Using laws designed for contractual agreements along with a little bit of Microsoft's terms of service strategy, gamer and lawsuit nut David Stebbins has filed a motion in court requesting Microsoft confirm the $500 Billion it owes him. No word yet on if Microsoft plans to pay the bill.

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, 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.

We would suggest readers follow the rest of the story at the original source, this is an interesting case that starts out looking like a get-rich-quick scheme and ends up looking like pure consumer rights genius, the article offers a small taste of what it might be like if one day companies such as Microsoft stopped avoiding scrutiny and really did have their terms of service agreements validated as legally binding contracts.. HUZZAH!
More on this: