Take Two Sues Chicago Transit Over Pulling of GTA IV Ads

Reuters is reporting that Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take Two Interactive is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the CTA’s recent decision to remove ads for the game from its vehicles and facilities.

As reported by GamePolitics, the CTA pulled the ads about a week before GTA IV launched. The move followed a sensationalistic Fox News report which seemed to draw a linkage between GTA and a rash of local shootings. From Reuters:

Take Two accused the authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000… ad campaign agreement that included running “Grand Theft Auto 4” poster ads on the sides of buses and transit display spaces throughout the Chicago transit system scheduled for six weeks between April and June.

The suit seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.

GP: Congrats to Take Two for standing up for its rights. Let’s hope they bring the same kind of legal pressure to bear on Miami-Dade Transit as well. There, GP readers will recall, Jack Thompson pushed the agency into removing ads from Miami bus shelters.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    JohnnyG says:

    I don’t know much about law stuff, but for the most part aren’t there clauses to remove advertisement for specific reasons? I know TV stations have pulled “questionable ads” before without any repercussion.

    Also, like I said in my first post. From when the original story of CTA removing the ads was posted until now, I’ve continued to see GTA ads all around the city on kiosks and buses. I don’t know if they removed a few and left a few, but I do know I still see ads for them up.

  2. 0
    Leviathan902 says:

    I’m really torn on this issue. On the one hand I’m glad to see a video game publisher standing up for itself and it’s rights (and, by proxy, our rights to play them).

    On the other hand, I live in Chicago, and though I don’t take the public transit system, the whole system was on the verge of collapse just last year due to a lack of funding, and it took a last minute emergency approval to save it. If Take2 wins this suit, and the system can’t take it, you know who ends up paying for the damages on the suit? It ain’t the @$$hole who made the decision to pull the ads and his buerocratic clowns, it’s people like me paying it out in our taxes and an inevitable tax increase.

    Fortunately, the suit is only for $300,000 or we’d be REALLY screwed.

  3. 0
    Grifter_tm ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Finally. Suing CTA for breach of contract over their ads is perfectly legal for Take-Two. Here I thought the law was applicable to all except thegaming industry.

  4. 0
    BrandonL337 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Well, in a way it helps the industry in general. There’s a good chance that after this the other companies will grow some balls and stand up for their rights

  5. 0
    Adam ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    AWESOME!!!!!! I live in the Chicagoland area. I can’t wait to see how this all plays out. Hopefully we’ll see those ads on the buses again soon.

  6. 0
    Loudspeaker ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Seven

    Here’s the major flaw in your argument that Take Two is asking too much… According to the gov’t of the city of Chicago, which we the people elect to represent us, it was the right thing to do to pull the ads.

    So who’s responsibility is it to set things right financially?

    …The people.

    Upset? Take it up with those whom you’ve put in power.

    When you say Take Two is asking too much you’re saying you want the law to work only in one direction and the gov’t to have partial or full immunity to monetary responsibility for breaking the laws THEY PUT INTO PRACTICE THEMSELVES. Law is not there for convenience it’s there as a rights guideline.

    Hold the gov’t who’s supposed to be GOVERNING and making things better for the people responsible. Make them drop these red herrings like video game violence and hold them to the issues at hand.

    Want to fix your mass transit system? Do what my state did. Make the governor/mayor commute from one end of the gridlock to the other.

    OH HEY LOOK! New roads, improved infrastructure and a mass transit system with REAL results.

    Funny how things change when those in power have to go through the same crap the rest of us do 24/7 with minimal complaints.

  7. 0
    HurricaneJesus says:

    How does this benefit TT?

    You do realize that the lawyers that are taking care of this need to be paid, right? You understand that TT needs money to keep producing GTA games, right? You understand that they paid for these ads, and rely on them to do a certain amount of advertising in the city. If they were initially told that the ads would not run, then they could have found another venue for the ads.

    The CTA deserves to get hit with the highest fine TT can manage, if only to set a precedent for this bullshit in the future. If you are from chicago, then I suggest you call or write to the people responsible for this fuck-up. TT is protecting their rights. Simply getting the ad money back would not be enough considering this has now cost them more than the initial ad price.

  8. 0
    DJ Sessum says:

    Deserved. T2 paid thousands to get that ad on there, and now, WITHOUT PERMISSION, the ad displayers decide to take them down because one psychotic lawyer decides IT’S HURTING THE CH1LDR3N!!! Please. JT sickens me. He thinks that games hurt kids, and what’s really sad is that this one statement is the only thing that keeps him going in his life, when people finally state that games are okay, he’ll just explode due to massive pwnage. Hur hur hur.

