Nintendo Slapped With Wiimote Strap Lawsuit Once Again

GameCyteSean writes "GameCyte is reporting that a new class-action lawsuit has challenged Nintendo's Wiimote straps once more. Interestingly, the suit was filed by the same lawyer who led the original 2006 attempt, and now argues that Nintendo hid records of broken TVs from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. From the article: 'This doesn't seem like a spurious accusation, either. Attached to the court filing (PDF) as a matter of public record is the very evidence Nintendo allegedly tried to hide: actual, internal Nintendo documents (PDF) where customer service reps received complaints of cracked televisions and broken Wiimote straps — and the corresponding Monthly Reports that Nintendo was compelled to file with the CPSC as part of their agreement.'"

Comments

Get a life

[mlwmohawk]

Seriously, if you break your TV with a remote, its your fault.

Re:Get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you think the average Star Wars nerd is more suspectible to this than the average jock. Really?

Re:Get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that they just whipped the remote at the T.V, it's the fact that they all had it attached to their wrist so even if you let go, it won't go anywhere (ideally). The lawsuit is over the wristband itself being nothing more than a false sense of security.

Re:Get a life

[jcr]

It all started when he was a little kid and he dropped his ice cream. His mommy immediately gave him another one to make him quit crying.

-jcr

Re:Get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

If your seatbelt broke because of the force of the crash what makes you think your body could handle that force if it didn't break?

Re:Get a life

[dougisfunny]

Actually, the strap was designed so you wouldn't accidentally drop the thing.

Not so you can hurl it.

An analogy that fits would be something like a climbing rope versus a bungee cord.

One is made for hurling your self from a height, the other is made for saving you from an accidental fall.

Re:Get a life

[HungryHobo]

No, this is stupid.

The wiimote works perfectly well without any strap at all.
The strap is an extra.
The strap shouldn't even be needed.

But someone went "you know what would be a good idea for safety? Adding a little strap, sure if someone puts hundreds of pounds of pressure on it it'll break but that's better than having no strap."

then idiots who think like you come along.

Re:Get a life

[plumby]

You probably should have sued the golf club manufacturers for not having a restraining strap and a warning not to let it hit people in the face...

Re:Get a life

[grumbel]

A useful thing to have in case you're incapable of holding on to a controller.

As demonstrated by dozens of accidents it is not useful in those situations, because it will fail there quite frequently. Its so hard to get? The strap has a single easy to understand function, it failed at that very function. Even Nintendo admits that, which is why they replaced it with a stronger one.

Re:Get a life

[Talderas]

"Every Wii game displays a caution screen upon loading to warn the player to use the strap in order to avoid the remote slipping from the grip during erratic movements." - wikipedia

I'm guessing the WiiMote wasn't designed to be thrown. If there's games that require throwing, you should look at who the developer was and go after the developers for requiring a WiiMote action that was not within the lines of the specs.

But of course the lawsuit won't go after the developer, they'll go after who has the deepest pockets.

Re:Get a life

[TrekkieGod]

It all started when he was a little kid and he dropped his ice cream. His mommy immediately gave him another one to make him quit crying.

To make him "quit" crying? If didn't assure your child that you would be getting him another ice cream immediately after he dropped his first one, you're a pretty goddamn horrible parent.

Look, I'm all about teaching responsibility and consequences of your actions, but why are you punishing a child for an accident? If the child purposefully dropped it you'd have a point, but if I dropped my ice cream, I'd get my wallet out and buy another one.

If you told your child to go to the person at the counter crying, and asking for another ice cream for free, that would be fostering entitlement. The correct thing to do here and say, "that was an accident, you dropped it. Accidents happen, but that's going to cost me money to replace it, so be more careful with the next one."

Re:Get a life

[Sapphon]

Given the quality of American beer, I'm surprised they drank half of it before throwing it away.

