This appears to be a genuine - anyone else heard about this? Should make DRM disclosure more common I would think.
Settlement Website
Some text from the FAQ's:
In a proposed class action settlement, EA has agreed to disclose in its retail packaging, online store, and end-user license agreement that SecuROM is included with certain EA games and direct consumers to a SecuROM support website, where a utility to uninstall the program is available. All future game titles by Defendant that use SecuROM will contain or display the following disclosures:
Retail Packaging: Retail packages will state on the outside cover that "This product includes SecuROM copy protection technology from Sony DADC. For more information, visit www.securom.com
EA Store (www.eastore.com): The EA Store website will contain a reasonably accessible disclosure indicating that "This product includes SecuROM copy protection technology from Sony DADC. For more information, including how to uninstall SecuROM, visit www.securom.com.
End User License Agreement: The End User License Agreement will state that "This product uses SecuROM copy protection technology by Sony DADC. For more information, including how to uninstall SecuROM, visit www.securom.com
Any new printings of the packaged good version of the previously-released games entitled "Spore" and "Mass Effect" will contain the following disclosures:
Retail Packaging: Retail packages will state on the outside cover that "This product includes SecuROM copy protection technology from Sony DADC. For more information, including how to uninstall SecuROM, visit www.securom.com
EA Store (www.eastore.com): The EA Store website will contain a reasonably accessible disclosure indicating that "This product includes SecuROM copy protection technology from Sony DADC. For more information, including how to uninstall SecuROM, visit www.securom.com

It's still useless if Steam still hides DRM information for newly-released games.
And you should fix those links.

Tried, only one link after each statement, GOG doing the dupes apparently

Pretty sure they already do this, every EA game I own says SecuROM in the fine print somewhere. Maybe it is missing on some? Not sure I guess... still I remember seeing it often.
Anyway, good news either way. Yay, woo-hoo and all that. Getting rid of it entirely would be better of course.
Still waiting for them to patch it out of just ONE game, to prove they will do so with others.

The fine print is what bothers me, I want full disclosure on every source, of anything that may affect my decision to buy and . . .what the limitations are before I buy or open the box. . .=) Companies have been able to avoid doing that so far it seems.
Edit: in a font size easily seen . . .=)

A more thorough explanation of what kind of DRM is implemented (disc-check only? internet activation? activation limits?) in a particular game would be nice.

I agree, especially on those points, should be on every source i.e. Amazon/BestBuy/Steam should list anything that may be undesirable to the purchaser BEFORE they push the download or cart button.

I agree, like to see neat artwork and hype on a game box/on-line description but . . . that doesn't affect game play or the possibility of affecting how my computer runs (which is my livelihood). I will gladly give up a one inch block of space to be better informed.
As far as the Interweb, it is not always convenient to find info while standing at the game display (although phones are making it easier). I tried to find a absolute confirmation that Torchlight had nothing but a disk check on the boxed version . . . lots of opinions but no real confirmation, lots of yes/no/maybe/no decision yet/just Steam DRM/one time activation on one source, etc, etc. If it was on the box, plainly, I wouldn't have to search the web at all. Pick up the box / look at the download website and . . . instant answer.
I'm not saying DRM is bad . . . I just want the publisher to tell me what DRM/activations/installs are on the game disk so I can make an informed decision on this purchase . . .BEFORE I purchase . . .=)

All EA's DRM does is punish people who actually support them

I definitely agree that devs and publishers need to make more effort to disclose what DRM model is in use (I still don't know how FC2's DRM o n Steam works :p), I still don't think the box is the right place.
I think we can agree that, generally, the people who care about DRM are the people who tend to research their games anyway. ie. not the impulse buy people. There are exceptions, but I really doubt that anyone who feels strongly about DRM is going to impulse buy a 50 dollar game :p
As for potential issues with running the game: system requirements have been crap for years. So if we are going to go in-depth on DRM (outside of "Internet Connection Required"), it is only a matter of time until all the expanded sysreqs (stuff like an actual listing of which cards are supported) are going to be on the box. And then, I am going to have one square inch of generic space-hero Number 5, and the rest will be text.
On the one hand, I think an ESRB-style icon for DRM would be a great idea. But the nature of DRM makes this difficult, because new models are introduced relatively frequently. And something like Riddick's pseudo-limited activation model is very different from MEPC's limited activation model, but how do you really define that without going in-depth?

I think it's good common sense to disclose anything that a purchaser might object to on the package/website/advertisement. It's a no-brainer. This settlement may set a precedent for publishers to do so which . . . I consider a good thing.
Seems to me that 4 or 5 standard DRM disclosures, type, required connection, # of installs, etc would be a simple matter to resolve. Straight forward info, no need to tie it to hardware which is a legitimate issue in itself.
If left up to the publishers . . . no info would be included . . .I believe they will fight desperately to keep DRM info off of their products and adverts. Again, this may set a minimum precedent for DRM if nothing else.

I disagree. I really think it should be on the box. Just because people tend to do research on games and their DRM doesn't mean they should be REQUIRED to do research. Also, the intraweb can sometimes be a confusing place with conflicting information. If it's on the box, I can be pretty confident that it's reliable information.
Also, not everybody lives on the Internet. There are gamers that don't have home internet connections, strange as it sounds. (None of them will probably be chiming in to verify my claim however.) There is one in my RPG group. He's a lifelong gamer that chooses not to have Internet at home. He does have it at work, but might not spend his work day reading game sites. (I of course don't do that either. Ahem.)
That said, the bottom of the box with the system requirements might be the proper place. Possibly with a little icon on the front or back of the box that says "Contains SecuRom. See system requirements for details."

Does EA even use SecuROM anymore? At least, do they use anything more than the disk check?

It's possible that they aren't planning to use it anymore, and so they're making this settlement as a moot point.