GameDaily reports on data released by Nielsen which holds that 17% of Grand Theft Auto IV buyers were under 17.

But in 39% of those cases someone else - typically a parent - actually purchased the game, which means that the actual number of unassisted underage buyers was about 10%.

While GameDaily and other outlets are finding alarm in these numbers, the 10% figure is actually twice as good as might have been expected.

Why?

In April the FTC released data showing that 20% of its underage secret shoppers successfully purchased M-rated content, the game industry's best result ever. The Nielsen data effectively doubles the game industry's ratings enforcement effectiveness. From the Nielsen report:

61% of these younger gamers indicated that they purchased the M-rated game themselves, with 39% of the young gamers responding that someone else bought the game for them," Nielsen said. "Interestingly enough, parents/guardians were pegged as the biggest facilitators for getting the controversial game into the hands of these young respondents, garnering 80% of the response. Friends, siblings and other relatives rounded out the other 20% of the response.

The GTA IV numbers also look pretty good when stacked up against a new Dartmouth study which says that 48% of minors have been exposed to R-rated movies.

GP: Obviously, you'd like to see zero sales to underage buyers, but we don't live in a perfect world. These results are a significant improvement over the 2008 FTC numbers, which were deemed extremely impressive when released.

It is great to see Nielsen providing this kind of data, as it gives context to the ratings enforcement issue. It's the kind of the data the industry ought to be providing on its own, however.

Just-released survey data from parenal advisory website What They Play maintains that parents worry more about their kids' exposure to video games than alcohol, violence and pornography.

From WTP's press release:

Nearly 3,000 respondents in two separate What They Play polls concluded that drinking beer and watching pornography were less objectionable activities for children than playing certain video games. Further, viewing violence was more acceptable than seeing content involving sex and sexuality within games.

WTP president John Davison commented:

These poll results demonstrate that parents are as apprehensive about their children’s media diets as they are about traditional social issues such as alcohol, drugs, violence and sex. When it comes to video games, parents should know that What They Play is a resource that helps demystify one of the most popular – and challenging – forms of entertainment their kids are into.

Dr. Cherly Olson, co-author of Grand Theft Childhood, is also quoted in the press release:

Although these findings seem surprising at first, they hint at fears parents have about video games. To some parents, video games are full of unknowable dangers. While researching for Grand Theft Childhood, parents we spoke with in focus groups often bemoaned the fact that they didn’t know how to use game controls - and felt unequipped to supervise or limit video game play. Of course, parents don’t want their children drinking alcohol, but that’s a more familiar risk.

According to WTP's data, here's what parents found most offensive in video games:

• a man and woman having sex (37%)
• two men kissing (27%)
• a graphically severed head (25%)
• multiple use of the F-word (9%).

Parents apparently worry about what their kids are playing on sleepovers, too:

The second poll... queried parents on what they’d be most concerned about their 17-year-old child indulging in while at a sleepover. More than 1,600 respondents revealed they’re more apprehensive about their child smoking marijuana (49%) and playing the video game Grand Theft Auto (19%), than watching pornography (16%) and drinking beer (14%).

GP: If accurate, the data poses some interesting challenges for the video game industry, starting with building parental confidence in game content as well as the means by which mature-themed games are kept away from younger players.

Labour MP Keith Vaz, long a critic of violent video games, has taken umbrage to the BBFC's rating of new Batman flick The Dark Knight.

As reported by The Register, Vaz and Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith object to the film's 12A rating, which means that under 12s can see The Dark Knight if accompanied by their parents:

...Vaz said: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 classification."

 

Vaz, who has previously railed against video game violence, wants to get the BBFC before his committee's hearings on knife crime later in the year. Presumably its representatives will be required to explain what they think they're doing fostering violent knifey rages in children...

 

The BBFC has defended its rating, admitting that while it was a "borderline" decision, the violence is in over-the-top comic-book fashion and does adhere to the guidelines for a 12A certificate. With a 15 certificate, said spokeswoman Sue Clark, "Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it. We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't."

 In light of Vaz'z criticism, it's interesting to note that the BBFC will soon take over video game rating chores if the British government has its way.

