Procon-SP, the Sao Paulo branch of Brazil’s Consumer Protection and Defence program, has stated in a press release that it is challenging Nintendo‘s ability to brick Nintendo Switch 2 consoles when it wants, citing certain aspects of it “abusive.” As we already know Nintendo can permanently restrict you from accessing the Nintendo eShop and online play if they believe you have used unauthorised accessories or pirated software. This leads to the devastating 2124-4508 error code. Procon-SP says that canceling subscriptions or services without explanation violates consumer protection rules in Brazil. Nintendo has said that it has appointed a local law firm to handle the matter.
Brazil: Nintendo is now facing legal action over ability to brick Switch 2 console
Uh, it is clearly stated in the rules that if you use a product in a way different from what the company requires, you risk sanctions… and this is pretty much valid everywhere in the electronic and IT field… So this is clearly nonsense….
Of course it’d be the so-called “Pirate King” (as a Sega representative said a long time ago) contesting anti-piracy measures.
P.S.: I’m Brazilian myself but I do know my country heavily emphasizes piracy, especially from game consoles.
I’m from Brazil and here no company rule is above Brazilian law… By law, companies need to adapt to the laws in force here
Just buy another Master System.
Right, because those are still alive, and the only system that country ever got….
Why don’t you go play Pong or NES Pinball.
Of course man. Besides, Brazilians will never get the chance to have good economy including for gaming industry like that.
Nintendo should never be above the law “Can’t file a class lawsuit against us if you use any of our products!” I wish people would sue Nintendo for trying to say even that.
Yeah, those sorts of clauses never hold up in court. If your EULA contains portions that essentially invalidate rights, they aren’t valid themselves. The strategy here is depending on individuals not being able to stick it out financially through the legal process, which is why they angle to cut off class action suits.
Dude, literally every major tech companies have user agreements that say that. Including Microsoft and PlayStation.
they could have said that if you pirate software/games in your switch they are going to come break your house down for anyone cares but that does not make it any less illegal. bricking consoles is the exact same issue as ubisoft saying you dont own the games you buy you are just renting them which is also illegal in a lot of places.
It is clearly stated by the laws of a given country that if a business operates in that country in a way that doesn’t comply with said laws, it risks sanctions. And this is pretty much valid everywhere in the world and agreed upon by every sovereign country and nation. So this is clearly nonsense.
If I pay $500 for the NS2 it is mine not Nintendo’s and i can do whit it as i please none of Nintendo’s concern
because it belongs to me not Nintendo. F**K Nintendo and their BS.
I’m Brazilian, and I can assure you: it was piracy that made the PlayStation extremely popular in Brazil. While a Nintendo 64 game cost half a salary, you could buy three PS1 games for R$10. I believe piracy can actually benefit the company itself, it’s better for the company to sell a pirated console than to sell nothing at all.
Most consoles are sold at a loss which is then compensated for through a fee on game sales.
So, it is extremely unlikely that Sony benefited from sales to people that Pirated games.
This is false. Piracy isn’t beneficial for a company, even if it “allows” them to sell a console. It doesn’t in any way compensate for game piracy, which is a net (and severe) loss for the company.
Piracy is theft, period, even if it seems to be part of Brazilian life. No one is forced to accept it
This is why Brazil will never be advanced economy.
This is a fallacy. The PS2 wasn’t ever officially sold here (by Sony) in Brazil at the time. You either imported it, bought on a gaming store (with inflated prices) or, most likely, bought second-handed (or maybe third-handed) from someone else (who would do the jailbreak in order to resell it), in which case Sony didn’t even see the color of the money. Sony definitely didn’t see the money of the games.
About the sole reason it could be “benefical” for them is that they’re that desperate and, recently, produced some “new PS2 sales numbers” out of their asses due to the very real possibility the OG Switch actually outselling the PS2.
GREAT
They need to also make a case against Microsoft and Sony.
Furthermore, there’s no ‘bricking’ happening. Only the removal of any online functionality – you can still use physical software so the console isn’t bricked.
It’s quite ridiculous that the term bricked is so utterly misused in gaming media.
People should do whatever they want with their system, modifying your console DOES NOT means piracy. The Steam Deck is a perfect example of that. The people against this have never experienced the joy of with tinkering with homebrew apps and customizing their systems to their liking
But modifying a console is against Nintendo’s rules of use. Whether Valve allows it or not, we don’t care, we’re talking about Nintendo.
And piracy is just one of the things that isn’t allowed,homebrew is another…
“But Nintendo said it” I don’t care what Nintendo says, if I buy a product, I will do whatever I want with it.
The logical conclusion would be if you disagree with their terms, simply don’t buy the product.
