Grandma Sues Over Hot Coffee Mod

Bond_James writes "Ars Technica is reporting that an 85-year old New York woman has filed a civil suit against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive. She alleges that the defendants 'engaged in misleading and deceptive practices in packaging and selling' the game, which she purchased for her 14-year old grandson. This will be interesting, and scary, to watch unfold in the courtrooms. Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?"

Comments

Wow, people are fools

[Altizar]

The story says she bought the game in 2004, that means it was the ps2 version. The only way to accees the mod for that version is if you have a modchip and manualy modify the files (or so every other story says). Anyway is it not her fault for buying a 14 year old a game desgined for 17+.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Iriel]

From what I read, it doesn't mention if this woman's grandson even accessed the Hot Coffee game anyway. If that's true, then she's just suing R* because 'it's there' and that offends her.

Not only that, but it looks like she's filing the suit on her behalf as well as that of everyone deceived into buying a game that should have been rating AO. If she's suing on behalf of a group, shouldn't this be a class action suit? If not, she better not get much out of it.

Go grandma, go and represent everyone who bought this game for kids under 17 without recognizing that the game is pretty damned offensive without the mod.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[garett_spencley]

I'm looking at the package for my PC version of SA right now.

On the back it describes the reasons for being rated Mature. Here they are.

1. Blood and Gore
2. Intense Violence.
3. Strong Language.
4. Strong Sexual Content
5. Use Of Drugs.

With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[over_exposed]

It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple. She purchased it for her 14-year-old grandson. Plain. And. Simple. It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip or any other scapegoat she can think of. The only problem here is that Grandma is contributing to the deliquency of a minor, she or her grandson broke the DMCA by installing the mod chip, and the kid's parents still let him play at Grandma's house.

Seriously...

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Nos.]

Here's a post I made on K5 yesterday:

So I had a look at ESRB's site. GTA: San Adreas was previously (I believe) rated M. By ESRB standards, that means that they suggest this content it fine for anyone 17 years or older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.. From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on. To me, this fits within sexual content. Of course, up here in Canada, I've seen worse things on TV during prime time, though we do tend to be a little more liberal with sex and language on TV then our neighbours to the south.

Now, they've bumped up the rating to AO. Which is okay for people 18 and over. I guess in those 12 months we're able to prepare ourselves to see what wouldn't even be considered soft porn. ESRB describes AO as ...may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity. So, a game centering on criminal activites that involve assinations, killing police, mugging people, hookers, etc. with lots of violence, a complete disregard for what most of us consider moral behvior, is much worse for our kids when it involves dry humping.

As other posters have mentioned, this is probably a marketing ploy by Rockstar. If this investigation happens, and they manage to prove that management knew about it, slap a fine on them and move on. Lets face it, if your kids are up watching any kind of cable TV when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. If they surf the net when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. Accoring to various sources, most kids are losing their virginty by 16. So, if you're worried that this game was rated 17+, realize that your child has probably done more sexually than this game shows, well before they're at an age where the ESRB thinks they're mature enough to see it.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[iCEBaLM]

Right, because 1 year (M=17, AO=18) makes so much difference.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence."

That's simple to explain: Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence. Parents think the way to prevent this is to pretend sex doesn't exist.

I don't think it's shocking at all. Then again, at my 10 year high school reunion, I'm going to reunite with a number of people that have 12 year old kids.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[milkman_matt]

Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.


What's unfortunate is Rockstar is REMOVING THE CONTENT, -and- changing the rating to AO... where's the sense in this? If it's being told they need an AO rating because ofo this content, I say they unlock that shit and rerelease the game as AO. If they're removing said content, they should be left with their M rating, in either case it's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in this case, say if she bought her 17y/o a copy of the game then realized it had sexual content then maybe there'd be room for her to argue, because as you stated, that one year makes a difference in legal terms, but he was 14!! and it SAYS all of the reasons why it's rated as such ON THE BOX, that's what I don't get... "Strong Sexual Content" ...wait there's sex in this game!? They show people having sex!? Why didnt' they say so!? I'm offended!

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Reapy]

I don't get it. I never will. It has nothing to do with rockstar and the game and everything to do with blowing an issue out of proportion and scapegoating rockstar.

Will no one get it straight in their stupid heads that this is only accessable by moding the game? There is no button sequence to press to unlock it, there are no in game mechanics to access it. You have to go in and modify the data in the game to access it.

This is the equivalent of downloading and playing modified level for half life that has porn on the wall.

The argument that the content was on the disk is rediculous. Who cares if it was on the disk? If you wanted to find it by looking at the disk contents, the worst you probably find would be a streched out uv map of a nude skin.

I just don't understand why millions of dollars need to be spent to discover that it's easier to cut content by removing access to it then destroying all the assets?

Rockstar provided no way shape or form for a game user to access this content. The only way to do such is to modify the game. MODIFY THE GAME!! Modifying the code is the same as adding in the nudity. It is the same as taking parts of various assets and construcing "lewd" pictures with it.

God damn, I hate people sometimes. I hate them so much. And this isn't even launching into the whole hypocritical outlook on violence vs sex in our rating schemes.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final." .. and far less frequent than teen pregnancy.

Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

I honestly don't understand why this concept is so alien to everybody here. Is it because you all think I'm writing that to say they're right? Well, I can put that fear to rest: No, I'm not saying they're right. I'm merely explaining why somebody would prioritize sexual conduct on TV over violence. I'm sorry that these people are living in a world of perception instead of a world of fact, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Frankly, though, I think you all should be listening to what I'm saying, here. (in case it's a little fuzzy, I've brought this up before and it was mindlessly shot down there, too.) You guys want want these people to chill before resorting to extremism, right? How are you going to do that if you're going to call them 'fools' instead of trying to understand where they're coming from?

Honestly, guys. I shouldn't have to put up my dukes every time I say something that's not quite in line with public opinion.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[okayplayer]

I would say "Finally!" if this was the first post I've seen with the right idea but (thankfully) its not. It is however the first post I've seen that makes the arugment completly. Who cares if the code was on the disc, as the game was sold, there was no way for the player to access those functions.

Whether the changes made to "unlock" the mini-game was 1 bit or a whole script swap, ANY modification of the game code, whether in the engine, the scripts, or even in a saved game file constitutes a violation of the EULA and creates a game that is no longer explicitly Rockstars.

That being said, I'd like to mod up Half Life to show me some humping... Anybody want to help out?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it."

Alternatively, in my years in high school, there was never any death. There were PLENTY of pregancies, though.

Maybe we come from different places. I doubt that's the diff, though. Nearly every teenager pursues sex. Frankly, I think you need to take a good hard look at why you chose the phrase "less chance of having sex". That implies that your lack of sex (apologies, not intending to sound insulting. ) wasn't the result of a lack of trying or at least really really wanting. Would I be correct in assuming your parents didn't really care much for protecting you from 'sexual content'?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[le_defaut_tragique]

If only the human body didn't reach reproductive age until our twenties, sex wouldn't be a problem. Teenagers are interested in sex because we are *supposed to be* in order to propogate the species. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that the average human lifespan wasn't much above thirty- about long enough to get to reproductive age and start reproducing and raising children.

Teen pregnancy is not at all a new phenomenon- it's the most natural thing in the world.

This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA

Grandma bought the game for her grandson. Her 14-year old grandson.

Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...

Re:This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?"

While the case can be made that taking a child to a R-rated movie is indeed contributing to delinquency, I'm going to focus instead on the second part of your statement:
Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

Wrong. Unless Grandma sits next to the child during every second of gameplay, sharing in the experience with him, it is not even remotely the same circumstance. The situation would be closer to Grandma getting the kid inside a theater where an R-rated movie is playing, and then leaving him to his own devices.

Next time, think through your analogy before you post, please.

Re:This line says it all.

[OhPlz]

If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

It's not the same. The parents supervise the child at the movies. I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

Re:This line says it all.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

What part of 'Mature - not for sale to under 17s' did she not understand?

Grandma bought it, and I'm assuming that she is not under 17. The real point should be: What the Hell was she doing buying a game that glorifies car theft, murder, and organized crime, for a 14 year old? This is a game that involves greasing police, mobsters, and by-standers, stealing cars, blowing things up, and just general anti-social behavior. But sex, something that even preachers do, is going too far? This lady is a moron.

Re:This line says it all.

[milkman_matt]

I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

For a 14 year old? hah, it shouldn't have made it past the intro in that case ;) Hell some of the game *I* was thinking "wow, that's f'd up." and I'm more than 'old enough' to play!

People need to .. I dunno, take responsibility for their own actions, or read ratings labels, or parent their children or something.. but that's probably asking waaaaay too much these days.

It's not Rockstar's fault that you're a bad parent, that GTA "taught your kid how to kill cops" or whatever that other story/lawsuit was, it's not rockstar's fault that you can't comprehend what a 'mature' rating means, or what the laundrylist of reasons for said rating on the back of the box, and it's not rockstar's fault that someone hacked the game and found a way to 'unlock' or 'add' a 'hidden' sex game. Rockstar put out a game, with a fair rating, and a ton of warnings about why it was rated the way it was, the game starts out with plenty of swearing and violence, and if you can't tell within the first 10 minutes of watching this game, after reading the box and the warnings that this game is not suitable for your child, then you have no room to go after Rockstar once you find out that 'everybody's doing it'.

The first of many

[Shimdaddy]

Let this be the first of many comments to say that this is officially retarded. To buy a game that is rated for someone older than your child and then sue because content that is not accessible without serious binary editing is found is ridiculous. If your 14 year old wants cartoon sex, grandma, he can search for Hentai on google and find images far more erotic than in GTA.

Stupid.

[Sylver Dragon]

So, Granny fails to notice the M(17+) rating. Ok, it's not very prominent or well know. Then she completly ignores the box art, which I guess she could have overlooked on account of the way a lot of art is done these days. Finally, she didn't pick up on the fact that the game is named after a rather major felony. How oblivious do you have to be to buy this game for a 14 year old kid? Not to mention that she has managed to completly miss all of the noise made about the last installment. I'm sorry but she, and all of her offspring need to be scraped out of the gene pool as too stupid to breed.
Yes, she's an old granny, and may not get out much, but she has the ability to get a lawyer and sue, so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit. If she is able to track down a lawyer and start a lawsuit over this, she should have been capable of figuring out that this game may not have been appropriate for her grandson.

"Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..."

[pclminion]

"I thought my little grandson would only be partaking in the wholesome activities of running over dogs, raping prostitutes, murdering police officers, and slinging crack cocaine to street whores. But instead his precious little mind has been corrupted by THE EVILS OF CONSENSUAL SEX!"

Fuck you, grandma. You are, plain and simply, an idiot.

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[TripMaster Monkey]

I'm hoping she dies before anything comes of this.

I certainly don't. I'm hoping that she gets convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for buying a M-rated game for a 14-year-old, gets sentenced to a few weeks in a minimum-security institution (a lenient sentence due to her advnced age), and subequently dies in prison. I want this to be resolved before she shuffles off this mortal coil.

More interesting...

[SolarCanine]

...will be:

(a) will Rockstar report her to the local Dept of Social Services for providing the game to the 14 year old,

(b) will Rockstar turn around, if this lawsuit actually proceeds, and sue the modders for violating EULAs, and

(c) will Rockstar bite the bullet and start refusing to submit their games voluntarily to the ESRB for rating at all?

As far as I'm concerned, the hype surrounding this, the Congressional involvement, and the lack of parental responsibility in the equation are far more criminal than anything that Rockstar has done.

She's culpable

[Quarters]

I wrote about this on my blog yesterday. Here are the important bits

She's suing not only for herself, but for "everyone else who purchased the game." Since I purchased it I am someone she thinks she is protecting. So let me talk to Ms. Florence Cohen of NY directly for a second...

Hey, Flo, I don't need your protection. I can read the labels on the box just fine by myself.

Yes, GTA:SA is a mature game. That's why it was sold with an ESRB rating of "M" (now "AO" for adults only). "M" games are sales limited to people who are seventeen years of age or older. Rockstar, Take Two, the reseller, and the clerk at the store did nothing wrong by selling Ms. Cohen GTA:SA. That is, unless she is only sixteen yet has managed to have two generations of Cohens come after her. Her mistake was her own. She gave an "M" title to a person under the age of seventeen. If the government wants laws to punish clerks who sell titles to people outside of the posted age ranges shouldn't there also be punishments for people who traffic these games to children? She, either intentionally or not, was corrupting her grandson by giving him a game that the game industry reviewed, rated, and clearly labeled as not suitable for him.

Outside of Ms. Cohen no one is at fault here. The voluntary rating worked, the box was clearly labeled with the restriction, and the store didn't sell the game to anyone under the proper age.

I'll close by suggesting a new title for the article, "Ignorant Grandmother who bought 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' without reading the label is suing the manufacturer instead of taking responsibility for her mistake".

Jay Leno

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Leno had a joke about this last night: "What the Hell was a grandma doing buying GTA for her kid anyway? Was the store out of beer and BB guns?"

It's a valid point: GTA is saturated with violence of some of the most offensive kind, a little sex should be the least of a parent or grand parent's worries, right? It's OK to grease police and mobsters, steal cars and blow things up, pick up hookers, but sex, now that's going too far?

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that McDonalds coffee suit was anything but frivolous.

But still, that was pretty damn funny.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[Pxtl]

Nonsense. There are numerous technical reasons for having contrary content included in the game that is not designed ever to be exposed to human eyes. For example, in the sims the models get naked, and are blurred - the blur code can be disabled. Alternately, a hypothetical game could actually model the characters as naked models and put clothes over them (similar to barbie dolls) for better cloth physics. I expect that will be happening in games in a few years. Likewise, if a scripted screen includes a naked model, but the camera shot only shoots from the neck up, then a case similar to rockstar could occur.

External content is external content - even if it's just flipping a bit.

Re:Family Services

[Farmer Tim]

Sue the Catholic church for including "Song of Solomon" in the Bible. Sue the Protestants while you are at it.

No, violence and sex are OK, as long as you call it "smiting" and "knowing". That's why the bible isn't M-rated.

Its pretty "known" up, really.

15 Minutes of Infamy

[mabu]

This isn't about the video game. By now that should be obvious to most people.

This is about some opportunitstic, sleazebag lawyer and an 85-year-old incompetent parental figure trying to make a quick buck, or get their 15 minutes of attention.

The less we talk about this frivolous lawsuit and the losers involved, the better.

Exactly.

[8086ed]

This is all fucking stupid. If I wanted to see naked people, I'd download some porn. I don't have the desire to watch pixels porking each other. It takes a lot more know-how to mod a game or install a patch than it does to get on Kazaa and download some hardcore stuff.

If this kid would mod his PS2 to watch the Hot Coffee game, I'd say he already has a couple gigs of porn on his computer. Who's gonna get sued for that?

I can't wait to get my Hot Coffee shirt tomorrow.

Harmful influence on minors

[Alsee]

In related news her 14 year old grandson has been arrested for stealing cars, running over police, and beating hookers to death with Giant Purple Dildos.

-