If the entire front cover of a video game box was covered by an age rating, do you think parents might notice?

A post over at GoNintendo shows what might be a new trend of plus-sized game ratings in Germany. An illustration at GoNintendo shows poor SpongeBob mostly obscured by the game's USK (Germany’s software rating organization) rating.

Curious, we checked out Nintendo’s German website and browsed through over three hundred games. We found only two that had the enlarged USK ratings: Wario Land and a math game for the DS. The rest were no larger than your run-of-the-mill ESRB, PEGI, or BBFC rating. 

Unless they've been playing too much real-life beer pong, GamePolitics readers will likely recall the recent flap over the Wii-ware title formerly known as Beer Pong.

Released this week with an E rating, the renamed Pong Toss from JV Games sparked earlier protests from educators as well as a call from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) for the ESRB to re-rate the game as Adults Only.

Time has now bellied up to the bar to offer own examination of the Beer Pong controversy and finds that it was predictable given concerns over binge drinking:

Perhaps, in retrospect, JV Games should have seen this coming. After all, drinking games and video games may be two of college-kids' favorite pasttimes, but they are also a source of constant complaints from their middle-aged parents...

 

The controversy isn't entirely surprising. The point of beer pong is to get your friends drunk... Last fall, Georgetown University banned beer-pong... The University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Tufts University have also banned drinking games.

 

The anti-pong activism strikes JV Games' [co-owner Jag] Jaegar as somewhat fruitless. As long as students "have access to alcohol, they will create drinking games out of any activity," he says. More to the point, if students have access to alcohol, they'll drink it — no games necessary.

Some rather curious developments out of the U.K. yesterday... 

Early on, James Kirkup, political correspondent for The Guardian, wrote a story to the effect that the British government would recommend that the BBFC, which rather famously banned Manhunt 2 last year, should rate games for the UK market. Kirkup predicted the official word would come today.

Later yesterday, ELSPA, which represents UK game publishers, called Kirkup's report "speculation" and "scaremongering."

Yet Kirkup has proved prescient. As Edge reports this morning:

A report from the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media, and Sport has revealed that body’s preference in BBFC ratings over the industry self-regulating PEGI system...

 

the committee maintains that BBFC ratings are more “thorough and rigorous" than the PEGI system, and that the BBFC symbols “command greater confidence”... 

Meanwhile, the CMS committee's report itself concludes:

There is a distinct issue about labelling of video games to indicate the nature of their content. Two systems currently exist side by side: the industry awards its own ratings, and the British Board of Film Classification awards classifications to a small number of games which feature content unsuitable for children. The dual system is confusing, and Dr [Tanya] Byron recommended that there should instead be a single hybrid system. We believe that Dr Byron's solution may not command confidence in the games industry and would not provide significantly greater clarity for consumers.

 

While either of the systems operated by the BBFC and by the industry would be workable in principle, we believe that the widespread recognition of the BBFC's classification categories and their statutory backing offer significant advantages which the industry's system lacks. We therefore agree that the BBFC should have responsibility for rating games with content appropriate for adults or teenagers, as proposed by Dr Byron, and that these ratings should appear prominently. Distributors would of course be free to continue to use industry ratings in addition.

Gizmodo terms the CMS recommendation "decisive," adding:

The decision will come as a real blow to the pan-European games rating system, PEGI, backed by games software developer organisation, ELSPA as well as big guns like Microsoft, Nintendo and Ubisoft.
 

As GamePolitics reported last month, Sen. Thomas Duane (D) was the lone member of the New York State Senate to vote against a video game bill that was eventually signed into law by Gov. David Paterson. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Andrew Lanza (R) was approved by a 61-1 margin in the New York Senate.

An enterprising GP reader who happens to be a New York resident (and who wishes to remain nameless) wrote to the State Senator regarding his stance on the legislation:

Dear Sen. Duane

 

...I would like to congratulate you on your lone opposition vote on the above referenced bill... As informed citizens are aware, this law addresses none of the issues associated with video games, redundantly mandates provisions that are already in place such as per product industry ratings and console parental controls, establishes yet another toothless advisory committee, and likely constitutes a violation of the First Amendment...