Cause I care about nintendo!!!! I love their games and I would love to enjoy them without getting ENSLAVED by them by putting horrid price tag on their products and getting to do whatever they want with the things that I buy from them!!!! The “just don’t buy it” argument is such a hand wave response that is MEANINGLESS, imagine your favorite pizza place tells you that if you put pinapple on their pizzas they will take the pizza you have bought and slamming it on the floor.
yeah if you buy something its our property to do with as we choose thats how it should be. not being allowed to modify it would be the same as buying a pc case and now being allowed to put hardware inside it because its modifying the case.
Except it’s not. There’s a little thing called Terms of Use and another called Privacy Police that appears the first time you boot a console. And when you boot up a game as well. That’s why you can have your console banned if you jailbreak it and play online. Or, even if you buy a game, you can’t stream some parts of it (Atlus games are infamous for this). Or you have to mute the audio in some parts (Kingdom Hearts is also infamous for this). The whole “I bought it, it’s mine” is the biggest fallacy in the industry.
Besides, consoles and PCs are fundamentally different. You don’t go putting new hardware in a console, unlike you do in PC.
Sigma if it was written in Nintendo terms of service that if you share a physical game with a friend, Shigeru Miyamoto barges inside your home and kills you with a replica of a master sword would you be ok with those terms of service????
“Besides consoles and pcs are fundamentally different” The Steam deck is not a pc it’s a console, but it gives you the freedom to change os and freedom to modify it like a pc, the switch does the same if you mod it, but Nintendo tries its best to not give you freedom
You realize terms of service can be illegal, right?
Actually, you can’t. After it is bricked you can’t run the games unless they are updated to match the current firmware of your system. If you can’t go online and get the update, you are bricked. I heard they even bricked a user’s console for using a player name of twink link… I’ll never buy one of those devices myself. I’ll stick to my PC gaming etc..
“Physical software”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you have to connect online in order to download said game? Wasn’t it a big thing that the Switch 2 would have no physical copies?
Wrong. The new EULA says they will render the device inoperable in whole or in part. That is the very definition of a brick. This change was made when the Switch 2 came out. On top of that, physical switch cartridges no longer contain the full game, just a key which is then used to download the game from the eShop. These “Virtual Cartridges” they are switching to make it essentially impossible to play new games legitimately even if you only have an eShop ban.
Nintendo made it very clear to them that you can’t sue them if the person console is completely brick if they used it illegally. Nintendo wants to make sure those user agreement are followed.
No one gives a sh*t what Nintendo said, drone.
That nonsense is not permissable in many courts. Nintendo is not above law and a User Agreement that breaks a country’s laws is subject to legislation by that law .
great, there should be a campaign to subject the nintendo bar stewards to legal action, a taste of their own medicine
Brazil, the worst country ever. I’m ashamed to be Brazilian right now.
A lot of people are not looking at the source very closely. They are NOT suing Nintendo for being able to revoke online access, they are suing Nintendo for doing this WITHOUT any legal representation in the country. The core problem is that they want Nintendo to have formal representation in Brazil, because right now there’s no way for consumers to reach Nintendo and resolve issues.
Funny how people think permanent is only for piracy, it’s also for comments and usernames pick the wrong one and your banned
Incorrect. The guy was NOT banned for his username, Nintendo has not explicitly said so. It was apparently some kind of one of kind bug in the system and Nintendo is fixing the guy’s Switch 2. Literally no one has been banned due to a username.
Sorry, I worded that poorly. Nintendo explicitly said that it was NOT due to the username.
Nintendo will win the court. They are better than Brazil’s laws. Brazil is stupid. 😂
Interesting development this raises serious questions about consumer rights and digital ownership when hardware can be remotely disabled. Situations like this highlight why understanding legal processes and accountability matters across different systems. For those following how courts handle complex disputes and enforcement actions, resources like Dakota Criminal Charges can offer useful insight into how legal proceedings are structured. It’ll be worth watching how this case shapes future policies around user control and manufacturer power.
This situation in Brazil highlights how consumer rights and device control can quickly turn into complex legal disputes. It’s interesting to see how courts may interpret manufacturer authority versus user ownership in cases like this. For anyone following similar legal developments, reviewing past rulings and documentation through Shelby Legal Records can offer helpful context. These kinds of cases often set important precedents for tech companies and consumers alike.
This situation raises interesting questions about consumer rights and oversight when hardware control shifts entirely to manufacturers. Legal challenges like this often highlight the value of transparency and public accountability across industries. Similar accountability discussions can be seen in local governance, where resources like Putnam Government Accountability
help residents review records, disputes, and public actions. Cases like this show why clear rules and accessible information still matter for users everywhere.
Interesting development this kind of legal pressure could set a major precedent for how hardware control and consumer rights are balanced worldwide. If companies can remotely disable devices, it raises broader questions about ownership after purchase. We’ve seen similar debates in other sectors where transparency and valuation data matter, much like how Columbia Property Trends are closely watched for accountability and public trust. It’ll be worth following how regulators and courts interpret these practices going forward.