Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Sued Over Pokemon Gambling Addiction
Brain00666 writes "Two parents and their kids are suing Nintendo, claiming that their Pokemon cards "are turning them into pint-sized gamblers." Apparently they're asserting that they were "forced" to spend thousands of dollars to get rare cards." If they win,
I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
You pay to play: You spend tens of thousands of dollars and up to four years earning a computer science degree.
There is the element of chance: Maybe the economy will crash? Maybe you'll flunk your courses?
You've got a prize: That cushy job is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Hell, I can claim that working under a capitalist system is gambling (and it really is, if you think about it). Many people are "addicted" to money due to their perception that they "need" as much money as possible to "win" in our society. Shall we file a class-action against every corporation in existence? Hmmm...
It's all there in the article.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Yeah, people don't realize that those prices aren't really the values of the cards. Those are the prices the stores will charge you, but if you have a card, you're not very likely to be able to get that much for it. Back when I played MtG (4-5 years ago), the "dual lands" were worth around $10 each. However, I could never find anybody to even pay $5 for the ones I had, so obviously they weren't really worth $10 each.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, this is *identical* to baseball cards. They've been popular and legal for nearly 100 years. You buy packs in the hopes of finding one of the valuable cards, which is exactly what this lawsuit is complaining about.
Since baseball cards are a fairly well-established legal industry, I don't think this lawsuit has much of a chance.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Donald Trump (iirc) did this a time or two: interview with all the best firms in the area to disqualify them by conflict.
But guess how many firms are willing to interview him now?
The problem is that there are just too many firms out there to do this with, and the amounts that they will expect for that type of retainer rule it out even for the Microsofts of the world.
Plain cold fact of life: there's about as much money to be made by being on the other side from microsoft as there is from being on microsoft's side, and it will be rather expensive to convince a major firm to give up that potential business--if most firms do it, then the firms that are left get *all* of the business on the other side.
hawk, esq.
Rather than suing for fear, file it in a case with *real* damages.
My favorite scenario is to name the plaintiff's bar as a class of defendants (the "class" is not always the plaintiffs). The injury needs to be one in which a consumer did not receive an important safety warning, due to the stupid warnings placed defensively all over products (my favorite: the warning on a dry-cleaning bag that the ink used to print the warning was poisonous--with nothing printed on the bag save the warning).
Normally, winning the suit that caused the warning would be a valid defense. But many of these suits were pressed even though the manufacturor complied with laws regulating the subject, making turnabout fair play.
But it's all just a pipe dream . . .
hawk, esq.
>This just goes to show the dismal state of our
>justice system nowadays.
Not yet. If the courts fail to sanction the attorneys for filing this (which has been happening to this plaintiff's firm with increasing frequency), then it will show a dismal shape.
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
However, it is still possible to have to pay to play, just as it is possible for people to bet on games of Clue. It sounds silly, I know. But the point is this: Any game can be considered gambling, undr certain conditioons. Any game can also not be gambling. You do not necessarily have to pay to play Pokemon or even get packs, nor do you necessarily get any sort of prize (geez; you're telling me a small piece of cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal).
These things only have value because people are idiotic enough to pay exorbitant sums of money for them. You're telling me a small piece of thin cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal. Pokemon is a game. An innocent game that some people get too wrapped up in (and that can happen in any game). That's the person's own fault and no one else's.
Oh, please. Pokemon? Gambling? Not in the least.
First off, consider the case of my girlfriend. She was beginning to get interested in M:tG. though she hadn't played much. I had plenty of cards by that time, so I made her a deck and gave it to her. She did not pay to play at all. The point: Pokemon fails the first test, because it isn't always necessary to pay to play.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
And as for there being a prize: Pokemon, while it is possible to play for ante (to use the M:tG term; I don't know what Pokemon calls it) it isn't mandated. So it fails the third test ("there is a prize") because there is not always a prize.
I suppose you could say that there's an element of gambling in the buying of Pokemon card packs. But I also doubt too many people would call that a game. These kids made a stupid decision. Their parents, who could easily have put an end to it, made a very stupid decision by not doing so, thereby losing thousands of dollars. They have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Not!