 

I welcome government efforts in the form of education for parents, but do not welcome intrusive government efforts to usurp parents' role as arbiter of their children's exposure to mass media.

Dear Mr. [GP reader]:

 

...Senator Duane shares many of your concerns about S.6401-A.  He recognizes that there is already an effective, voluntary [ESRB] rating system in place... and that parental controls are available on all current video game consoles.  Parents should determine which games their children have access to and the marketplace should decide which games sell and which do not.  

 

Like you, Senator Duane questions this bill's constitutionality and points to the fact that similar bills have been struck down in other jurisdictions.  He regrets that he was the lone voice in dissent on this matter.

GP: It's great to see gamers involving themselves in the political process and even better to see an elected official who writes back with something more than a form letter.

As GamePolitics reported this morning, a story in British newspaper The Telegraph claims that the U.K. government has already chosen the BBFC over industry favorite PEGI as the nation's future rating system.

MCVUK is now reporting that ELSPA, which represents U.K. game publishers, has disputed The Telegraph's story. An ELSPA rep told MCV:

The reports in parts of Fleet Street are, we would suggest, purely speculation. It is scaremongering and should be treated as such. The Government is now entering into a consulation period in which in which we are assured all the issues are being considered.

No decision has been made, and ELSPA will be fully engaged in this process in the months ahead.

GP: We can't help but note that ELSPA - not the British government - is denying the story about what the British government plans to do.

In the ongoing debate over which content rating scheme to use, British government officials appear to be coming down on the side of the BBFC rather than the PEGI system favored by the video game industry.

As reported by the Telegraph, on Thursday government ministers will issue proposals to tighten rules concerning ratings and expand the role of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in rating games:

All computer games will have to carry cinema-style age classifications under new Government plans to protect children from scenes of explicit sex and disturbing violence.

 

Online computer games where players interact with strangers via the internet also face new classification rules for the first time.

The official action is being taken in response to recommendations made by Dr. Tanya Byron (left). The TV psychologist undertook a government-funded study in 2007 to examine the effects of video games and the Internet on children.

The Telegraph predicts a "fierce backlash" from UK game publishers:

Many games makers have strongly opposed moves to expand the BBFC's role in classifying games. The [game industry] group will today host a meeting in London of software chief executives to discuss how best to resist the expansion of the BBFC's role in rating games.

 

Games makers are mounting a lobbying campaign to discredit the BBFC, arguing that it lacks the expertise for the task. Games makers argue that parental education about games is more important than new classification rules.

While the industry may think the BBFC too restrictive, at the other end of the spectrum, Conservative Parliamentarian Julian Brazier believes the organization isn't tough enough:

The guidelines are too weak on the part of the BBFC. I don't believe it is an adequate guarantor of standards. Only the [video game] industry can appeal the BBFC's decisions, so in practice, classifications can only be reduced. We should have a system like that in Australia, where any member of the general public can ask for an age classification to be reviewed.

The BBFC is best known in the gaming community for its controversial 2007 decision to ban Manhunt 2. That ruling was later overturned on appeal.

The Telegraph is also running an FAQ on the government plan which mentions the government timetable:

Ministers will on Thursday open a four-month consultation on their proposals, trying to win agreement from the games industry for tighter classification. The final rules will be drawn up after that and are likely to be implemented next year.

Last week GamePolitics broke the news that Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) had introduced video game legislation.

The bill, S.3315, enjoys the support of watchdog group the Parents Television Council. If made law, it would:

...prohibit the distribution or sale of video games that do not have age-based content rating labels [and]  prohibit the sale or rental of video games with adult content ratings to minors...

Did we mention that Wicker is running for re-election?

In any case, we now have the full text of S.3315. It is the Senate version of a measure currently before the House. HB 5990, the Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT).

Did we mention that Terry and Matheson are also running for re-election?

On Friday GamePolitics reported on an incredibly clueless TV performance by a panel of Australian politicians and media types. 

For example, while bashing video games at length, the panel members did not even seem to realize that Australia has a rating system for games in place.

