Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the anything-they-say-they-set-their-minds-to dept.

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.

7 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Link... by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    1. Re:Link... by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  2. Puffery by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    1. Re:Puffery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That was the finest Slashdot post I have ever read.

    2. Re:Puffery by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. You know by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  4. Wait? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

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