The ear-to-ear grins on the mothers and the kids says it all: "We know exactly what we're doing, and we're gonna make a bundle and get famous too!"
And of course you can always get some idiot attorney to buy in to this kinda deal...
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I read this the other day, but never dreamed that it would be /. material...
.sig, I'm starting to wonder...
These are emblematic of the morons and idiots we have for parents here in the US that give America a bad reputation. Can't anyone take responsibility for their actions at any age whatsoever? "Oh no, little Timmy likes his (Pokemon, Magic, Upper Deck, Beanie Baby, etc.) so much that he plays games to try and win more! But he sucks enough to lose! Oh my god, I have the answer - SUE THE MANUFACTURER!"
I mean, how dumb is that? No wonder Katz spends so much time lately writing about alienated teens. Is it me, or have the parents here in the US become more and more clueless with each generation? I really hope that when my wife and I have our own kids, my brains don't get washed away like these parents' brains have.
Despite my
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
"No matter what he's doing, he always has a tub of that ice cream in front of him." claims Smith. Reportedly, the 'Mint Chocolate Chips!®' flavor is the preferred flavor of 17 year-old Jimmy, who added: "I just like it. I don't see what the big deal is." The addictive properties on this particular flavor of ice cream have yet to be studied, as this is the first documented case. Smith insists, however, that it's far too addicting, and warrants a lawsuit.
Anne Johnson, spokesperson for Dreyer's, declined an interview, but issued a press release stating "We at Dreyer's are comitted to making the finest Ice Cream available, and we want our customers to be delighted with our products. A situation like this makes us particularly sympathetic, however we have not heard any similar complaints regarding any of our products."
"Horsesh--" says Smith. "They make this stuff addictive on purpose, so people will like it and buy more." When asked if she thought that was the point, Smith simply stated "Absolutely not." She continued: "My son comes home from school, goes to the freezer, and grabs the container. Then he sits down at the computer and spoons it into his mouth while programming. He's lazy!"
Dreyer's executives were not available for comment.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Children should be responsible, to the extent that they are able. But I recognize that, at certain stages of development children are not quite yet mature enough to handle it.
In that case, the PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
Read the story, which mentions the kids are around 9 years old. Where in the hell do kids get the "thousands of dollars" they were "forced" to spend? The story says they "emptied their piggy banks" but I think that's just a euphemism-- given child labor laws, I doubt these piggy banks could have contained much, and thus I bet their money came from adults.
So, why weren't the parents saying no? If the kids were turned into gambling addicts, its the parents who did it. The money burning characteristics of collectable card games notwithstanding, no one FORCES one to buy them.
And no one certainly forced the parents to allow their children so much money to do so!
If they win, I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
If they win Wizards of the Coast won't have any money left for you to get.
From the article:
Court papers said Nintendo, along with U.S. distributor Wizards of the Coast....
I think that I am really sick and tired of reading about people who are suing for things that they should by no right have the ability to even have a say over. Suing Nintendo for including special cards in the packs with regular cards is obserd. Putting the special cards into the packs is what making buying the cards so much fun. I grew up collecting baseball cards and eventually basketball and football cards. In addition to the regular series or cards, there would be at least one special series. These cards were generally worth more money then the rest of the cards were, and yes they were randomly included in the packs with the regular cards. This was what made the whole experience fun. I couldn't wait to open up the and see if I got alittle something special in there, but I also couldn't wait to see if I got another Don Mattingly card in there. I hardly think that it would be right for me to sue Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, Donruss, and Don Mattingly for that matter. I really do hope that the American leage system doesn't do something wrong and even give these people the time of day, but of course this is just my opinion and why would we really want to bring logic into American leage matters. We never have in the past.
Technology's a battle between companies producing more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots
This just furthers my case for the need in the U.S. for torte reform. Stupid lawsuits like this just tie up the legal system and cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year.
while we're at it, lets sue the sports card manufacturers. They do the same thing.
