Nintendo faces legal action over ability to brick Switch 2s whenever they want

You pirate one game -> nintendo restricts your console to only play pirated games. Funny

It seems to be worse than that. Get a second hand console and it maybe already bricked as it looks like they only ban the console not the account. As per the lawsuit.

This has been illegal in the EU since 2011 (with extra clauses in 2019).

A lot of the Switch 2's UA is also illegal in Brazil. For example, check section 7 (Dispute Resolution) - IIRC law protection is considered an inalienable right in Brazil, you can't simply sign it off.

However Nintendo has been shielding itself by saying "ackshyually, we aren't conducting business in Brazil". That's why São Paulo's Procon is calling it out.

Nintendo lost my interest. I stopped playing the Switch 1 back a couple years ago. I still have it... but I no longer feel like it will even work later, so I should sell it and any games I have.

I've lost every penny on any download only titles. The physical carts are the only ones GameStop will by for pennies.

Too bad, as I loved playing Mario multi-player with friends kids all the time. Now I just feel like there are better things to do.

Do people really use the term "brick" to refer to consoles with permanent online bans? To me they're very different and a brick is much worse.

For the switch 2 it’s far more restrictive from the few videos I’ve seen where people have used flash carts and gotten banned. For one, a good deal of the games don’t exist on physical media even if you purchase physical copies. So an online ban means that if the console is ever reset for any reason those games are done. No updates obviously.

Though I do think some physical games will work without needing a digital “receipt” at least to activate and play, so you are correct in that the console isn’t entirely useless after being banned, just significantly limited in functionality and restricts you from playing a majority of your game library (even if 99% of those games have no online component)

That last point is the kicker for me. There should be regulation on this. If you’re sony/nintendo/microsoft and you’re pissed I modified my console and want to ban me because I might cheat online? Fine, I guess. If you want to ban me from making purchases because you’re afraid I spoofed the purchasing system? Ban me from making purchases, I guess. But you should never be able to ban me from redownloading titles I have purchased legitimately.

Frankly the 3ds freeshop fiasco (which, unlike switch freeshops that rely on external servers, was a system that spoofed nintendos purchase authentication ticketing system and allowed downloading directly from their servers) has likely made nintendo overly wary. The counterpoint to this though is that nintendo handled that situation terribly. The freeshop worked for years. They sent a dmca takedown almost immediately for the software but obviously people kept hosting copies. It took them almost 2 years to patch and at that point the 3ds was basically dead.

Imagine sony or microsoft in the same situation: their console is exploited with a softmod. They’re already probably working on a hardware revision to stop the softmod. But then an exploit comes out that allows modded users to download literally any game, update, or dlc from their servers, for free? They’d have that patched in weeks, maybe days (though tbf they’d probably also issue tons of bans here)

So essentially nintendo is overcorrecting because in the past they’ve made boneheaded security decisions and responded to people exploiting them like idiots. That’s not anyone’s fault but nintendos and it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to be super hostile to consumers. Fuck the switch 2
Without online functionality, the system might as well be bricked. I'm not 100% so someone can fact check but I'm reasonably certain it will refuse to let you play any software you've downloaded and only allow you use physical carts without the option to update them. When 90% of a console is built around online activity, being able to remotely disable that makes the console useless.
- Thats bullshit. The switch 1 also had all of this functionality and nobody complained...
  Physical media ftw btw
  
  First lookup what youre saying, seriously. None of what you said is true. If it was, a system that had no internet could not start any downloaded content, which it can...
  Backwards comparability obviously might not work because it needs the title update to get possible fixes if not big part of the gpu shaders that were recompiled for switch 2 ( which is needed because the switch 1 and switch 2 gpu's are not compatible ). Iirc from my sources within the switch homebrew community it tries to trans compile them but might not always work, hence title updates.
  
  And if you got the console banned, you did some serious bad shit haha
You are correct. A banned Switch 2 is severely limited in what it can do, but it is not "bricked."

Get a Steam Deck, or any of the other PC handhelds out there.

I accidentally purchased the OLED switch right before getting my steam deck. I never touch the thing.