Their ill-informed rhetoric came in response to an audience question about game censorship and Australia's proposed R18 rating. As it turns out, the guy wearing the Fallout 3 t-shirt who asked the question (left) is an editor with Aussie site GameArena. "Joaby" describes the experience:

As you can see, what happened was far from a serious discussion on the merits of an R Rating for video games and government censorship. Instead, at large, the panelists were led into a discussion of violent video games and, due to archaic views of the average gamer, the discussion primarily devolved into the same "protect the children" commentary the public has heard for years.

Fortunately, what occurred on the show only served to highlight the exact issue at hand... Due to the format of the show it was nigh on impossible for me to refute even the more ludicrous and fantastic claims (Avatar: the rape game by Barnaby Joyce was particularly hard to keep quiet about) meaning the show simply continued to propagate the same antiquated idea already present in the general media about video games.
 

GP: Check out Friday's story if you missed the video. It's a classic. We've also created a helpful transcript to go along with the video...

A panel of Australian politicians and pundits made a sorry show of themselves on ABC's Q&A program last night.

The rampant cluelessness begins when an audience member (sporting a Fallout 3 t-shirt) raises the issue of banned video games due to Australia's lack of an R18+ rating. The announcer mentions the recent Fallout 3 ban, which was based on in-game drug use.

The panel's answers are astounding. Aside from their immediate willingness to censor games, they seem not to even be aware that Australia has a system for rating games. One member of the panel even raises the spurious "rape in games" issue - and almost seems to compare banned games to snuff films. Only Sen. Mark Arbib comes across as unbiased:

Announcer: Okay, so here's the question... Should there be censorship of these things, or should people over the age of 18 be able to buy these things with an R rating and play them, even though, as we've just heard, they're obviously extremely violent?

Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout: Look, I mean if they're over 18, they'll find one way or another to get hold of it, Tony, and they do. But, as a mother of three kids, two of whom spend an awful lot of time playing these sorts of games, I mean I just find the whole thing appalling, the minds that come up with this stuff. Now Grand Theft Auto is one of the more famous games that seemed to turn everyone into a car thief, you know?. My Jordan thankfully didn't do that. But... I mean I'm not a censorship girl... But violent games, violence breeds violence. It's not nice.

Senator Nick Xenophon: I think we need to listen to the psychologists who've looked into this. And this is different in the sense it's interactive. People get immersed in these games and I think there's a real risk. I think as a society we can live without it.

Announcer: But does the risk warrant censorship?

Sen. Xenophon: Look, I think it does, when you look at some of the concerns of what it can trigger in some minds, then I think we need to be just a bit cautious about it.

Sen Mark Arbib: To actually ban them they must be terrible games. So, personally, I'm probably thinking R rating over the age of 18 is fine because as you said, if you wanna play to game, you're going to get it somehow. But I haven't seen the games so I really can't judge whether they should be banned or not.

Announcer: ...these things are being banned because there isn't a rating system on video games... that means anyone of any age can buy them...

Sen. Arbib: As I said, I think there's a strong argument to actually have a rating system, for all games, no doubt about it. And not just an R rating, but ratings just the same as ratings for the movies... so yeah...

Sen. Barnaby Joyce: You can't just say you can see it, therefore you should be allowed to see it, otherwise you legalize snuff movies and all sorts of profane things which I don't think take our society ahead... we had the thing with avatars, is that the right term, where people can actually go out and rape people. Now, this is not acceptable. You have to draw a line... you must take into account... those who are vulnerable to influence, how they would be affected by that. And if you don't, well you suffer what comes next. I, too have four kids... I want these kids to grow up in quiet, unaffected streets. And if there's someone playing a video game where they're raping someone, I'm not feeling good about the place, so, knock it out.

Christine Jackman, Journalist: I agree, we urgently need a rating system. I'm not a pro-censorship person, either... (to the audience member in the Fallout 3 t-shirt who asked the question) Can I throw it back on you... why would you want to play it...?

Audience member: I want to play the game because it's a story-driven experience that you could experience in a movie... however the Australian government won't let me.

Christine Jackman: And how many hours do you think you or your friends would be playing those games a day?

Audience member: It differs between everyone... the average gamer is anyone nowadays. The Queen has a Wii... it's not a question of who's playing them or how long they're playing them, it's a question of whether we're allowed to as adults...