Hell, lets sue McDonalds. Those happy meals are probably just as addictive.
How about Ty? Didn't they retire beanie babies to make them more valuable?
Maybe I should sue my ISP while I'm at it. I spend more than 5 hours a day on the Internet, which according to a recent story on Slashdot qualifies me as an addict too.
My journal has hot
I wondered what Pokemon was about, so I watched an episode one Saturday morning. I decided right away that it was "about" collecting cards. You've gotta get them all!
Shades of Star Wars and its action figures!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Now okay, it is a trading card game - and trading them may be part of the fun. But who's fault is that? Does the company force anyone to pay x dollars for a card? No. Do they set the prices on the cards? No. That's where it becomes most rediculous - there are so many places to attack this article it's not even funny, but I think one of the strongest points is that the prices are set by an independant company (at least AFAIK). Back in the MtG days WotC decided how many cards to produce but didn't decide that card x would be worth y dollars; it just worked out that way.
- tred
The American Mentality:
I have the right to life (mine, screw yours),
I have the right to liberty (who cares about you),
and I have the right to happiness (that means I want your money, and more of your money).
Certainly, the US was not established with this in mind.
But, to paraphrase a rule from programming, build a
better form of government, and I will built a better tyrant.
The oppression of the British monoarchy caused the creation
of the US government structure to defeat the occurence
of such a situtation. Now, we have bred a new and better
replacement: the average US citizen, who is responsible
for nothing, for they 'obviously' are motivated by horrible
scars from their childhood, and so shouldn't have to account
for there own actions.
Sure, I'm a US citizen. I'm just ashamed to be one.
Apologies for not being more eloquent, it's late,
and I can't write that well.
Are you kidding, I'm going after my Postal company, they make the stamps and sell them after all, even releasing limited series stamps sometimes.
Or how about the government, they make all those soon to be rare coins, right?
-
slashdot needs a 'stupid lawsuits' topic.
Rarity was originally tied to game utility in Magic: The Gathering with the idea of preventing players from having too many overpowered cards in their deck. As we now know (and, frankly, should have been obvious at the time), this turned the game into a contest of wallets rather than a contest of brains. Since then, WotC has introduced other counterweights to excessively powerful cards (e.g. restrictions and bans on certain cards in tournament play, introduction of new cards to defend against power cards) to tilt the game back toward skill.
It is now generally recognized that tying card rarity to card utility is a Bad Thing, and game publishers that make a habit of it get a "Billgatus of Borg" reputation in the gaming community.
In a properly designed game, the reason for making some cards rarer than others is to make it more difficult to complete an entire set.
If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Say, does anybody know where I can get an "Ace of Spades" to complete my NuPoker deck? (I tried asking my local collector, but he just bent my ear for an hour with a story about some boring old version of poker where you automatically had one of each card in the deck.)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Around here in Redmond, home of just about everyone's favorite company to hate, we also have the corporate HQs of both Nintendo of America and Wizards of the Coast closeby. Naturally, every preteen in town is carrying their pukemon cards everywhere they go. Every store in sight carries the suckers (right down to the 7-eleven) and the WOTC Game Centers located in several malls in the area are so infested with the little pokemonsters that no sane person can approach them. Recently overheard at a local Target store was one parent who's kids were bugging her for another collectible toy, and she relented, saying "As long as I don't have to go near that stupid pokemon store."
On the other hand, I found out today that a stray pokemon card that ended up in our house made a great tool for spackling the wall for painting purposes in the absence of a putty knife... "Gotta Patch 'em All!", I guess.
Windows is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
Yes, those are right. I'd just like to emphasis how incredibly popular they are. You old guys who don't have kids wouldn't understand, but I have a brother that's 12. He's obsessed over Pokemon. Wears Pokemon shirts, plays all the games, buys the merchandise, and buys the cards. And that is extremelly common for his age group and below. In the above post, it mentioned the Pokemon movie. It really wouldn't suprise me if that turned out to be a top 10 movie. Think about it, you have millions of kids that HAVE to go to it, and since they can't drive, the parents have to go along. It'll definitly beat the pants off Toy Story 2 that will be released only a week later. And then there's people like my brother, who will see it 20 times. Never underestimate the power of Pokemon.
