Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class Action Suits

Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class Action Suits

November 24, 2009

Joystiq’s latest Law of the Game column takes a look at the intertwinement of professional plaintiffs and class action suits.

The article was written in response to a pair of recent news stories: a possible class action suit against Microsoft over Xbox Live bannings and Erik Estavillo, the banned Resistance: Fall of Man player, whose latest lawsuit targets Microsoft and Nintendo.

Author Mark Methenitis denotes a professional plaintiff as someone whose livelihood depends on suing people. He adds that plaintiffs who are gamers are more prone to demonstrate similar standing, versus attaching their suit to a statute, making them a perfect entry point to class action litigation.

Of course, class action lawsuits “tend to be larger and thereby more profitable, especially to a law firm on a contingency fee basis.”

Methenitis thinks it “unlikely” that we will see fewer lawsuits as time progresses, but tells us not to worry too much about game industry companies that are targeted, as they “have substantial legal teams to deal with these kinds of suits.”

He finishes:

What should concern consumers would be a series of victories against gaming companies. If plaintiffs are successful, then there are two potentially larger problems facing the industry: are companies becoming more dishonest and predatory, and should we be concerned about the continued viability of those studios with substantial legal settlements against them?

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class ...

[S]hould we be concerned about the continued viability of those studios with substantial legal settlements against them?

Hell, no. That's just the price they have to pay for being on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

And I don't know of too many plaintiffs who strike it rich from being members of a class action. One of the determinative factors in certifying a class of plaintiffs is that their individual claims are too piddly to make much economic sense in requiring that they bring them on an individual basis and therefore they need to pool their injuries into a class. The attorney for the class may make bank, but the individual class members usually don't end up with much to show for being a class action plaintiff. If they're making a profession out of it, then they usually ain't getting paid much better than minimum wage. And that's before they have to fork over the 30-40% contingency fee to their attorney. 

Re: Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class ...

The thing about many of these suits, boycotts, or threats against game companies is that they are tinged with a sense of entitlement in regards to an entertainment product.  Too many people think the world "owes" them something.

Re: Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class ...

In some respects, at least in a legal sense, it does owe them something. For example, you've the right to purchase a product free from manufacturing defects and a right to recourse and remedy against the manufacturer if they in fact sell you a defective product. That the product is intended to provide entertainment doesn't in any way diminish your entitlements.

Re: Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class ...

Many products have a manufactuers warranty on them for a reason, and it is not uncommon for them to be taken to court for lemons that they will not refund the buyer for (Barring as is sales). 

Also when a subscription is cancled by an individual or a company, it is only right that they get the money they invested into it back. 

This is not thinking that the world owes you, this is getting what you spent your hard earned money on.  There is a difference between the two.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Law of the Game on Professional Plaintiffs and Class ...

At least there is good legal teams that can go against idiots that want to sue like crazy. :)

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 11:23am
gellymatos: ...paranoid, as lawyers, that the language of the law may do so. But like I said, paranoid.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:22am
Valdearg: They see this as the Government encouraging the "sinful sexual behavior." They don't want gays to score ANY political victory, even one that protects them from violent homophobic psychopaths.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:22am
gellymatos: Oh, hell yes. And nothing annoys me more than that fact. They stray and make real catholics look bad. And yes, they could be...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:21am
Valdearg: Also, you really think that people who are smart enough to practice law REALLY believe that this law will prevent them from expressing their religious beliefs? The fact is that these guys hate gays, and don't want them to be protected in any way.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:20am
Valdearg: The catholic teachings, perhaps, but certainly, there are PLENTY of Catholics who condone violence and hate. Just like these guys.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:19am
gellymatos: violence or hate against anyone.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:18am
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:15am
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:14am
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:11am
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:10am
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:09am
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:08am
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:07am
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:06am
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:05am
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
Login or register to post shouts