Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

March 26, 2010 -

A gamer has launched a class action suit against GameStop over what he deems deceptive practices in the retailer's used games sales.

Plaintiff James Collins purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins from a GameStop in Hayward, California according to a story on IGN. The game’s box art advertised that free content could be downloaded for the game, but of course the original owner of the title had already redeemed the free downloadable content, leaving Collins out of luck.

Collins, who paid $54.99 for the used game, saved about $5 off the list price of a new copy, then found out he could pay buy the extra content for $15, leaving him $10 poorer than if he had originally purchased a new copy of the game.

Collins attempted to return the game, but was rebuffed, since GameStop’s seven day return policy had lapsed. Collins’ complaint states that “GameStop tricks consumers into paying more for a used game than they would have if they purchased the same game and content new.”

The defendant compares the practice to “selling a used book to customers without telling them that there are chapters missing.”

Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages and an order for defendants to “engage in corrective advertising,” in addition to interest on monies “wrongfully obtained” and a recovery of fess associated with the lawsuit.

The back of the Dragon Age: Origins box says “Includes: Downloadable character and quest, A $15 Value.” In small print it reads “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.”

IGN has the full complaint up here.


Thanks Andrew!


Comments

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

 

First things first, I live in the same city as this guy; and no, people around here aren't that much smarter either.

Secondly, it's not Gamestop's fault that DLC is no longer free for him. The simple fact is that the publishing company was the one that decided that the DLC that was included with that disk could only be unlocked once. If he was a smart consumer (again, as a resident I can tell you that there are none of those in Hayward, CA) he would have checked when he got home if he could activate the DLC, find out he couldn't, go back and get a refund for it or spend the extra 5 bucks and buy the game new, still in the original wrapping.

Basically, he's trolling for cash for being a stupid consumer.

 

"The Good, the Bad, and the Videogame" Reviews on the best, worst, and controversial issues of Videogames. gryphonosiris.blogspot.com/

"The Good, the Bad, and the Videogame" Reviews on the best, worst, and controversial issues of Videogames. gryphonosiris.blogspot.com/

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Wait. GameStop sells PC games again? I mean, other than WoW...

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I think it's safe to say they're referring to the 360 version, since for obvious reasons Gamestop doesn't deal in used PC games.

But off-topic, the Gamestop in my town is a cramped little hole in the wall and even it has a decent selection of PC games.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

This lawsuit will be done before it starts. It's not Gamestop's fault he decided to get a used game. It was just a pathetic attempt by him trying to save a few bucks and get some free DLC at the same time. Had he actually bought a new copy of the game, he would've gotten the free DLC.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I don't think we'll see the 'trade in with an additional $5 for a new copy' move people on here think would solve the problem.  Having worked at Gamestation (UK equiv. of Gamestop), and the profit margin on used copies is something ridiculous (up to 70%) vs. the 5-10% they earn on new copies.  They'd lose much more than you think by offering such a deal.

 

They did nothing illegal, but perhaps a sign or employee training to inform customers of this trend for including single-se premium DLC codes in games would be the best approach for the company.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

This is a problem caused by the publishers to punish the second hand market. Gamestop should have allowed the exchange to a new copy with the addituional payment of the $5.00. Gamestop does not need to play the publisher's game.

 

Dan

Dan

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

You know... I'm shocked to see GP side with the company on this one. I think offering one-time DLC to new buyers is bullshit.

Why should video games get special treatment when it comes to being used? There are mountains of things you can sell used and you don't get penalized for, what makes video games so special?

If you truly need me to illustrate my point:
-Movies (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, etc)
-Books (though not e-books... the purpose of e-books is to look convienent while actually preventing resale... much like DRM for other digital media)
-Cars
-Furniture
-Appliances
-Computers
-Instruments
etc etc....