I'm gonna sue Nintendo for the pain in my thumb from 11 straight hours of Zelda-64.
Is that gambling any more than crossing a street is? I've personally come a few feet from being run down, after carelessly expecting that a driver would *not* run a red light. {shrug} Or, I occasionally buy goods online -- and to an extent, I could be said to be gambling on trust in the other party, in the shipping / supply-chain, and so forth. Whatever we do is, to a degree, gambling. The question is where to draw the line.
Is purchasing any form of collectibles gambling? Or, for that matter, shares in, say, AT&T?
One facet that might be looked at is whether there is any intrinsic value besides resale. If Mr. Gates were to speculate in cars by randomly buying luxury vehicles only to sell them like new an hour later, does that mean that buying cars should be treated as gambling since it *could* be used as such? On the other hand, there's not that much use for, say, a round at video poker other than the mathematical expectation of a (negative) reward...
Not being into Pokemon, MtG or any other card game (well, except those that involve poker decks and jokers), I'm not able to claim either way: that they're useless except as commodities to trade/sell (and thus become a variation on currency, but one that's a lot less liquid or reliable), or no. If it's the former case, then it's not that much different than buying envelopes for, say, $10 ea that each may or may not have a larger amount of money in them. Now *that* would be more clearly gambling.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Depends. If you're out to get somebody; want a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the defendant; and wouldn't mind sharing in the proceeds, then civil suits aren't that unusual.
I remember there was a case (tossed out, methinks -- or at least hopes) where somebody tried to sue an off-shore 'Net gambling site, to annull her (considerable) losses, on the grounds that the gambling was illegal under US law. Talk about chutzpah... That's almost as good as the fellow who sued his own company for on-the-job injuries (and hired two lawyers, and so forth...)...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
the cards could drop in value if the company started printing rare cards en masse. But if this happened, people would be suing the company left and right on the pretext that the company knew that they would be devaluing the cards.
It was something like this that got me out of the M:TG market a few years ago. If I remember correctly, WotC released a new expansion that reprinted tons of the old cards from previous expansions, and the value of those old cards dropped like a stone. My previously $2000 collection of M:TG was instantly worth about $500. I got out while the getting was good, as I think WotC continued reprinting and instituting tournament rules that made the old cards useless for most players (who play based on tourney rules).
I don't recall any lawsuits over this, just lots of grumbling, and lots of people getting out of the game. I think that it was one of the worst decisions WotC made, and led to the general reduction of interest in M:TG nowadays.
September 11 1998
Trial Lawyers Swing for the Fences With Allegation that Baseball Cards are Dangerous to Kids
According to the August 11 San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles-based trial lawyer Henry Rossbacher has filed three class action lawsuits alleging that baseball card companies, by printing limited quantities of certain cards, are promoting gambling among children. Rossbacher says that by limiting the quantity of valuable "chase" cards, and by printing the odds of getting one of these cards on the outside of packs, card companies such as Upper Deck Co. and Pacific Trading Card Inc. have established the "functional equivalent of a lottery." His lawsuit seeks damage awards for all kids who have been lured into buying cards in the past four years.
"It's just like Joe Camel," says Rossbacher, "They're selling a dangerous product to kids."