Same. I got a Switch so my partner and I could play games with their sister. It collects dust as it turns out my partner has no interest in learning to play games and I can play modded Switch games with better graphics on my PC.
Same situation for me. Buying a switch was a big regret after getting a Steam deck.
The only thing my switch is good for is playing the Nintendo archive games for N64 or Game Boy or whatever

all the new games I've tried suck, and that's a tough pill at the price. to be fair, I haven't tried that many
- Emulation on a pc is so so so easy. You could get a handheld and have access to everything made for 40 years with practically the snap of a finger.

Fuck Nintendo, but restricting a console from downloading and updating games is not the same thing as "bricking" it. That's when a console is made unable to function at all. A banned Switch 2 can still get firmware updates and play physical games (what few there are on Switch 2). The legal action is justified, but the terminology being used in these articles is incorrect.

When the physical games require downloading to start using them, I think that starts crossing lines into bricking territory even if it's not entirely accurate.
- They can't get game updates, but they'll function as their base versions. If it had no way to play ANY games, that would qualify as a brick, even if you could turn it on and navigate menus. But it still has a limited ability to play some games, so not a brick, just a severely crippled console.

Procon-SP is a state customer protection organ. It's more like "São Paulo's watchdog" than "Brazil's watchdog". However since the state in question is populous and has relatively high purchasing power per capita, typically megacorpos beeline towards it anyway.

I'll coarsely translate here the news from Procon-SP's site. Emphasis mine in all cases, as I want to highlight something.

Translation

Procon-SP notified Nintendo to request changes in clauses deemed abusive, present in contracts made with Brazilian customers. The main complain involves the unilateral and unjustified cancellation of service subscriptions.

This showed a wider problem: Nintendo lacks formal representation in Brazil. This absence hinders conflict intermediation and the conduct of customer protecting organisations.

To handle this case, Procon-SP had to contact the headquarters of the business in USA. Only then the business named a law office in Brazil, but solely to handle the relevant clause.

The absence of formal representation in the country is an important warning to customers. Without such legal presence, the protection predicted by the Customers' Defence Code is limited.

"The existence of legal representation within Brazil needs to be one of the criteria [potential customers] take into account to decide their purchases, specially so for digital services or foreign platforms", says Álvaro Camilo (Procon-SP's Service and Orientation director). "Without such groundwork, Procon organs cannot act in full power, given different countries have different laws".

This precaution applies both to abusive clauses and common problems, such as delivery delay or service failure. When the business is not registered in Brazil, often there is no way to sue it.

In the last years, the number of purchases in international sites grew sharply in the country. However many of those platforms conduct businesses with no local judicial link.

Even for smaller purchases, there's a real risk: the customer gets no goods, no answer, no support. Procon-SP recommends to be extra careful, doubly so for sites handling fashion, electronics, and accessory items.

Before purchasing something, it's essential to verify if [a business] has CNPJ [i.e. it's considered a legal entity in Brazil], a real address in Brazil, and support channels; those pieces of info are fundamental so Procon-SP can act in case of problems.

Nintendo informed that'll analyse the request from the organ, and that it'll answer it within 20 days. Until then, Procon-SP recommends customers should report irregularities through the site www.procon.sp.gov.br.

See the bolded parts? São Paulo's Procon is basically telling people "Don't buy stuff from Nintendo, it's an irregular business in Brazil."

Am I correct in seeing a similarity between this and the Xitter drama from 2024? Something about X not having a physical presence in Brazil to sue for damages, and Brazil was going to block it as a result.
- In both cases you have businesses using the lack of legal representation to avoid following local laws. But that's it; everything else is quite different.
  
  Xitter - blocked after orders of the federal court, because there was a legal representative but he was explicitly removed to avoid following the court decisions.
  
  Nintendo - a state customer protection organ is requesting legal representation, to address violations of customer laws. Nintendo assigned a temporary representative, to handle this specific issue.
  
  I don't think Procon organs have the power to ban the sales of an imported good within their states. But even if they do, note that this would only apply to the state (in this case São Paulo). Plus Nintendo is being considerably more tactful than that braindead idiot called Musk.

Not Gaming, but smartphone manufacturers can remotely brick your device...

Yea, shit's fucked.