Re:Get a life

[TrekkieGod]

Your point is that accidents happen and we will give exemptions for them. In my household, accidents happen and you learn to be more careful so that they don't happen again.

No, my point is teaching that when you have an accident, you need to brush it off and try again. It's important to explain to them that the ice cream isn't free, that you're spending money, and to be careful. If the kid threw the ice cream on the ground, or was running around carrying the ice cream, that's another story, but kids have poor motor coordination. Accidents happen for no fault of their own.

If I'm buying a kid ice cream outside the house, and he accidentally drops it, I make him clean it up and buy another one. What you're doing is akin to telling you kid, "you fell off the bike. I'm not letting you ride anymore today" when you really should be teaching him to get back on the damn bike. No, if you make a mistake the lesson should be to think about what you did wrong, and then try again immediately after trying not to repeat that mistake without spending undue time thinking about how much the mistake hurt you. It has already happened, you can't change it, let's do it better this time.

Another poster who replied to me made a joke about making the kid pay for the second ice cream. He was joking and trying to make the opposite point, but I could actually get behind that. Kids who still drop ice cream are typically too young to have an allowance, but there's nothing stopping you from telling them to pay it back by doing some chore once you get back home. That's teaching responsibility: it's costing him something, but it's not dwelling on past mistakes.

Re:Get a life

[Chris Burke]

The lawsuit is over the wristband itself being nothing more than a false sense of security.

And I have to admit, that's always been the most surprising part to me, that the wiimote strap was under-engineered instead of over. Nintendo doesn't usually slouch on the durability of their products. There's tons of videos out there where the wiimote will hit a tv, a wall, the floor, etc, but the wiimote always works just fine even after multiple impacts. I saw one where some frat boy was playing Wii Baseball and was literally pitching fast balls and he threw the wiimote directly into a wall at close range twice. It worked fine.

But the straps were flimsy pieces of garbage? Even if the only purpose of the strap as far as Nintendo was concerned was so that you wouldn't drop it, I would have expected it to be strong enough to survive any abuse a player could dish out. The controller itself can, and it has to be harder to make a cheap plastic shell that can withstand that abuse than a cord.

I really never expected this from Nintendo. So I gotta say, even if I do think the lawsuit is a little silly, it's such a screwup I can't say they don't deserve it.

I'm dubious about this.

[nhaines]

Frankly, I've dropped my Wii remote a total of once, maybe twice. And I mean I let go of it while standing idle. None of my family was confused about whether they should throw the remote, and the only ones I've had to deal with were my godchildren who liked to swing the remotes while idle, and not let go while playing.

I don't find the remotes particularly difficult to grasp, and while I have replacement straps, I still have the originals on the remotes. As much as I feel bad for anyone who accidentally threw a remote through a window, lamp, or TV, I just have difficulty believing that somehow Nintendo is to blame for this, or that they should be liable.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Free the Cowards]

And just like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, it continues to sound silly even after becoming familiar with all the facts.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the wiimote is intended to NOT leave your hands.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's INTENDED to leave my hands at a high speed in an outdoor environment.

The Wii remote is not intended to leave your hands at any speed, it is also not intended for use in an outdoor environment.

You might as well complain that the Wii remote can't be used as a kitchen utensil, despite the implied promise made by Cooking Mama.

I don't think Nintendo should be held liable for people who throw their remotes, any more than they should be liable for damages caused by other misuses, like stirring cake batter.

However, if they really have hidden evidence from the court, as they are accused of, then they should be punished for that.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Karl0Erik]

So by your logic they wouldn't be liable if they hadn't supplied a strap despite the fact that this would have caused [i]more[/i] accidents, not less? In other words, car companies become liable for damages caused by car accidents because they have included seatbelts? Legally, you might have a point in that this indicates Nintendo considering this a potential problem and thus, legamagically, they are liable for said problem, but are you really saying that taking steps to prevent morons with cheeto-covered hands from destroying their TV because of overenthusiasm makes them liable for a TV that is destroyed despite their efforts? Does this mean that I could be charged with battery/murder/criminal charges if I try to help out a guy being beat up on the street, chase the attackers away but still fail to prevent him from dying in the hospital later? Why, exactly, does recognizing that if your customers act like morons and ignore the guidelines you suggest they might cause problems for themselves and making a small effort to prevent some of these problems make you a bad, bad company?

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[stuntpope]

My camera came with a strap. If I were dangling my camera by its strap, not holding the actual camera body, and the strap broke and my camera smashed to the pavement, it would never occur to me to sue the camera manufacturer. My thoughts, after the "oh shit" would be, "I shouldn't have been doing that and should have been more careful."

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[stuntpope]

This also got me thinking about guitars. The first thing a lot of guitarists do when they get a guitar is put strap locks on it. Some people feel that certain guitars have too small of strap buttons, or just in general they don't trust the ones that come on any guitar. I personally don't use locks, but have experienced and seen guitars hanging around the player by the strap, no hands, and suddenly the strap comes off and the guitar falls (I've caught mine, whew).

It's a known fact that there is a risk your guitar strap may slip off the guitar, and aftermarket strap locks address that risk. Yet I've never heard of lawsuits trying to get all guitar manufacturers, or strap manufacturers, to include strap locks or otherwise redesign the standard strap buttons on guitars or holes for buttons in the strap. I suppose some people have tried suing or filing a warranty claim for their busted guitar, but were told it was negligence, end of story. Of course, the falling guitar is usually only damaging itself, not a secondary item like the Wii remote smashing a TV, but the dollar amount of damage could be similar.

Since the Wiimote strap is not a safety device and is a convenience feature, I cannot agree that Nintendo is liable.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Arker]

So what you're saying is it's perfectly reasonable to serve coffee so hot it can give you third degree burns?

Yes, of course. Doh. How do you make coffee? You boil water! Knock knock, anyone home? Fresh coffee is too hot to drink. Learning to uncover it and let it cool slightly before you drink it, and to take care with the first few drinks in particular to notice the temperature and if necessary back off and let it cool another couple degrees isn't rocket science, it's basic common sense.

At the time this occured I was working an early job and it was my habit to get a hot coffee at the drivethrough each day on my way to work. It came in a cup with cover and carrier and I would put it in its place, make sure it was stable, and then continue on my morning commute. By the time I got on down the road to the point where I stopped the car and then opened my coffee, it had cooled to just the perfect temperature to drink. And all was well.

Then this idiotic woman orders hot coffee, pours it down her pants, and sits there for a minute and a half to make sure her skin is seriously damaged, and makes bank on it. As a consequence, I and everyone else in the country suddenly found that, not just the chain that got sued, but every drive-through, would no longer serve fresh hot coffee, but instead could offer only pre-cooled coffee that was drinkable immediately.

If I had time to drink it immediately I wouldnt be in the drive-through.

I've heard all the apologetics that get trotted out everytime this is mentioned, and it's frankly disgusting. The fact is the woman did something really dumb and hurt herself, then sued. She should have been laughed out of court. Instead, she and her lawyer got a huge payday, and each and every one of the rest of us, millions I have no doubt, who day in and day out bought the same coffee and had no problems because we used common sense, got screwed.

Re:I'm dubious about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if a bunch of people do the same stupid thing, it magically becomes someone else's fault? when will people learn to take responsibility for their own actions? when will they realize that things they do have consequences and they can't expect to just blunder through life haphazardly and expect to be safe?

Okay...

[Penguinisto]

A lawsuit @ Nintendo because someone (or rather, plural someones) was (were) dumb enough to toss a remote hard enough to crack a television set!?...

Seriously.

WTF?

Now, if'n y'all don't mind, I have to go sue the folks who make Red Bull now, since their cans weren't shaped in a way to prevent me from dropping it on the table and accidentally soaking my laptop while absorbing the sheer chutzpah of the ambulance-chaser's commentary in the referenced article.

/P

Re:Okay...

[Kent Recal]

However, to play devil's advocate, the Red Bull folks don't encourage you to stand directly in front of your TV with a can in your hands, spinning and waving your arms in a rapid and excited fashion in relation to things which are happening on the screen, occasionally flicking the can towards the TV or simulating a throw with it whilst it is tethered to your wrist by a small and, it seems, breakable strap.

Heck, but you paid money to buy the device that let's you do these things. You have probably seen friends doing it before. The wii displays a pretty clear warning screen (not skippable iirc) before each game. You have probably encountered at least once before in your life what happens when solid things are thrown into less solid things. In fact, if you seriously consider suing nintendo over this you've probably encountered at least once before what happens when a solid thing is thrown into your less solid head...

No wonder American manufacturing is screwed

[freedom_india]

Companies get sued because customers misuse and abuse the product to the point of breaking their own things carelessly.
I wonder what would have happen if Edison were to invent the lightbulb today:
1) The Association of Candle Manufacturers(ACM) and Gas Lamps Association(GLA) would jointly conduct a sit-in strike in front of Edison's home and plants.
2) The ACM would sue Edison for producing a product that's capable of killing someone. The OSHA conducts a raid on Edison's plant, followed by an FCC investigation.
3) The GLA lobbies congress for relief. Congresscritters DeLay and Pelosi go on record stating that Edison's electric light will result in the loss of jobs for 37,300 people directly while affecting the lives of 1.3 Million employers indirectly.
4) Edison approaches SCOTUS for relief. SCOTUS grants Edison relief stating that Progress cannot be stopped.
5) Rep Vern Buchanan and Sen. Ted Stevens together sponsor a resolution calling for a $1.3 billion bailout of the Candle Makers of USA.
5(a) The GLA sues the US Govt for excluding them from the bailout.
5(b) Hillary Clinton includes GLA into the bailout with a silent slip-in into a spending bill.
6) The FCC commissioner rules that Electricity is dangerous to health and that electric lamps are prone to be broken. Forces Edison to include HUGE warnings on each packet.
7) Edison sets up DC stations and powers Congress and Senate with electric lamps to show the congress the progress that can be made. he claims it can be always "Day" for congress.
8) Congress critters not used to working long hours, silently include a bill that forces states to individually certify that 10,000 volts of DC will not kill a man for Edison's lamps to be sold. 43 states refuse. Alaska's Palin approves Edison's lamps and charges oil companies with paying for same. Orders are sealed.
9) The children of GLA makers hold a massive rally in Washington demanding schooling and lunch relief.
10) Bush calls upon Congress to pass a law that outlaws Electric lamps under intense pressure from lobbyists.
11) Obama calls Bush a roadblock to progress and exhorts congress to reject such a law.
12) A GLA dealer in MN holds a BIG rally announcing providing free gas lamps for all who sign Edison is a public enemy.
13) Edison is sued in Alaska by 100 residents who claim that throwing the lamp on the floor caused them injuries. The case is taken up by FOX News and O'reilly states Edison is a pinhead.
14) Edison beats the lawsuit at tremendous cost.
15) AIG Refuses to extend insurance cover to Edison under pressure from congress.
16) Edison renounces US citizenship and migrates to China.

Re:No wonder American manufacturing is screwed

[novakyu]

And yet compact fluorescents are moving onto the market with little resistance.

Because the same people who have been making incandescent light bulb are also making compact fluorescent bulbs. That wouldn't have been the case for the candle to light bulb transition.

If you need a car analogy, GM workers do not protest or resist the newest GM models. They, however, do protest Japanese imports, if they can.

Shouldn't have to tell people to not throw things

[pembo13]

No company should be held legally responsible for the commonsense of their customers. Nintendo really shouldn't have to tell their customers not to throw the _remote_ controller at the television. It's not like tennis players routinely go kill bystanders with their flying rackets.

Oh the poor (greedy) babies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fuck's sake. If you're stupid enough to think that throwing the Wiimote around at full force is going to make you "win" (or better yet, literally tossing it out of your hand like a baseball in Wii Sports with the assumption that the strap doesn't either slip off or snap), it's your own damn fault that you're unable to play responsibly.

Of course, I'm giving these people too much credit. They're greedy assholes, not idiots. It's all about mooching off an insanely successful product with a dollar sign target on the back of its head.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to sue McDonalds for making me too fat and BlackBerry for making me commit manslaughter while I was texting.

Re:Shouldn't have to tell people to not throw thin

[theillien2]

You'd think. But then, it's morons like these folks that cause there to be stickers all over everyday objects telling us how and how not to use them.

I'm surprised we haven't seen any court cases by people who wiped their asses so hard the paper ripped and they got shit on their hands.

Strapless

[enoz]

I wonder if this scenario could have existed if Nintendo had decided not to include a strap on the remote in the first place.

Re:-1, Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the F is the parent modded "3, Insightful"? Congrats for identifying Yiddish, tho it's a shame your parent's had kids that lived. Hopefully nobody tries to put 6million of your relatives "in the gas chamber."

COME ON! GIVE IT UP!

[ryanw]

Seriously. Class action suites against ANY company (even microsoft) are horrible!! The person with the "broken tv set" ends up getting $0.02 while the lawyers end up making $2 million+. Attorneys end up looking for smoking guns to make quick bucks. One could argue that the attorneys are fighting for the rights of the people and helping to protect us from further harm. But if this was the honest truth then everyone who had a broken TV or files part of the lawsuit should get a new TV out of it instead of giving all the money to the attorneys and pennies to those who were wrongfully harmed.

Drunks

[erikharrison]

Wii games seem to be played almost exclusively by little kids, old ladies, and drunk college guys who spent too much goddamn money on a giant ass fucking TV instead of paying student loans, and feel constantly entitled.

This is why WiiBeerPong (or whatever it's called now) was brilliant in its identification of a market niche.

You also don't need a lot of people to agree to fault Nintendo for a class action lawsuit. A lawyer just needs a couple of guys and the reasonable belief that he'll get paid, and he can stir up a lawsuit on behalf of everyone who broke something without their consent.

Re:-1, Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that the forthcoming discussion... will be far more meaningful than anything which might otherwise appear in this ill-placed and laughable YRO article.

All right, new /. rule: Whenever a story is sufficiently irrelevant, we pick a random historical event and discuss the hell out of it.

Re:Shouldn't have to tell people to not throw thin

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

I am left wondering if there would be any lawsuits if Nintendo had decided not to include the strap in the first place. Imagine a Wiimote with no strap and clear instructions that you not let go when making motions. If somebody tried to sue, Nintendo could say that the customer was duly warned and either a) let go or b) waved too forcefully.

Instead, they included a strap just in case and see where that has got them...

That's not the point of class actions.

[plasmacutter]

The point of class actions is to tell companies to stop doing something harmful to the public in the only language they know how: money.

some messages brought to companies through lawsuits:

"don't sell cars that explode at the slightest touch"
"don't dump toxic waste on, near, or into waterways servicing residential land"
"make your QA better on safety equipment"
"don't put cameras in bathrooms"
"don't help the government spy on us without a warrant" .. and many, many more.

Re:Shouldn't have told them to use the strap

[LordKronos]

they are using the strap to hold it in their hand, leaving their fingers free to move more quickly on the buttons.

Huh? I think you might be using the wiimote wrong, becuase holding onto it properly in no way slows down my playing. I can't even imagine how you would hold it in a way that would:
1) enable you to click a button faster
2) still allow you to utilize the motion capabilities
3) not prevent you access to other buttons
4) make it even remotely likely for the wiimote to go flying out of your hand at all, much less with enough force to break the strap