This is almost exactly the same as the Magic: The Gathering game. Wizards of the Coast (makers of the game) doesn't set the value of the rare cards. From the manufacturer point of view, a Jester's Mask (valued at $20) is worth just as much as a common Goblin (10 cents). The company doesn't make an extra nickel off the Jester's mask, they sell every card for the same amount, not individually, but in packs. Nintendo does the same thing. They get n dollars for a pack of cards whether the pack contains all 5 cent cards or a 20 dollar rare. So the company isn't making any money off it, its all the kids and the market. You can't hold the company responsible because they don't make any extra off the rares. It's not gambling, its kids learning a life lesson.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Just 'cos the cards *can* sell for $x doesn't mean they will. Many rares in MtG were/are useless unless someone found a new use for them in a fad deck of the month. {g} And of course unless the kids know the market they're going to be burned regardless. (I let Autumn Willow go for a song, way back when... baka...) Ahem. In any case, store owners aren't obligated to fork over any money at all for rare cards, unless it's to turn around and sell them for even higher prices. Now, since this is WotC, I assume this is the Pokemon CCG. This begs the question, why are the kids buying scads of cards to get rares to *sell* them when they could just be trying to better their decks? I wouldn't blame this on Nintendo, or WotC, since they made a game and not something static like a baseball card set. I don't know who to blame. *Someone* has impressed on these kids that the cards are pure money and have diverted the focus away from playing the game to viewing it as a way to get rich by selling rares... =\ Certainly different from what happened in MtG. (Well, at least in my case and in that of most of the people I met playing it.) - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I definitely agree with theGnome on this one: the idea that these kids were "forced" to spend thousands of dollars on these cards is absurd. How, exactly, does a nine-year-old force his parents to do ANYTHING? I once tried threatening to run away, and my parents helped me pack until I caved in. Nine-year-olds, in general are not capable of manipulating their parents to that extent. It seems to me that the parents are more at fault than Nintendo, because the parents are providing their nine-year-old children with huge amounts of money with which to buy these cards. I remember being obsessed with Magic: The Gathering when I was in 7th grade, but my parents didn't give me thousands of dollars in hopes that I would buy a pack of cards containing a black lotus, or another similarly rare card. The point, my friends, is that Nintendo can hardly be held resopnsible for the bad parenting practices of these parents. Just my $0.02
A lot of people commenting here are missing the point. I am a parent and my children pressure me to allow them to buy and trade Pokemon. I don't let them. But the issue is not one about parents and responsibility.
IN MOST STATES MOST FORMS OF GAMBLING ARE ILLEGAL. THOSE THAT ARE LEGAL ARE REGULATED AND STATE FRANCHISED.
IN ALL STATES IT IS ILLEGAL TO ENCOURAGE A CHILD TO COMMIT A CRIME.
Why do you think you have to be 18 to buy a lottery ticket? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes (void where prohibited)? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win a Corvettee in a drawing at the mall?
The lawyers may be slimeballs, but buying Pokemon trading cards is little different from buying lottery tickets. You buy a card without knowing it's value, exactly like 'scratch and win' lottery tickets.
Arguing that the case has no merit because lawyers are slimy is a non-ingeniuous argument ad hominem. We might as well argue that the makers of Pokemon, Barney, and the Teletubbies all deserve the death penalty because they make ridiculous children's products and because they cause endless pain and suffering to parents everywhere.
Now you may argue that gambling shouldn't be illegal, and that the government shouldn't interfere in people's sex, social, or recreational habits, but as long as gambling is regulated, anyone who promotes a non-licensed game of chance is breaking the law, just like someone who tries to illegally sell a controlled drug is breaking the law. People who push gambling on kids are no better than people who push drugs on children.
(Editor's note: The above contains unmarked sarcasm and humor. The views represented above are not necessarily those of Anonymous Coward or AC Inc.)
these kids has also filed similar suits against
Magic and other CCG (collectable card games),
and in the case of the Pokemon CCG, they found
two likely kids among several 'applicants'.
I compare this to the suit that the woman that
sued her credit card companies because she
lost $75,000 on her cards because she was
gambling illegally on the net, and they (the
credit card companies) didn't stop her.
Law suits are not supposed to make up for
human stupidity.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's not so much that there are 'strange' (for lack of a less offensive word) people that will do something like this, but it's like saying "Well gee, you guys make products that our kids have too much fun with. Make something dull and annoying, not fun and addictive."
