which had nothing to do with the restaurant. I think from there on, the clauses became more apparent, also you have that DAS pass fiasco TOS as well. More and more companies are basically forcing people to accept the TOS to even have services. At which point if EULA is actually binding, then courts would then be impossible to utilize when their services goes south or not as promised, and the corporations can get away with it.

That entire Disney lawsuit was pretty ridiculous to begin with; it's like suing Google Maps because something bad happened while you were at a place that Google Maps had shown you.

Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks in a wrongful death lawsuit after his wife died from an allergic reaction to food at the restaurant. The couple had chosen a restaurant that was not owned or operated by Disney, but Disney's online map indicated that it accommodated food allergies. At the restaurant, they received multiple assurances from the waiter that the food was free from allergens. Still, his wife, who was highly allergic to dairy and nuts, died of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of these allergens in her system.

Disney initially moved to dismiss the lawsuit and force arbitration, citing terms of service from Disney+. The legal standing would have been too challenging to argue from this angle, were this restaurant owned and operated by Disney, as their involvement was just the online map.

 

[RandomUser]

That entire Disney lawsuit was pretty ridiculous to begin with; it's like suing Google Maps because something bad happened while you were at a place that Google Maps had shown you.

Correct, google is only showing you the location and has no bearing on what this location will provide a good services or not.
However this is were your analogy falls apart.

Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks in a wrongful death lawsuit after his wife died from an allergic reaction to food at the restaurant. The couple had chosen a restaurant that was not owned or operated by Disney, but Disney's online map indicated that it accommodated food allergies. At the restaurant, they received multiple assurances from the waiter that the food was free from allergens. Still, his wife, who was highly allergic to dairy and nuts, died of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of these allergens in her system.

Disney initially moved to dismiss the lawsuit and force arbitration, citing terms of service from Disney+. The legal standing would have been too challenging to argue from this angle, were this restaurant owned and operated by Disney, as their involvement was just the online map.

Disney pointed to their EULA from Dinsey+, thus became an accomplice for that third party restaurant. They may have unwittingly admitted guilt, when they did that. Why try to force an arbitration for something or someone outside their company? What also probably hurt Disney is that they advertised that the restaurant accommodates food allergies, I don't remember google stating this. The lawsuit is perhaps misplaced but my point still stands.

 

[NitroRevolutionNX]

Make Nintendo bark like a dog.

And when this is done, ship all the GameKeyCards back to NintendoHQ, and they shall pay for the shipping.

Exactly!! Nintendo has done enough anti consumer moves, the time for them has come!

 

[Quore]

Bora brasil numero 1
(lol)

 

[TomSwitch]

View attachment 514236​

In a recent post from a couple of months ago, it was reported that Nintendo had updated their End-User License Agreement (EULA), in which they specified that the user cannot sue Nintendo through a class-action lawsuit, and that if the user of a Nintendo hardware was detected to have been using the console in an unauthorized way by Nintendo, be it homebrew or any other modification to the console, that Nintendo could not only ban, but even render "the applicable Nintendo device unusable".

The update sparked quite the debate online about the implications of said changes, with some saying that the changes made to the EULA were referring to the right of Nintendo the ban the console from online services, to others saying that Nintendo will outright brick the console that the consumer purchased.

All that heated debate seems to have gotten into the ears of higher-ups in Brazil, with the consumer protection agency, Procon-SP, claiming that the changes to the clauses made by Nintendo in their EULA are flat-out abusive to Brazilian customers, with the main complaint being the unjustified and unilateral cancellation of subscriptions to the online services. The main risk that Procon-SP explains when it comes to this issue is that "the consumer may be left without a product, without a response and without assistance".

However, there's another issue related to this conflict, as Nintendo doesn't have formal legal representation based on Brazil. Given this instance, Procon-SP had to contact the company's HQ based in the United States, to which Nintendo appointed a law firm in Brazil to handle such case, but only in regards to the disputed clause.

Nintendo will review the case, and they will respond within 20 days, but Brazilian users and customers are recommended by Procon-SP to report any irregularity to their main website to assist with the case.

Source

Trump, where are you? Make gaming in America great again—tell Nintendo to wake up and shape up, or face same tariff as Brazil!

 

[dalmatian666]

Good for Brazil. I mean the locking of using the eshop is one thing if it was account based, but from what ive heard it bricks the serial of the console itself, which means you cannot even create a new account and start from scratch. Even worse, from what ive heard, game key cards WONT work on them either, since it needs to send a signal to a server to start the download of the game, which doesn't work if you have been console banned. Hasn't happened to me so i can't say from personal experience, but its what ive heard from the gravevine. If true, its yet another reason that shitnendo needs to release 8-16 and 32gb cards cheaper for developers so if this shit happens to someone, they can still play third party games on the console. Because apart from nintendo games and Cyberpunk, everything else is either a game key card, or worse still, a download code.

 

[aoimatsuri]

Good Nintendo deserves a foot in their ass anyway.

If Nintendo looses I'll gladly put up a brasil flag somewhere on my website linking to this.

Go Brasil