  9. 0
    Seven says:

    I’m not up on economics so I’m not sure what above the 300k is fair. I would hope they’d just get the money for their lost ads back (the 300k fees paid for the ad contract in the first place) and stop there, more than that is coming out of Chicagoan’s pockets.

    However I read a Kotaku story not too long ago that gave me the impression the CTA was not cooperating and that the suit is a result of the CTA not being willing to settle things amicably.

    If that’s the case, then have at them. I still don’t like the thought of Mass Transit funding being lost to a private interest, though. It benefits no one but T2, and hurts taxpayers.

    Not that taxpayers paying for BS government lawsuits in Illinois is uncommon though…


  10. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:


    And I’m willing to assume that T2’s damages do indeed extend beyond the price of the contract. As I argued before, that’s the nickel and dime part. T2’s more significant damage lies in the profits they would have obtained from sales generated by the advertising had not the advertising been pulled. When CTA decided to first run but then later, in breach of their contract, pull the ads, it was entirely foreseeable that such actions would result in lost profits to T2. Why shouldn’t T2 hold the CTA accounatable for that loss? Seems entirely fair to me.

  11. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:


    Why would seeking damages beyond the price of the contract be corporate irresponsibility if, indeed, a corporate plaintiff has suffered damages beyond the price of the contract? Doesn’t the corporation owe a responsibilty to its shareholders to fully recoup whatever losses may have been caused by a breach of contract? If not, then the corporation’s shafting its shareholders. If the CTA has damaged T2 (more precisely, T2’s shareholders) to the tune of $X, then $X is precisely what they should sue for. That’s not some sort of greedy, unfair overeaching that will result in an undeserved windfall to the corporation. That’s justice.

  12. 0
    Seven says:

    @ JustChris – agreed, the buses here are terrible, the trains are slightly better.

    @ Loudspeaker – again, I’m not putting the fault on T2. I’m asking whether they should be more responsible as a company in their seeking damages over the 300k. I never said the CTA didn’t screw up, they obviously did.

  13. 0
    Loudspeaker ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ JohnnyG and Seven

    Look, it’s not T2’s fault that CTA decided to try and take “moral high ground” by deciding to pull the GTA 4 advertisements. If you want to complain about how bad the CTA is then complain to the CTA. Rockstar paid them for that advertisement. Instead, someone in the CTA who feels your welfare and commute are LESS IMPORTANT than their personal moral crusade violated the contract, pulled the ads without consulting legal counsel, and now faces a $300k legal battle. CTA has only themselves to blame for this fiasco.

    I’d be sending some very pointed emails to my city, county, and state officials about how their moral crusade against violent video games is making me VERY violent since it takes me twice as long to get to work on the public transit system.

    Considering what a huge money maker GTA is it seems from my point of view that Take Two is being reasonable. Not to mention the fact if the CTA settles out of court it won’t cost them $300k.

    The proverbial ball has always been in CTA’s court. You can’t blame Take Two for how poorly CTA is playing the game.

  14. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:


    This, of course, is a generalization of contract law principles. What really controls is the terms of the contract at issues. If those terms provide that no consequential are recoverable in the event of a breach, then the plaintiff is S.O.L. But, in the absence of a controlling term, then specific performance and consequential damages can usually be had.

  15. 0
    JohnnyG says:

    I agree with Seven, the CTA already has so little funding, they’re canceling so many of the lines the run right now.

    Also, I live in the city…I have still seen ads up on the kiosks and buses since they claimed to have taken them down.

  16. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:


    Off the top o’ the head, yes, you are correct. A plaintiff cannot recover both the contract price and specific performance. It’s one or the other. However, the plaintiff can recover both so-called consequential damages (e.g., lost profits from lost sales) and specific performance. Those two remedies aren’t mutually exclusive.

  17. 0
    CommiePuddin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m guessing that even though Take Two has asked for both monetary damages (effectively, their money back) AND specific performance (run the ads), the court will only grant one of these avenues of relief. Am I right there?

  18. 0
    Seven says:

    Yes, granted that it’s stupid of the CTA to do this after signing a contract. Everyone knows that. On one hand they really had this coming. I don’t blame T2, I ask them to be more responsible as a company. I don’t want my city and state to suffer because funding is being poured into T2 executive salaries, instead of drastically needed renovation projects on the CTA lines.

    I love reading GP. I visit the RSS every morning. But it’s sad to see that so many are so one-sided and biased. There really is rarely a thought of being critical of T2’s (or other vid game company’s) actions. The thing I am thankful for however is that the responses to my post were plenty civil, I appreciate that.