Hell, maybe we should let them run the country. I wouldn't mind having a national day declared in honor of video games (I know I'm not aloneNow I don't blame the lawyers, because if I was one I'd love to handle a case like this either as prosecutor or defendant (is that the correct terminology? I don't know the last thing about the law). But parents like this seriously get to me. I've seen a mother buy a $250 coat for her kid, have him lose it, give him the same amount of money so he could buy it again, and he lost it again! Guess what-- she dished out another $250. I mean jeeze, if I ever lost my coat ONCE my mom would let me freeze to death for a good week so she would be sure I wouldn't lose the next coat! (And I love you dearly for that, mommy).
Parents have got to teach their kids lessons. It seems we're letting them do anything they want these days. And when that happens (and I know some of you will hate me for saying this, but tell me there isn't a certain degree of truth about it) you have accidents like Columbine.
In recent history, suits against the tobacco industry have been successful, as it has been proven that there was a physiological addiction to the nicotine. However, before it was ever shown that
suits against tobacco companies were, for the most part, unsuccessful. The argument of the tobacco companies was that you bought the product, it was your choice to continue using it. However, once shown that there were physiological reasons for continued use, suits against the companies won.
These kids are addicted simply because it's fun. From the article, it looks like one of the claims of the parents/kids is that schoolmates created an environment with such peer pressure that the kids felt like they had to play, or they would be ostracized. They might as well sue the friends!
The argument of this case is entirely ridiculous. The kids could have stopped at any time. No "addiction," besides that which was artificially created by the kids' friends. Nintendo will win this one on precedent alone. It's a ridiculous case.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
Nintendo's legal woes will never end. This week Mario sued over unsafe working conditions this week, citing having to work in lava pits, falling down pipes, eating "powerup mushrooms", and dodging fireballs. Mario is also seeking legal compensation after his brother, Luigi, was eaten by a giant fish on level 3.
--
Huh ? they aren't forced to do a damn thing. This to me looks like a case where incompetent parents are unwilling and/or unable to regulate their kid's behaviour. If they really spent thousands on these cards, what on earth were their parents doing blindly handing out small fortunes to such irresponsible children ? Geesh, they could buy a gun on the black market with that money.
Surely, if the parents think it looks like gambling, they should regulate their kid's behaviour. It doesn't appear to be unambiguously a "gambling issue" though.
What's more interesting, to me, is that it's really the parents that are gambling, and with much bigger stakes (and longer odds). The civil justice system in the US has devolved into a lottery; people file lawsuits over the most inane things, in hopes that they win big. This is the true outrage here; that people would exploit their children to try to win a legal jackpot.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
- --
-----------------------------------------------
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
Beyond that, this lawsuit is stupid, and old ground. IANAL, but it seems to me that since no particular card has more intrinsic value than any other, the claim is invalid. Case in point: do you remember when Pepsi had the special cans that when you popped the top on them, instead of soda a $20 bill sometimes came out? Soda (purchased at $2.50 for 12 cans) was intrinsically worth a set amount of money to Pepsi, and the $20 was worth $20 (duh!) For this reason, you could get a free game piece (this is true of most contests -- "No purchase neccessary") by mail. That way it isn't gambling. Since the cards only have a value determined by what a collector is willing to pay, they aren't intrinsically more valuable than any other piece of cardboard.
Also, with the Pepsi, and with the Pokemon cards, if you do lay out your money, you will at least get what you were promised. i.e. 72 oz of soda or a bunch of trading cards. Contrast this with the lottery, where the only value in the ticket is the possibility of hitting a jackpot. By itself, a lottery ticket is a worthless piece of paper. It represents the chance of winning money.
Finally, to quote Meatloaf, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
I wonder if this means that a large company, such as Microsoft could simply have all the major law firms under constant retainer. It wouldn't cost *that* much compared to the billions of dolars rolling in, and it would insure that only crappy law firms could go up against them.
:)
If I ever get to be a billionare mogal, I'll have to remember to do this
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Or even better, file a class action suit claiming that class action suits, because of their unpredictable outcomes, cost, and monetary reward, are, in fact, illegal gambling...
-
News flash!
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Business managers sue Microsoft, claiming that they "were forced to spend thousands of dollars searching through box after box of products searching for the rare, bug-free programs Microsoft claims to have produced."