Other audience member: ...I'm not a gamer, but in terms of restricting people's right to choose... how can you make that distinction between pokies [slot machines] and games which might be socially unacceptable when gambling itself, in our society in particular, has so many social problems than what might be caused by violent games? 

GP: Thanks to reader Michael 'sod' Pearse for the heads-up!

Long Island's Regional News Network has a video report on New York's controversial video game law...

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) yesterday introduced a bill in the United States Senate which would:

...prohibit the distribution or sale of video games that do not have age-based content rating labels [and]  prohibit the sale or rental of video games with adult content ratings to minors...

The full text of the bill, S.3315 is not yet available on the Senate's legislative website. Thus far the bill has no co-sponsers. The measure has been referred to the Senate's Committe on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

GamePolitics has received unconfirmed word that Wicker's bill is the Senate version of the Video Games Rating Enforcement Act introduced in the House by Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Lee Terry (R-KS) earlier this year.

Wicker, a longtime Congressman, was appointed to his Senate seat by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on New Year's Eve to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Sen. Trent Lott. Perhaps not surprisingly, Wicker is running for election. He must face Mississippi voters in November in a special election to fill out the rest of Trent Lott's term.

(note: this PTC secret shopper survey is not related to the one conducted by Baltimore's ABC-2 that GamePolitics has reported on over the past couple of days)

Watchdog group the Parents Television Council has issued a secret shopper report in which video game retailers fared noticeably worse than in results issued by the Federal Trade Commission in April.

Overall, the PTC claims that game retailers sold M-rated titles to underage buyers 36% of the time. As reported by GamePolitics, the FTC's secret shoppers succeeded in buying M-rated games at only a 20% rate.

As in the the FTC study, GameStop and Best Buy did very well, according to the PTC. Both retailers sold to underage buyers just 8% of the time. Circuit City (60%), K-Mart (50%), Hollywood Video (50%) and various local and regional stores (47%) compiled the worst results.

PTC president Tim Winter (left) was harshly critical of the video game industry in the PTC's press release:

...a disturbing percentage of video game retailers are failing to prevent America’s children from purchasing violent and sexually graphic video games.  Any failure rate is problematic, but the failure rate we’re seeing is downright pathetic.  Similar to age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, pornography and other products that are potentially harmful to children, parents deserve a reasonable expectation that age restrictions for adult entertainment products will be enforced at the retail level.

 

It is outrageous that retailers are not exercising greater responsibility, and even more absurd that there are no meaningful consequences for those retailers who ignore their industry’s own age restriction policies... 

 

The video game industry would have us believe that the 1/5 failure rate as reported by the FTC is acceptable and that parents need not worry.  Our analysis shows a 1/3 failure rate.  Perhaps the retailers felt the pressure was off after the FTC’s report was published... While we applaud Game Stop and Best Buy for their commitment to abide by their corporate age restriction policies, the other retailers should be ashamed and must act immediately to improve.

Winter also used the report as a platform to support new legislation introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS). The bill targets video game ratings. GamePolitics coverage of the bill is upcoming.

Here is the data on various retailers as issued by the PTC (updated, as Blockbuster was left off of their original version):

MCVUK writes that Entertainment Software Association CEO Michael Gallagher (left) endorsed the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) rating system over that of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) during last week's state-of-the-industry speech at E3 in Los Angeles.

From the MCVUK report:

As part of his keynote speech, Gallagher was critical of the Byron Report’s highly controversial backing of the BBFC system – and made it clear that the Entertainment Software Association believes it was the wrong way to go.

MCVUK is referring to this section of the Gallagher speech:

Friends and allies across the globe are facing their own challenges. Our success as a business and entertainment medium has caught the attention and the interest of foreign regulators and governments. Earlier this year we saw the release of the Byron Report, which praised the ESRB's work with retailers to help enforce sales restrictions to minors. We are now seeing a robust debate between the BBFC and PEGI. And while this is a European question requiring a European solution, our American experience proves that industry self-regulation is the best way to provide parents the information they need to make appropriate purchasing decisions.

