Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Trips Up Settlement In Hot Coffee Class-Action

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the isn't-it-cold-coffee-by-now dept.

GamePolitics is reporting that a judge has put another substantial hurdle in the Hot Coffee class-action case. Claiming that individuals involved in the suit could be affected differently by laws in their respective states, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram declared that this case could not be resolved by a single proceeding. "'Accordingly, the court decertifies the settlement class on the grounds that common issues do not predominate over individualized issues,' the judge wrote. The judge's latest decision undermines a settlement agreement reached between lawyers for purchasers of the game who contended they were offended by the hidden scenes, on the one hand, and lawyers for the game's makers, Take-Two Interactive Software and Rockstar Games."

26 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. oh that Hot Coffee by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought that McDonald's case was resolved years ago.

    --
    Work Safe Porn
  2. The Judge is an Idiot! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Informative

    The judge who allowed certification of this as a class action lawsuit in the first place is an idiot! You've suppose to realize these things before allowing a class action lawsuit to proceed as such.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The Judge is an Idiot! by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not how it works. The judge in this case approved a conditional class, but never granted a final class certification. They were supposed to be doing class discovery, which means do factual investigation about whether the plaintiffs really should be certified as a class. Last year Rockstar filed an objection to class certification, then while that was pending decided to negotiate a settlement. Don't blame the judge for their mistake.

  3. Another hot coffee lawsuit that ended poorly... by mrroot · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on?" - Jackie Chiles

    --
    I Heart Sorting Networks
  4. Money for nothing by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No amount of money can repair my psychological damage at having seen two poorly drawn, scantily clad video game characters going on it, but I'll take 2 million.

    1. Re:Money for nothing by davecrist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that sentence should end with "... but my *lawyers* will take millions and I'll take my $10."

    2. Re:Money for nothing by Digital+End · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No amount of money can repair my psychological damage at having seen two poorly drawn, scantily clad video game characters going on it, but I'll take 2 million.

      Well then you shouldn't have researched moding your game to put it in, and you shouldn't have downloaded the mod for the game to allow a removed part.

      Personally I'm still waiting on my check for The Elder Scrolls; Oblivion. All I had to do was download the bodies mod from an adult only mod site, installed it and added the needed files, and then dragging the bodies of two female characters I killed which weren't in referance to the storyline of the game at all into sexual poses... and then THERE WAS PORN IN THE GAME!!!!

      I also have a case going against photoshop. Seems like EVERY photo I find now days only takes a few hours editing to make both men and women appear naked with the naughty bits pulled from online porn.

      Won't someone think of the children!!!

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  5. What I want to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could the plaintiffs please explain how they could possible wilfully hack and modify their software to show the hidden content widely described in the same forums where the hack was made available, and then become upset that the visual results of the hack were exactly as advertised by the purveyors of the software modification?

    1. Re:What I want to see... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it's quite simple, your honour. We have no real plausible explanation, but proving this will cost thousands of dollars and there's always the risk that the plaintifs may come up with something we haven't considered. There is absolutely no chance of getting the money back and it's cheaper to just settle.

      Justice is something the legal system has considered but decided to eliminate as too much hassle.

  6. This case should have been finished long before by 99luftballon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After all, judging from the very low number of people who actually filed a complaint, 2,676 at the last count, it wasn't really an issue anyway. The Hot Coffee mod was difficult to install and, while it was stupid to leave it in the game, the company has been punished enough.

    1. Re:This case should have been finished long before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't even 'hidden content' it was a hack you applied to the game to change the character models, a third party program take two has no control over, just like the idiots who have a 'nude' skin for world of warcraft.

      Its a computer game with a tweaked graphic overlay. you cannot 'accidentally' stumble over nude images, you have to go out of your way to a website, and put effort into HACKING YOUR GAME, which was probably against the ToS anyway.

    2. Re:This case should have been finished long before by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it was hidden content, that was the entire problem.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:This case should have been finished long before by BPPG · · Score: 5, Informative

      you're half right, but it was hidden content in the sense that it was inaccessible, at least without the patch or some memory hacking. It was there, the mini game was there and the skins were there. It wasn't even an Easter Egg. But it was still there in the game. All that the patch did was 'unlock' it.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    4. Re:This case should have been finished long before by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but with the same idea, I could make a patch of Mario that has Mario screaming curse words. The letters are there, but they aren't used in that order. Now, if it was something that if you typed in "Naked People!!!" you would see it, I could possibly understand this, but when you are editing values, then I should take a hex editor to any game and give the same results.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. Just Plain Dumb by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You bought a game. No one forced you to buy it. You hear about a patch that opens up some secret stuff. It would have been pretty hard to not have heard something about the type of content when hunting down the patch. You go ahead and apply the patch so you can see the content. No one forced you to apply the patch. In fact, you had to go out of your way to do so. You are offended. So fucking what! If I pay money and walk into a clearly marked XXX movie theater, should I be able to sue them because I was offended by raunchy sex scenes?

    These are people just looking for a free ride.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Just Plain Dumb by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      What if they forgot to mention that Ron Jeremy was one of the stars? I think you could have sued for that....

    2. Re:Just Plain Dumb by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So fucking what! If I pay money and walk into a clearly marked XXX movie theater, should I be able to sue them because I was offended by raunchy sex scenes?

      While I think this suit is ridiculous, that's not a very good example. XXX Movie theaters clearly show X rated movies. San Andreas was rated M, not AO.

      Further on that topic, and to play Devil's Advocate a little more, I can envision a scenario where a parent allows his/her teen to buy a game because it's rated 'M'. Then their teen goes on the Internet and downloads a patch, without the parent's knowledge or consent, that unlocks some stuff which in effect turns the 'M' rated game into an 'AO'. In this specific case we all feel it's absurd because the game contains pretty graphic material and the 'AO' stuff is sex. It's obvious that many slashdotters (myself included) feel that sex should warrant a milder rating than graphic violence. Yet that's kind of besides the point. The point is that the game was advertised as one thing and certain people were ok with that. At least, they knew what they were paying for. Then their kids or spouse or kids friends etc. go and download some free patch that turns it into something they didn't pay for. Should those people get money in court ? IMO no, but my opinion only really matters to me. This is an interesting case in that I can't think of any similar.

  8. I'm so offended by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me see if I understand the mindset...

    I'm offended! I buy a violent video game with sexual themes and references, then I find out there's a crack, which enables sexual content. I then hunt down, download and install the crack which activates scenes I'd never have seen had I not done so. When I'm done enjoying the crack - laughing at it, beating off at it, whatever these people do watching video game porn - I decide there's money to be made by being shocked, so I sue. After all the content was in the game and it wasn't rated correctly. I only had to take several deliberate steps to release it.

    Fucking idiots. Since you can't find a law that applies in all cases, I say apply the old biblical reference. If your eye offends you, pluck it out! While you're at it do the same to their legal counsel. No I'm not serious, but surely there are less stupid things to waste court time on.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  9. It's obvious what needs to happen here. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Funny

    Find the judge's car and stand in front of it. When he stops his car- and he will, walk over to the door, pull it open, then throw the judge on the ground. Then, drive around until you find a hooker. Sex with her will put you in perfect health... and if the cops get on your tail, just drive around for a while and they'll forget about you.

    --
    http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
  10. This will go on your permanent record by peipas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    idiot n. - Person who is fine with the ESRB rating of a game that allows fucking hookers in a swaying van, then killing them, then taking the money you just paid them, but files a complaint about hot coffee because of the rating. "Any settlement for the 2,676 complainants doubles as a searing, cherry-red brand of idiocy for life and thus serves us all."

    1. Re:This will go on your permanent record by StreetStealth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well now I bought this game for my grandson thinking it was just about good ol' wholesome gangland killing. And then I find out that the game actually has... sex in it!"

      I forget the source, but I'm basically paraphrasing the real complaint of some grandmother I recall reading back when the scandal broke. How we can live in a world where the dramatization of taking human life is considered fine but the dramatization of creating it is considered perverted and dirty is simply beyond my comprehension.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    2. Re:This will go on your permanent record by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, we do have too many people...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. End of wasted time by Pincus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't the players need to go out of their way to find the offensive material? No wonder the case was thrown out on the grounds of there not being a "class" for this class-action suit. Otherwise, we could all use torrents to download porn and then sue the entire internet for offending us.

  12. So if I... by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... you can find a G-rated MPEG2 of a movie distributed by NetFlix (ignore DRM for now) or some other source, and demonstrate a patch, which when applied to the movie file, inserts an X-Rated scene, you can sue the makers of the original movie, for making that possible?

    SWEET!

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  13. What gets me by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The raw absurdity of this case has already been stated many times over, but to restate: people who played a violent, aggressive game took the time and effort to seek out a bad "sex" scene, and are seeking cash to solve their irreparably damages.

    But what really gets me is the fact that the 3,000 people, and the theoretical defendants, have to pay legal fees. TFA says that the fees over this case have already gone into the millions! That is money wasted. Literally thrown down the drain. Not wasted like "I want to light cigars with 100 dollar bills," (which is a waste but looks PIMP) but literally millions of dollars have disappeared into an already overly rich system.

    They should have just walked in and said "Alright, look - this case is dumb. How about this: We donate half of our theoretical legal fees to Child's Play, which will help young children who actually need it, and you GTA-players can enjoy our product and, by not taking our money, ensure you continue getting the titles you love so much."

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  14. Analogy by Hyperspite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this is completely ludicrous, I think I have an analogy that might make sense in terms of why the case was allowed to proceed.

    Let's say you buy a house from a builder, but he leaves behind a bomb inside a bombproof shelter in the basement hidden under the foundation. If the bomb goes off, it won't hurt anyone or damage property. You can only find the bomb if you dig to it and drill through the thick retainer walls. There are warning signs on the outside of the shelter telling not to open it because there is a bomb inside. If you open it and it blows up, who was responsible?