Long story short, games don't deserve this special treatment. But where I think one-time free DLC is bullshit, I think putting a time limit on it, forcing people to buy the game at full price, is even MORE BULLSHIT.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Actually, this type of deal is very common with other types of merchandise, just not quite in the same way. These types of promotions often have time limits on them as well. Like, say if you bought a used mixer that had a promotion printed on the box that advertised a free set of mixing bowls that you had to mail away a coupon for. Should you expect the coupon to still be good when buying it used?

I predict this lawsuit will be thrown out.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

If the box doesn't clearly and conspicuously explain that the promotion is limited in time or limited to first-time purchasers and the second-hand seller doesn't take steps to ensure that's clear to second-hand purchasers, then, yes, it could well be creating the impression and the expectation that a second-hand purchaser can avail themselves of the promotion. The onus doesn't fall on the consumer to correctly interpret the advertising. The onus falls on the advertiser to ensure that their advertising isn't false or misleading. 

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

The Free DLC also expires for New Game owners in April so if you're going to get a New Copy of Dragon Age get it soon. Plus the content doesn't transfer over to the expansion and neither does almost all but one Paid DLC to the expansion.

In a way Project Ten Dollar to combat used games by EA is doing Gamestop in, I wonder if this wasn't part of the their plan all along.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I've only ever been a consumer when it comes to games, but I find it hard to be pro-comsumer lately. Ubisoft certainly swung my opinion pro with their ill-considered DRM, but I can't side with this guy. One of my major bug-bears are people who wind up regretting a decision they've made and choose to latch onto such technicalities to show they've been wronged when they should have applied a little thought and reason to their purchase in the first place.

Mr. Collins, if you are new to the world of gaming, or retail in general, I regret your unfortunate naivety and suggest you chalk this up to a $5-$10 learning experience. However, if you don't have this excuse you're being pedantic when you should know better and make your decisions accordingly. If this is the case then kindly suck a dick.

I'm truly for companies to be kept honest and some people have legitimate complaints regarding software they are sold. I don't believe this is one of those.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

"I've only ever been a consumer when it comes to games, but I find it hard to be pro-comsumer lately. Ubisoft certainly swung my opinion pro with their ill-considered DRM, but I can't side with this guy."

Of course not. "Pro-consumer" doesn't mean "pro-idiot."
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Yet another case of the "it's not my fault" generation. Guy didn't do his homework and is looking for someone else to blame for his own laziness. Boo-hoo.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I'm not so sure that what the fine print says will be outcome-determinative. Can an advertiser induce purchases in the big print and then qualify the inducement in the fine print and still not be liable for false advertising? I dunno. There's an argument to be made that in order to not be misleading, the qualification needs to be just as conspicuous as the inducement.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_print

In fact, the issue may be further complicated by the fact that this is a USED product, not a new product.  He wasn't buying a new product but rather a used one.

In additon, one should probably take "reasonable assumption" into account as well in regards to this BEING a used product.  Not merely from the consumer's standpoint but from the business standpoint.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I emailed a GameStop customer service agent and received the following reply:

"Yes you can return it for a refund if its within 30 days. The DLC is expected to be used with the new game and we dont offer DLC with used titles, so yes you will be able to return it."

That was actually the second reply.  His first reply was to email me a copy of GameStop's online return policy so take his assertion as you will.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

He may know that "[GameStop] don't offer DLC with used titles" but that don't matter. What matters is what GameStop does to make its customers aware that they don't offer DLC with used titles.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Seems to me this is just a standard case the guy not doing his homework. I'm sure with any time spent looking it up (or even looking at the box properly) he would have discovered it was a one time use code. and putting 2 and 2 together (one time code + used copy) would equal "Probably not gonna get the DLC" for anyone with half a brain.

Heck, gamestop or not, usually the guys in the game stores i buy from a pretty nice people, I'm sure they would have worked with him to rectify the issue in some way.

But if he's suing them, i'm guessing he wasn't exactly giving the employees the warm fuzzies that usually is conducive to overlooking some policy.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

This lawsuit's bogus. He didn't get tricked, they didn't hide info, so he's got no case.

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

"The defendant compares the practice to “selling a used book to customers without telling them that there are chapters missing.”"