  19. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:

    T2’s loss (i.e., their damages) from the pulled advertising goes beyond the loss of the contract’s face value. That’s peanuts. Monkey-money. Chump change. Their real loss is from the sales of GTAIV they would have had but for the pulling of the ads. And that’s not chump change. And CTA brought that upon themeselves (and, by extension, the taxpayers of Illinois). Word is bond. Or, to quote Tony Montana, ” All I have in this world in my balls and my word and I don’t break them for no one.”

    And I didn’t need T2 to sue for free speech violations (if indeed they have) to tell me that the CTA’s action squarely implicates a violation of the First Amendment. That’s kinda obvious — I thought.

  20. 0
    Tom says:

    TFA says T2 is suing for contractual AND Free speech rights violations. Clearly CTA either wasn’t enforcing their ad regulations when they accepted the GTA ads, or arbitrarily decided they didn’t like the GTA ads after political pressure was applied. Either way, they’re pretty boned.

    I imagine it sucks for Chicago residents who will end up paying for this, but at the same time we can’t have government agencies deciding what kind of speech is acceptable.

  21. 0
    Nith ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    As many have already stated, this isnt a freedom of speech issue, but one of breach of contract. The CTA knew full well, what it was getting itself in to. If they didnt, to bad for them. They signed on the dotted line, the same as T2. They failed to follow through with their end of the agreement.

    When you break a contract, there are certain penalties that take place. I’m sure the CTA figured that would not happen. But, certain individuals didnt want GTA4 being advertised. Those individuals will (hopefully) lose their jobs, for being to stupid.

    It looks like an open-and-shut case, unless the CTA can convince a judge that buffalo’s really do have wings, and that pigs can indeed fly.

  22. 0
    Shih Tzu says:

    Actually, it looks like the CTA (if I’m right in assuming they’re a government-affiliated agency) may have less legal standing to turn down advertising based on content than if they were a private entity. I thought this was only a breach-of-contract issue, but the ruling against the MBTA in Boston a few years ago over pro-marijuana-law-reform ads looks like it might indeed set a precedent for T2 to sue on First Amendment grounds as well.


    Of course, I’m no lawyer. But if the Reuters article means that T2 is suing for violation of free speech on top of breach of contract, awesome! Good for them.

  23. 0
    Yuuri ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    when a company breaches a contract, they suffer penalties. i’m sorry to hear that the mass transit system there isn’t what it could be financally, which could be why they took the contract in the first place. T2 had to pay them for the privlage of having the ads there as well as having the ads made in the first place.

    it feels simular to me to the various states that passed the various game laws that are now having to pay for the lawyers of the gaming industry. are the penalties/fees being paid by those that pushed those laws? nope, it’s being paid by the tax payers. unfortunately the same is probably gonna happen here.

  24. 0
    Anon says:


    CTA’s fault. Don’t blame Take-Two. I totally agree with their actions.

    T2 coughed up 300k just for the advertisement and now the CTA took if off weeks before the end of contract because some sleazy lawyer (or whoever. I forgot) thought that the advertisements contribute to societys ills. Yeah, okay.

    It’s just a contract breach, really.

  25. 0
    Haze says:

    For gods sake, this is just getting stupid, its not funny anymore, this is just spam.
    Its like waking up each day after GTA is released and finding 50 emails from Nigeria Bank and Viagra.
    This is not funny anymore guys, do they just wait until GTA is released to get out their anger? They (the media) do not quote sources, they do not use non-opinionated views, and this transit system is going by their word?
    I mean for god sake, where is all the controversy over more important issues? Like China and Tibet, North Korea, African machette attacks or even other violent stuff like movies?
    Its all video games, I hate this man, its just turning into a flame war of who can bad mouth GTA the most, when was the last time someone made a comment about Soldier of Fortune? That game lets you blow peoples heads off and shoot limbs off and see their brain, does GTA? No.
    I mean, this is not a violent game, so at the end of the day the only thing bad about it is because it is ‘free roaming’ and as well all know, the media hate freedom.

  26. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:

    And it isn’t about the right to be published. There’s no such right under the First Amendment. It’s about the inabilty of the government to not publish because of anything the proposed publication does or doesn’t say. That’s what the First Amendment prohibits: government restraint of protected speech.

  27. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:

    No. No. No. No. And again, no.

    Put aside the fact that T2 has chosen to cast their claim as one for breach of contract (which makes this particular issue a contractual one). The fact remains that transit authorities do not have the right to refuse some but not all advertising on their systems. Not if the refusal is based on the substance or content or message or viewpoint (call it what you want) of the advertising. To do so is a clear violation of the First Amendment. To argue otherwise puts you in the company of Jack Thompson, First Amendment Expert.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that the authority cannot prohibit all advertising, if it so chooses. To do so would be a content-nuetral regulation. But it cannot — I repeat — canot ban advertising based on the content of the advertising

  28. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Because this suit only involves Take Two and the bus line, the effects it may have on the industry as a whole are very small.

  29. 0
    Tim Kowalenko ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m not sure if you already know this but from what I’ve seen from your previous comments it raises some doubt. But, if you have then this is for everyone else

    The issue isn’t on free speech, it’s on a violation of a contract. Yes, Chicago Transit DOES have the right to refuse any ads that they don’t want to have on their buses, but they had already signed a contract saying that they would have the ads in the designated time. BY taking these down they violated this contract and Take Two has every right to sue them.

    Also, Jack claiming “free speech hate” or something stupid in 3, 2….

  30. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    JackDon’tKnowJack: I have to disagree. As I’ve said, freedom of speech is not the right to be published. Most transit authorities have ad guidelines. Breach of contract and selective enforcement are not first amendment issues.

  31. 0
    Baruch ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Good to see that the game industry is finally fighting back. If they keep this up, people may actually have to begin taking them seriously, and people like Jack Thompson will be out one ill-informed moral crusade.

  32. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    Either way, and putting aside the fine details, I’m sure we can agree that the First Amendment is of some relevance to the discussion of a transit authority’s ability to refuse advertising based solely on its content. No?

  33. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    “Rejecting [advertising] because [a goverment entity] doesn’t like the message” is yet another way of saying ““content-based speech regulation.”

  34. 0
    MasterAssassin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I was predicting this could happen. I’ve also noticed some of the ads are still up and I live in Chicago.

  35. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    No, it’s them rejecting it because they don’t like the message. Again,

    The 1st Circuit found that although the MBTA’s advertising guidelines are “viewpoint neutral” and constitutional

    The court did find, however, that the MBTA advertising space does not constitute a public forum, as had been claimed by Change the Climate.”

  36. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    “Rejection based solely on viewpoints clashing” is another way of saying “content-based speech regulation.”

  37. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The judge was pointing out that the MBTA wasn’t following it’s own rules, which is why it was a violation of free speech.

    I can’t find any case that says they have to, even the one you and GP have cited. From the source GP cited:

    “As a government agency, they shouldn’t have the right to [b]pick and choose what opinions[/b] they allow to be advertised,”

    The 1st Circuit found that although the MBTA’s advertising guidelines are “viewpoint neutral” and constitutional, its rejection of the three Change the Climate ads was unreasonable and amounted to “viewpoint discrimination.”

    The court did find, however, that the MBTA advertising space does not constitute a public forum, as had been claimed by Change the Climate.”


    The issue in the MBTA case was the MBTA not following it’s own rules and rejection based solely on viewpoints clashing.

  38. 0
    Sean ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    There was that successful lawsuit against the CTA for not allowing marijuana discussion ads. They won on the grounds of discriminating viewpoint.

  39. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    PSA or commercial advertising, it doesn’t matter. You’ll notice that the court took pains to point out commercial (i.e., non-PSA) advertising for an R-rated movie which was also on the MBTA’s buses. The same objectionable double-standard applies in this case. The important point is that it was content-based speech regulation by a government entity and that’s just a straight-up no-no under the First Amendment.

  40. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jackdon’tknowjack: Maybe, but I feel it’s a good example of the freedom of speech not meaning right of publication.

  41. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    And your comparison to Dennis and GP fails because GP is wholly private. Transportation authorities are not private; they are an arm of the government.

  42. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    JackDon’tKnowJack: Thing is, that was a public service announcement, not an advertisement. It sounds like the judge simply pointed out a double standard, and that the MBTA wasn’t following its own rules.

  43. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    In 1993, a US District Judge in Boston ruled that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s “G-rated” advertising policy violated the US Constitution. The advertisements in question dealt with the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The federal judge stated that a transit service “cannot open its transit car doors to public service advertising and hang only its favorite posters.” The judge noted that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had concurrently accepted advertising for the R-rated movie, Basic Instincts. With respect to “protecting” children from inappropriate advertisements, the judge wrote, “that concern evaporates on examination because shielding children from [the] advertisements is insufficiently compelling to justify the resulting limitation of speech.”

  44. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    JackDon’tKnowJack: Yes, the CTA is operated by the city of Chicago. However, they are under no obligation to give me publication. This is like me suing Dennis because he wouldn’t post an editorial I wrote. The issue is breach of contract, which the city is clearly going to lose in.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think the whole ad controversy is nothing but nonsense perpetuated by Faux News and self proclaimed culture cops like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Jack Thompson, but freedom of speech doesn’t mean right to publication.

