An Arkansas man is trying to get Microsoft to pay him $500 billion after he tried to amend his Xbox Live contract with the company and was ignored when he asked for legal arbitration.

With a motion filed Monday in federal court in Seattle, gamer David Stebbins is trying to confirm the exorbitant arbitration award from Microsoft. Representing himself, he spends much of his filing explaining in legalese why the district court cannot nullify the $500 billion payment.

Here’s how it happened. As a user of Xbox Live, Microsoft’s online network for the Xbox 360 gaming console, Stebbins entered into a contract with Microsoft. Since such a contract is binding on both Microsoft and an Xbox Live user, Stebbins decided to try something radical.

On May 6, he “submitted a notice” to Microsoft that he was “unilaterally amending the terms of service,” and if Microsoft did not terminate his Xbox Live membership, such changes would take effect in 10 days. Microsoft did not terminate his membership, Stebbins says, so he argues Microsoft accepted the new contract through inaction.

As he points out, companies often employ the same strategy with consumers. For example, if a company notifies a customer of a change in service contract terms, it can be assumed that the customer agreed to the new terms by continuing to use the service, Stebbins argues.

So, after Microsoft “agreed” to the new contract, Stebbins says, on May 18 he invited the company to arbitrate a legal dispute in which he claimed $500 billion in damages. He says that he included in his notice a “forfeit victory clause,” which stated that if Microsoft didn’t respond within 24 hours, Stebbins would automatically win.

“As you probably guessed,” Stebbins wrote in his motion, “the Defendants did not accept the invitation to arbitrate within 24 hours of receiving it. Therefore, I automatically won on May 19, 2011, per the forfeit victory clause.”

He argues Microsoft now owes him $500 billion.

Microsoft declined to comment for seattlepi.com.

Meanwhile, a search on the federal legal database shows Stebbard has filed more than a dozen legal claims within the past year. In some of them, he alleged discrimination by companies – including WalMart – that refused to hire him, claiming it was because of his Asperger syndrome. In others, he attempted similar stunts related to contract arbitration.

Many of the cases were quickly dismissed. Others are still open – likely because there hasn’t yet been time for a judge to dismiss them.

“Yes, I’ve sued ‘numerous organizations,’” Stebbins said in an email interview with seattlepi.com. “What of it? I do not see how this means that my cases are frivolous.

“In fact, I see a lot of friends and family who get pushed around and walked on, who have causes of action against them, but they choose not to pursue those causes of action. Lots of people are victims of torts … few of them actually sue over them, but that doesn’t mean they can’t.

“I, on the other hand, will not let people push me around, just because I’ve already filed a bunch of claims, already.”

Some might see Stebbins as abusing the court system. But he sees himself as trying to give a voice to the little guy.

Asked why, after his previous legal attempts, he turned his cross hairs on Microsoft, Stebbins wrote: “My true goal is not to just harass, and it’s not just to get rich. My true goal is to level the playing field.

“I’m trying to give employees, consumers, and generally, people who’ve been economically disadvantaged a new, powerful tool to protect themselves. Who needs to go crying to Congress for more workers’ rights and consumer protection laws?! We can do it all ourselves! How’s that for a motive you can get behind?!”

Meanwhile, in his motion against Microsoft, Stebbins explains that he “will not be presenting any exhibits in paper format. To do so would put an undue strain on my printer. If it is not too much of an inconvenience, I wish to simply provide a link to a webpage.”

So he created a YouTube video with screenshots of the contract amendments and the arbitration invitation he emailed to Microsoft.

And there’s the rub. (Well, it’s one of the rubs.) In its Xbox Live terms and conditions, Microsoft clearly states that it will not accept notices by email. Though Stebbins says his contract offer was a different thing altogether.

However, nowhere do the terms state that an Xbox Live customer cannot attempt to change the contract. The contract explains that Microsoft is not liable for damages worth more than one month’s Xbox Live fee (or about $5 – an Xbox Live Gold subscription costs $60 a year), nor for any claims related to the contract.

But it doesn’t say the contract cannot be amended by the customer.

The case is likely to go nowhere. And fast. Especially since Stebbins appears to have engineered it all in a way that kept the right people at Microsoft from knowing about his claims.

“Honestly, I haven’t heard much from Microsoft … although that shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise,” he wrote to seattlepi.com. “I mean, think about it: When I mail these documents to Microsoft, they won’t go to any legal division; I arranged for the mailings to be picked up by the employee that just collects regular mail! It’s quite possible that these employees won’t understand the legal significance of these documents, and know that they’re required to respond.”

Sigh.

How’s that for a little light reading on this sunny Friday afternoon?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/08/19/xbox-live-user-says-microsoft-owes-him-500-billion/

Anybody who has balls enough to demand 500 billion dollars from MS deserves it. I say pay the man.

what a great idea, but he total blow it.

as a consumer I respect what he's trying to do, if he demands a reasonable sum he might actually be able to get away with it, and if that happens the corporations will think twice before they decide to screw over consumers in the future, consumers will know that they can fight back.

but come on, $500 billion? that will only make people think of him as a crazy, or a douche, or both.

It's a shame that he didn't ask for a lower amount- he might actually have been given the money xD

yeah right

Seriously why do you respect what he is trying to do?  How did Microsoft screw this guy over?  Would you feel the same way if someone tried to do this to Nintendo or Sony or how about if a company tried to do it to you?

as a matter of fact, companies do that to consumers consistently, thats why I support him. and believe me, Paypal did that to me quite a few times in the past year.

and why do you have to drag Nintendo and Sony to this discussion? Is console war in your blood or what? I only support what he stands for, not the ridiculous amount of money he demands, I'd still support that if he tried it on Sony or Nintendo.

Edit: I also never said MS screw him over did I? I said Corporations. I don't know him or his opinion on MS so I can't agree or disagree with him for trying this on MS, but what I do agree is his attempt to show companies that consumers are not defenceless and they can not just take advantages of the law and bend the rules however they want for their own benefits. By corprations I mean Sony, MS, Apple and all other money grubbing greedy enterprises.

How did Microsoft screw the guy over?

Oh and by the way here's a little something from the service contract:

15.  LIABILITY LIMITATION.

You can recover from the Microsoft parties for all claims only direct damages up to a total, aggregate amount equal to your Service fee for one month.  You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect, incidental, or punitive damages.

i like his attitude but this is retarded

1. read my edited post

2. what does that Liability limitation claim suppose to mean? did you even read OP? he “submitted a notice” to Microsoft that he was “unilaterally amending the terms of service,” and if Microsoft did not terminate his Xbox Live membership, such changes would take effect in 10 days. this is about how he changed the terms of service, what does MS' terms have to do with anything?  don't argue with me about the legal rights involved, it's the court's decision, and I never said he is absolutely right in everything since I never read everything in his claims. I only support how he showed that companies are bonded by the same rules as consumers, which most of us seem to forget these days.

and by companies I mean COMPANIES, which includes Sony, Apple, Ebay, and every other greedy money grubbers out there, not just Microsoft. just saying it since you seem so hell bend on arguing about what MS did in this. I don't give a crap about his histroy with MS, I only support his attitude towards big corporations as a consumer.