I disagree strongly to this analogy.  His comparison implies that the used game he bought is not whole, incomplete.  However, the game, without the DLC, IS whole and complete.  The DLC is ADDITIONAL content, not required.

A better analogy would be "selling a used book to customers without the special additional chapters (such as special background/prequel material) not available in the standard edition".

Hence, he DOES have a complete game.  And, as pointed out, "In small print it reads “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.”"  The case should be dismissed.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

 And, as pointed out, "In small print it reads “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.”" 

But paying the full retail purchase price only means that the one-time use code has never been used. Paying less than the full retail purchase price doesn't necessarily mean that the one-time use code has been used. Is it not entirely possible that the first-hand purchaser never used the code and, therefore, the second-hand purchaser can? And what if, for whatever reason, the second-hand purchaser indeed paid the full retail purchase price for what was obviously a second-hand game? Does that mean that they can reasonably expect to be able use the one-time code? 

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Ok, did a little research.

I don't see, when it comes to new retail copies, there isn't one version with the free DLC code and one version without.  So, there is only one new retail price and the DLC truly is a free addition.

This should not be confused with regular retail editions at one price and a "Colelctor's Edition" with extras at a higher price.

So, at the new retail price for this game, the expectations are that, based on the labeled advertising, what should be included SHOULD be included.  Unused code and all.  For whatever reason, this code doesn't HAVE to be used.  And there is no evidence one way or the other that a new retail copy sold without such labeling would cost any less new.

In this particular type of case, then, the used price should remain the same whether the code had been used or not.  But, there should be no expectation that this additional code should be functional for a used game buyer.  Should Gamestop, and other retailers, confirm if the code is available or not?  To what end?  They don't charge more or less for a new copy to be sold with or without the code (assuming that there are or were such different versions available new).  And the game company may actually be offering these "Free" one use codes so that, upon someone buying a used game, they most likely will HAVE to pay, meaning more money.  After all, isn't it THEM who receives that additional income?  Now, someone having a fit over THAT could feasibly want to sue the game company, probably unsuccessfully in the end, but it would make more sense.

To show a bit more contrast here, remember the "Collector's Editions" I mentioned.  A used copy of the "Collector's Edition" minus the extras, a commerative pin, a headset, and other such, tends to cost less than a fully included used set. 

So, no, I don't see a case with the missing or unavailable code because the new copy doesn't appear to have different retail prices for copies with and copies without that code, and, therefore, the used copy can't be expected to include the code because it is, after all, a used copy at a discounted price from the one and only new retail price.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

What if the game was in such high demand with such low availability that a seller could demand the exact same price for a used copy as the price at which a new copy retails? Put differently, there's no difference in the market price between new and used? Should the buyer who purchases the used copy at the same price as a new copy would have cost expect to get the one-time use code for their money?

And when was the last time you saw something - anything - being offered in a commercial marketplace for "free?" Ain't no "free." "Buy one, get one free" ain't nothing but a marketing gimmick for suckers. Unless it's lap dances that are being sold. Only then does a twofer make perfect sense.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

If such a game was in such high demand, there wouldn't be used copies.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Balder's Gate 2 for the PS2 was still going for $50 used last time I saw a copy of it. (Admitedly 2 years ago. I really need to get some extra cash.)

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Damn, jedi, you can come up with some dumb shit.

The demand for Ferraris in the United States far outstrips supply. In Southern California, dealers can hardly keep enough of them in on-hand stock and there's often a one-year waiting list for delivery of an ordered Ferrari. Do you think that despite this there's no market for pre-owned Ferraris in Southern California?

By what thought processes do you come up with the shit you do? Seriously. I'm interested in knowing. Please explain.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

when reading this, i'm pretty sure that the game is either Dragon Age or mass effect 2.....

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I love getting free DLC for ME2. It's not a bad way for developers to make sure people buy games new instead of used if their so worried about the used game market.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I'm inclined to agree. If I really wanted ME2 used (although that's not exactly applicable to me since I already own it on PC =p), most of the DLC for it is stuff I wouldn't mind doing with out.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Or if you want to buy it used and get the Cerberus Network DLC, wait until it's $40 or lower.  That way, you still save at least $5.

 

"That's not ironic. That's justice."

"That's not ironic. That's justice."

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption.

Plaintiff James Collins purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins from a GameStop in Hayward, California according to a story on IGN.

The back of the Dragon Age: Origins box says “Includes: Downloadable character and quest, A $15 Value.”

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

"Collins attempted to return the game, but was rebuffed, since GameStop’s seven day return policy had lapsed."

Surely he could have exchanged it and $5 for a new copy.

From Gamestop's return policy:

"Used (pre-owned) merchandise and opened new accessories may be returned for a refund within 7 days of purchase or exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase."

I have a hard time believing that Gamestop would turn it's nose up at taking back the used copy under the condition that he immediately buy a new copy of the same game.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

The part about exchanging said item for an identical one only goes for used games.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I understand that but it's just a store policy.  I'd be surprised if GameStop refused to bend it a little in order to make a small profit while simultaneously keeping its customers happy.

EDIT: Thinking about it some more, GameStop does make more money off the sale of a used copy.  In the end, it probably depends on the person behind the register and how this guy was behaving in the store.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Your reasoning would be correct if GameStop actually made any money off of new games. They only see a profit of a few dollars from selling a new game. Used games net them the most profit since they will buy a new game for $10 and sell it for $55.

The fact of the matter is this guy was stupid and he wants to turn his own mistake into a legal battle so he can pretend he's doing good, instead of just being stupid. GameStop failed to remove any sticks or printed on box art/text saying that a use game has free DLC and he wants to punish them for that. As many have pointed out, GameStop would get even more shit for defacing boxes and cases to avoid this kind of thing.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Can I just point out Gamestop and every other retail place DOES make money off selling new games.

If they didn't, they wouldn't sell any. It would be economic suicide to do so.

When they tell you they don't, they're overstating it, because 15% of a games retail price goes to retailers.

http://www.daleisphere.com/cost-components-that-make-up-a-typical-video-...

The fact is, they make more profit off selling used games than new games, but they make a profit on both.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

True (see the edit I made to my post a while ago) but GameStop would be wise to go ahead and let the guy do the exchange otherwise they end up losing a customer who obviously doesn't mind paying absurd prices for used games.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Definitely just some jerk behind the counter.  The guys at my local gamestop bend over backwards when it comes to the customers.  To the point where I don't like to shop for games at any other store.

But to the overall story, yes, this guy is going to lose his case.  He didn't read the box carefully enough, it's his own fault for the misunderstanding.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Possibly.  It could also be a case of Mr. Collins acting like an ass in the store.  Presented with obnoxious and rude customer behavior, an otherwise amenable sales clerk may instead tell the customer to go pound sand.  Seeing as Mr. Collins is suing over this, that doesn't sound too farfetched.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I applaud the patience of some staff. When my dad and I were purchasing a Wii, someoen enar us was dealing with a customer who was being, really unreasonable over of all things, an Xbox case. He started throwing accusations of racism and ripping little kids off, all because this one case wasn't in stock, and the clerk was doing his absolute best to try and let the customer know he could reserve one.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Agreed. I admit I haven't seen anone quite THAT bad while I was at Gamestop. But I did see one guy who was griping for about 10 minutes because they didn't stock some game he wanted. But the girl behind the counter just waited until he took a breath and very nicely pointed out that the game he wanted (I think it was Phantasy Star Universe) wasn't due out until the next day. More funny then being an asshole, but as someone who's worked in retail, I salute anyone who can stand that kind of irritation long enough to get their point across.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

This Case will the thrown out I belive for a few reason:

1.) He had seven days to return the used Dragon Age game for a refund but failed to do so in a timely matter.

2.) The box said “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.” and did not state used games.

3.) Gamestop did not trick the guy into paying another $15 for said DLC, Mr. Collions willingly paid for it himself instead of returning Dragon age (in a timly matter of course) for a refund so he can get another copy (hopefully retail this time) with the free DLC code.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Actually, whether or not the product was timely returned for a refund has nothing to do with whether or not GameStop is liable for false advertising. Seeking a refund has something to do with so-called "mitigating the damage" but that's an entirely separate and distinct issue. As such, on the basis of a failure to timely seek a refund, the case will not necessarily be "thrown out." At worst, it may be found that while GameStop is indeed liable for false advertising, the plaintiffs cannot collect any damages because of their failure to timely mitigate those damages. Which is a subtle but important difference.

And because this is a class action, failing to mitigate damages by failing to timely seek a refund would only apply to Collins and all other plaintiffs who also failed to do so. However, if there are other plaintiffs who did indeed timely seek a refund or exchange and were denied that opportunity, then for those plaintiffs the issue of mitigation is a non-issue.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

I don't see how Gamestop could be found guilty of false advertising. It says right on the box that the DLC is only free with a “One-time use code available with full retail purchase". Regardless of whether it's fine print or not, the information was there.

----------

Breathing Sucks: Not evil, not misunderstood, just angry

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Is saying that the one-time use code is free with full retail purchase the same as saying the one-time use code is not offered to second-hand purchasers? As I commented below and as the article mentions, it's entirely possible that the first-hand purchaser did not use the code and, therefore, the code remains available for use by the second-hand purchaser. "One-time use code available with full retail price" does not clearly and catergorically rule out the possibility that it's still available to those who pay less than retail price. Moreover, and as I commented below, if, for whatever reason, the second-hand purchaser pays the full retail purchase price, that doesn't at all mean that the one-time use code will be available to them, not given the possibility that the first-hand purchaser has already used it. All things considered, there's a decent argument to be made that the statement "one-time use code available with full retail purchase" doesn't give Collins the information he most needed to truly understand what he was getting for his money. Certainly it doesn't as much as "one-time use code not available to second-hand purchasers" would have. If the advertising is clearly confusing, then it may well be misleading. If it's misleading, it's false advertising. 

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

So wouldn't that be false advertising on the part of the the publisher and not Gamestop? Gamestop didn't print that cover. They just sell the game.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

 Going with Zach on this one ... if anyone is liable its the publisher, gamestop didn't print nor do they advertise that their used games have the free DLC.  Now if they would have said oh yeah when you buy this game you get the Free DLC too than yes that is a false claim.  This guy is just looking for a quick buck ... Gamestop should counter sue for a false claim and demand he pay up for the lawyers time and the courts time for both cases; maybe than we wont see stupid lawsuits as much.

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

It absolutely depends on the provisions of the particular false advertising statute under which suit is brought, but it is often the case under numerous false advertising statutes that a retailer who sells a product and, in so doing, relies on advertising they didn't create is just as liable for the false advertising as its creator.

In this case, the damage, if any, resulting from the falsity of the advertising, if any, is triggered by the second-hand sale (i.e., a first-hand purchaser would never be screwed out of the one-time use code because they'd always be able to use it). As such, it's the second-hand retailer that's actually inflicting the damage, if any, and, therefore, suit is more properly brought against them than any other party.

If you're having a slow morning, read the complaint and see what statute the claim is brought under. Then, pull the statute off the internet and read it. Don't be surprised to find that the retailer is held just as liable for false advertising as the publisher. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet a dollar, without having ever read the statute, that's precisely what it says.  

 

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

California state law (under which Collins bring the class action) provides that:

"It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised."

GameStop, by displaying the box containing the alleged false advertising in their stores, is disseminating the advertising. If they, with the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the advertising to be false (if it is in fact false), then they're as much on the hook as the publisher. 

 

Re: Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Im not sold on the false advertising front, "One time use code with retail game" seem clear and not misleading to me. Gamestop also has different colored stickers to show consumers what games are retail version (white) and used version (yellow).

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corphttp://www.ign.com/videos/2014/12/17/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-tetris-ps4 I give up on ubisoft12/17/2014 - 6:01pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/16/exclusive-original-unaltered-cut-of-star-wars-trilogy-to-be-rele/ Yeah, this'll never happen.12/17/2014 - 5:03pm
NeenekoThey have and exercise control over which games are allowed on their privately controlled 'open forum'. Their endorsement is fairly minimal since it is only 'we do not reject this', but it is still an endorsement of sorts.12/17/2014 - 3:58pm
NeenekoHistorically there have been issues with libraries allowing some groups but not others. Perhaps 'endorsement' is too strong a word, but their editorial control IS a preapproval process, even if the standards are pretty minimal.12/17/2014 - 3:56pm
E. Zachary KnightLet's put this a different way. My local library allows any group to reserve and use multipurpose rooms. That does not mean that the Library endorses all events that take place in those rooms.12/17/2014 - 12:54pm
E. Zachary KnightValve's editorial control comes from removing problem games and accepting games to Steam. They make no claim over any games otherwise.12/17/2014 - 12:52pm
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, It is not at all a form of endorsement. Grenlight is an open forum for game developers to pitch their game to Valve/Steam and Steam users. Does Valve have some editorial control? Yes, but not to the point that they preapprove games.12/17/2014 - 12:51pm
Neeneko@EZK - I disagree. Greenlight is built off Valve's brand. While not an explicit endorsement, it is a form of it, otherwise Greenlight would have no value over other platforms.12/17/2014 - 12:05pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.latino-review.com/news/exclusive-viola-davis-bags-amanda-waller-role-in-suicide-squad Latino Review says Viola Davis will be Amanda Waller. History of Latino Review says "wait for a REAL news site to confirm".12/17/2014 - 10:48am
PHX Corphttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/17/7407869/assassins-creed-unity-glitch-broken-problems-xbox-one-patch -Facepalm- Screwup means Assassin's Creed Unity's patch is the 40GB full game on Xbox One12/17/2014 - 10:17am
PHX Corphttp://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7401769/the-mpaa-wants-to-strike-at-dns-records-piracy-sopa-leaked-documents Sony leaks reveal Hollywood is trying to break DNS, the backbone of the internet12/17/2014 - 10:05am
E. Zachary KnightA Game being on Greenlight is not an endorsement of said game by Valve, Steam or anyone related to Valve or Steam. Greenlight is a combined sales pitch to Steam and its users.12/17/2014 - 9:51am
E. Zachary KnightThe Life cycle of a Greenlight game: A game gets made->Developer puts it on Greenlight->Gamers vote for it->Valve decides it is worthy of a Steam release->Game is sold on Steam. While the game is merely on greenlight, it is not available for sale on Steam12/17/2014 - 9:50am
InfophileGreenlight games may in the future be sold through Steam. A game there may be "greenlit" and then sold on Steam proper, or it may not, and never actually be sold on steam. That quote refers to them selecting some games from Greenlight which they will sell12/17/2014 - 9:39am
MechaTama31"Today we’ve Greenlit another batch of 50 titles to advance through Steam Greenlight, and be offered worldwide distribution via Steam." Am I missing something here? Because it sounds like Greenlight games are sold through Steam.12/17/2014 - 9:00am
MechaTama31From the Greenlight page: "Browse through the entries here and rate up the games you want to see made available via Steam"12/17/2014 - 8:59am
MechaTama31Greenlight games aren't sold through Steam? Then what exactly *is* Greenlight?12/17/2014 - 8:58am
prh99I just wish if they are going to curate (as selective and rare as that is) for content, they'd do little for quality (like does this game actually function at all). Personally, I avoid GreenLight and Early Access like the plague because of lax standards.12/17/2014 - 1:34am
prh99EZK: My point wasn't that they are responsible for people's purchase decisions, but that their policies and criteria for approval needs some work. As far as refunds go, you know it's bad when EA has a better policy. EA, former worst company in America.12/17/2014 - 1:21am
Andrew EisenAnd 'Hatred' is back on Steam Greenlight. No comment from Valve so far as I've seen.12/17/2014 - 12:14am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician