Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

DemonOnIce writes with a story, as reported by Ars Technica, that a federal judge in San Francisco has dismissed a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit connected to Battlefield 4's bungled rollout. From the report: EA and several top executives were sued in December and were accused of duping investors with their public statements and concealing issues with the first-person shooter game. The suit claimed executives were painting too rosy of a picture surrounding what ultimately would be Battlefield 4's disastrous debut on various gaming consoles beginning last October, including the next-generation Xbox One. But US District Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco said their comments about EA and the first-person shooter game were essentially protected corporate speak. "The Court agrees with defendants that all of the purported misstatements are inactionable statements of opinion, corporate optimism, or puffery," Illston ruled Monday.

Comments

Link...

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The link in the summary leads to "Sapphire manufacturer and Apple agree to part ways “amicably”" GJ Editors

Re:Link...

[_xeno_]

Well, to be fair, that story was immediately below the one they presumably intended to link.

Although now we have a definitive answer to "do the editors bother checking the stories being linked to when they post stories."

Re:Link...

[Dishevel]

Timmothy has been around far too long here to be expected to do his job.

Puffery

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."

The FTC stated in 1984 that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the Commission. In its FTC Policy Statement on Deception, the Commission stated: "The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously." e.g., "The Finest Fried Chicken in the World."

Source

In other words, caveat emptor.

Re:Puffery

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the finest Slashdot post I have ever read.

Re:Puffery

[kruach aum]

That the consumer is not to take seriously the claim that the game will work at launch is completely unreasonable.

PUFFERY?

[slackoon]

from ars technica...

Puffery is a well-defined term by the FTC, but still ends up as a "know it when you see it" thing sometimes. Here's an FTC handout discussing it with consumers. The basic point is that if a company says that something is generically awesome, that's probably just puffery and not actionable. If they use measurable numbers, talk about specifics, or directly compare it to one or more competitors, that can require proof and be actionable. Note that comparatives "our product A is better than B" are more likely to be actionable than superlatives "our product A is the best."

You know

[Charliemopps]

You know... I was downtown, selling some fine imported watches to passers by, and a police officer did not find my excuse of "Puffery" nearly as understandable as this judge seems to. Apparently Puffery isn't not allowed at $100, but is at $100million. Interesting indeed. I need to raise my price point!

Re:Lesson learned

[ArcadeMan]

Just like the gamers!

Wait?

[Stormy Dragon]

You mean Ringling Brothers ISN'T actually the greatest show on earth?

Re:PUFFERY?

[idontgno]

It's official. Doublespeak is now codified in law.

It's only fair. Law is encoded in Doublespeak.