Frankly, we're not reading Gallagher's remarks as expressing criticism of the Byron Review, although the ESA head's preference for self-regulation is clear. On the other hand, it would be natural for the ESA to back PEGI, as its UK game industry counterparts, including publishers' group ELSPA, have expressed a clear distaste for handing game rating responsibilities over to the BBFC.

We've got a request in to the ESA for clarification on Gallagher's view. In the meantime, you can read the full text of Gallagher's E3 speech here.

Q: Who sponsored New York's video game law?

A: There were two identical versions, one in the NY State Assembly and another in the NY State Senate. The Assembly version (A.11717) was sponsorsed by Assemblyman Joseph Lentol (D, Brooklyn). The Senate version (S.6401-A) was sponsored by Sen. Andrew Lanza (R, Staten Island).

Q. How was it voted on in the legislature?

A. The Assembly version was passed 137-1. The Senate version passed 61-1.

Q. How did the bill get to be law?

A. After approval by the Assembly and Senate, Gov. David Paterson (D) signed it into law on July 22nd.

Q. Is this the same legislation that former Gov. Spitzer was favoring before his hooker incident cost him his job?

A. No. The bill under consideration last year would have made selling an M-rated game to a minor a felony crime. There is no such provision in this law.

Q. What does the law require?

A. The law requires:

• Video games sold by retailers in New York State which have a "standardized" and "commonly used" (e.g., ESRB)  rating must display that rating on the outside of their packaging.
• New console systems sold in NY State must have parental controls
• A 16-member advisory council, appointed by the Governor, will a.) study the relationship between violent media and youth violence b.) evaluate the effectiveness of the ESRB rating system and make recommendations concerning it c.) study the potential of creating a parent-teacher violence awareness program to identify and assist potentially violent student

Q: Does the law apply to games sold online as well as in retail stores?

A: No. Although Sen. Lanza's website initially claimed that it did, a reading of the legislation shows that "mail order" businesses, which under NY law include online retailers, are exempt from the rating requirements. GamePolitics contacted Sen. Lanza's staff, which said that the online comment was a mistake and does NOT apply. The law applies ONLY to so-called "brick and mortar" retailers.

Q: Are the current ESRB ratings & content descriptors sufficient to meet the requirements of the law?

A: Yes. As long as a video game available at retail displays an ESRB rating and its associated content descriptors (and they already do), the retailer is in compliance.

Q. What about small publishers or independently created games which are not submitted for an ESRB rating?

A. As long as they are sold via online, no problem. They aren't required to be rated.

Q. Are used games subject to the law?

Yesterday GamePolitics reported on the first part of a video game retail sting conducted by reporter Joce Sterman of Baltimore's ABC-2. Readers may recall that Best Buy registered a perfect score by turning down an underage secret shopper during all three attempts to purchase M-rated game. Target? Not so good...

In part 2, GameStop came up a winner, also registering a perfect score. That's not too surprising given that the Federal Trade Commission reported earlier this year that GameStop clerks successfully carded the government agency's secret shoppers 94% of the time.

Wal-Mart and Circuit City, however, did not fare as well. From the ABC-2 report:

[The secret shopper] was also carded at the Circuit City in Towson, but employees at two of their other stores in Catonsville and Rosedale didn't even ask...  The games he pocketed from those places were Prey and Vice City Stories from the notorious Grand Theft Auto series... 

 

Our mystery shopper got plenty of action on his trips to Wal-Mart.  One store in Pikesville turned him down, but two others in Towson and Port Covington were a success on the sale... This time he walked away with Timeshift and Halo 3. 

Both Circuit City and Wal-Mart issued statements apologizing for their employees. Circuit City said:

We will talk with management at the stores to determine exactly what happened.  When we do, we will take appropriate action... Circuit City does not carry video games and computer software which receive the "Adult Only" rating... Our store associates receive training regarding the sale of mature content when they first start to work at Circuit City and ongoing training on the subject...  Store associates are instructed that failure to enforce the policy could result in consequences up to and including termination of employment.

From Wal-Mart: 

Though we do not have the details of your report and it sounds like an isolated situation, we are working with management at these two stores who already are taking steps to ensure associates understand the importance of ID check and this policy.