    However, I am not lawyer, just a schmuck who knows a bit on this, so it’s possible I’m wrong, like if Chicago has an ordinance that prohibits this type of discrimination on ads.

  45. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJAck says:


    Are you sure about that? Most transit authorities are creatures of state legislation and are, therefore, quasi-government agencies. If a quasi-government agency refuses to host an advertisement solely because of its content, that could well be in violation of the First Amendment.

  46. 0
    Reede ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Well hell… go Take-Two! It’s been said before, and I’m going to bloody say it again, it’s about Goddamn time.

  47. 0
    Jack Wessels ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know, I saw that video of the Fox segment. They somehow linked the ads, none of which are even remotely violent, to several shootings. Somehow, this was the Governor’s fault because he didn’t turn down a $300,000 increase in city revenue….

    The whole thing’s ridiculous.

  48. 0
    DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oye, finally T2 shows some backbone!

    Now if only they would get around to getting on JT’s case for blatently ignoring his agreement with them more times than i care to remember.

  49. 0
    the conspiracy says:

    After years of careful fertilization efforts, and soil testing, experts have finally succeed in making the gaming industry grow a pair.

  50. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oh and we should get a cooler name than “gamer”. It doesn’t sound too good when we’re tearing ass across victory lane. Yeeeeeah boy!

  51. 0
    The Bobman ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Damn it. I live way downstate IL and I already had to bail out the CTA once. If I get taxed again because of this, you guys owe me! 😛

    I am so sick of Chicago politics dictating the rest of the state.

  52. 0
    BrandonL337 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    YES!!! This, this right here is the begining the time when game companies will stand up for their rights and not take this kind of bullshit! This is a momentous day for gamers everywhere, The day we stand up and say, We won’t take this anymore We are Gamers and we are powerful and nobody, NOBODY fucks with us!

  53. 0
    hayabusa75 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Perhaps not, but the end result may very well serve the ends of free speech anyway, so it’s still significant.

  54. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I don’t think this means much. This isn’t a suit over freedom of speech, it’s a very valid suit the city is going to get raped in because of a breach of contract.

    …And then King Richard and the Toddler are going to whine for more money while Emil Jones says he of all people needs and deserves a pay raise. Ain’t life in Illinois and C(r)ook County grand?

  55. 0

    […] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptReuters is reporting that Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take Two Interactive is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the CTA’s recent decision to remove ads for the game from its vehicles and facilities. As reported by GamePolitics, the CTA pulled the ads about a week before GTA IV launched. The move followed a sensationalistic Fox News report which seemed to draw a linkage between GTA and a rash of local shootings. From Reuters: Take Two accused the authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000… ad campaign agreement that included running “Grand Theft Auto 4″ poster ads on the sides of buses and transit display spaces throughout the Chicago transit system scheduled for six weeks between April and June. […]

  56. 0
    Belgarion89 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Go get ’em T2!! It’s like watching your favorite team’s coach go over and yell at the refs for making a horrible call. Yeah, it’s overdue, but I’m sure Zelnick was busying counting money from all the sales he got from the free advertising.

  57. 0
    Condemned 2 fan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    And while Take Two is at it they should make Manhunt 3 way more violent then the other 2 and use the Amendment to release the game for retail uncut to let people like Jack Thompson know that they will not mess with adults rights.

  58. 0
    Seven says:

    I’m sure all of you are having a riot, but I am NOT in the mood to see the CTA paying out more taxpayer dollars. I already have a terribly slow ride to work because Chicago and the state doesn’t fund the CTA enough, now it’s going to be even worse off.

    Come on. Why does T2 need to sue for damages above 300k? Just get the money back from the ads not going up and stop there. Settle it fast so WE TAXPAYERS are not shelling out money for lawyer fees. Am I the only one who thinks this is out of line on T2’s part?

    Again, get the 300k back if they won’t run the ads, stop there. Stop costing Chicago commuters and taxpayers money. It has to come from somewhere, everyone seems to forget that when it’s all about the righteous (more like sleazy) fight to defend T2.

  59. 0
    JQuilty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    hayabusa75: No, it wouldn’t. The CTA, as far as I know, is under no obligation to accept all ads. They can refuse ads for any reason. Freedom of Speech does not mean right to advertisement through government services. This case seems to be about a breach of contract and a breach of contract alone. Even if the CTA is forced to run the ads and pay Take-Two (which they will…there’s no way they’re getting out of this one), there’s nothing stopping them from refusing ads in the future.

    While the Reuters article mentioned freedom of speech, I doubt you can make a case here.

Leave a Reply