Abuse is common as contractors may dupe unsuspecting IT management into trading their stable, proven *nix technology for what the contractors swear are "newer, cooler" versions.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Without making any judgement on the kids'-show-turned-empire, or the trading card frenzies in general:
If the substance of the charges is true (that the company randomly places rarer cards in packs, that turn into commodities due to this practice), it *is* pretty close to gambling. The factor that in my mind separates it is that Nintendo is most likely making no promises whatsoever about any intrinsic value of these cards; that is determined by market economics. Unlike, say, a raffle or lottery (which promises that a winning ticket *will* be worth a specific prize, or a share of a monetary jackpot), these cards could drop in value if the company said, "You don't like rare cards? Fine. We'll publish 'em en masse, for cheap.", or if the craze simply died out.
Ya buy, what, marked cardboard? And no promises about the value of such. On the other hand, a casino had better honor its chips...
Whether or not the government should be in the business of regulating gambling -- as it does --- is somewhat of a side issue, unless Nintendo is specifically trying to challenge that doctrine.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I saw this report on a Los Angeles evening news, and at the end of the report, they added that a while back similar lawsuits were attempted on Baseball card manufactures citing the same reasoning. Those suits were thrown out, and most likely this one will to.
Sig goes here
When I submitted this story, I included some more cool details:
First of all, the lawyers doing the suing are the same folks who sue corparations when their stock goes down.
Second, it turns out that one of the corparations being sued here, 4kids, was dropped from the lawsuit because -- guess what -- their defence firm turned out to be the same firm that was doing the suing!
Those lawyers were evidently unable to check to see that the corporation that they were suing was one of their clients.
Source: Union Tribune, "Law firm sues own client."
-Billy
Mark my words, Malda... I'm gonna make you pay for this! *g*
Seems silly? No more so than a bunch of parents suing because their kids are "addicted" to a game. Yeesh. These parents need to take responsibility - if they think there kids are addicted.. maybe they should enroll them in a Pokeamon 12 Step Program. "Hi, my name is fubar, and I'm a pokeaholic"...
--
Parents could not be reached at work or in their brand-new Volvos for comment.
The "lottery" explanation that all the discussion seems to be centered around is missing this fundamental point.
Nintendo isn't making certain cards "rare" to pump up the market value - at least, that's not the ONLY reason, which is what the suit is implying.
Why are there rare cards? Because they are more powerful within the context of the game. If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Yes, there is a desire to get "rare" cards. Part of it IS to impress people - but they have a legitimate use within the context of the game.
The "lottery theory" implies that Pokemon's only purpose is for money. That's not true - it's an actual game that is capitalizing on legitimate cultural trends. As with other CCGs, though, there is a sub-market for rare cards. That shouldn't be the main focus, which it has seemed to become.
Tort
Hey, parents! Wanna know how to stop your kids from buying so many Pokemon cards? It's an absolutely amazing, simple and effective solution... Don't give them all that money! 'I was forced to buy all these packs to get rare cards!' It must be those strobes. Nintendo's putting subliminal messaging technology to great effect. Way to go, boys! *sigh* I have to say this lawsuit really surprises me. If I was going to predict something like this I would have pegged it to come in the middle of the MtG craze. But it's a few years later, times have changed... and now my ten year old cousin usually has more pocket money than I do. - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I think a lot of respondants are missing the point of the suit, ridiculing it for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying the suit isn't ridiculous, but they're not suing simply because the card frenzy is addictive, but because it's an addictive form of *gambling*. Consider the analogy of Pokemon cards to lottery tickets, which isn't a stretch, but at least worthy of consideration. Even when state governments bleed suckers dry with lotteries, they draw the line at selling them to minors. The article mentions Pokemon cards meet the three tests of gambling: "you pay to play ... there is the element of chance, and you've got a prize." Cracker Jack boxes certainly match the same criteria, although when you've got prizes with established and predictable market values of $100 or more, there is a question of where to draw the line. "Contests" like in "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," in reality, are typically limited to adult participants.