Class Action Suit Accuses GameStop

[zeroy]

Class Action Suit Accuses GameStop Of Deceptive Used Game Practices

by Kris Graft, March 26 2010

http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/news2001/27823/gamestop.jpg California resident James Collins on Tuesday filed a class action lawsuit against major U.S. video game retailer GameStop, alleging "deceptive and misleading practices" pertaining to the company's used video game sales.

Collins' complaint, obtained by Gamasutra and originally uncovered by IGN (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1079852p1.html), said used titles sold at GameStop and GameStop.com, such as Dragon Age, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War 2: Game of the Year Edition, have packaging that says free downloadable content is included.

This free content is obtained with a one-time-use download code, which is entered into a digital storefront such as Xbox Live. However, after that code is used by a games' original owner, the code expires, and the content is only then available by paying an extra fee.

The problem, according to Collins' complaint, is that GameStop allegedly deceives consumers by not making clear that the content is not included for free with a used game. "In short, as a result of GameStop's deceptive and misleading practices, consumers who purchase used games from GameStop unknowingly find that they must pay an additional fee to access the full game they thought they purchased," the complaint said.

Game publishers do not see any revenues from used game sales -- used game retailers are the only parties that benefit directly from preowned sales. However in recent years, game publishers have tried to create incentive for buying games brand new by including one-time use codes that can be used to download content such as extra levels, maps or weapons in games. Without a free download code, the content can cost around an extra $10-$15.

"GameStop tricks consumers into paying more for a used game than they would if they purchased the same game and content new," said the complaint. The plaintiff is seeking an amount in excess of $5 million on behalf of the class, the filing said. The plaintiff is also demanding that GameStop "correct" the advertising on used games and provide legal fees to the plaintiff.

Chris Olivera, VP of corporate communications and public affairs at GameStop told Gamasutra that the company is aware of the lawsuit, but does not comment on impending legal actions.

GameStop's used games business is lucrative. While used product sales make up around 20 percent of the company's revenue, around half of the retailer's gross profits come from used product sales. Where gross profit margins for new games is about 20 percent, it's 50 percent for used titles. Total annual revenue from used game sales at GameStop is reportedly $2 billion.

According to the filing, the complaint was prompted when Collins purchased a used copy of Electronic Arts' Dragon Age in January for $55, or $5 less than the new price, and realized a week after the seven-day return policy expired that the download code advertised on the box for free content was already used. The content normally costs $15.

"As a result of GameStop's concealment, plaintiff ultimately paid $10 more to purchase a used game than he would have had he purchased a brand new copy of the exact same game," the filing said.

Analyst Arvind Bhatia with Stern Agee said, "While we are clearly not legal experts, it does not seem to us this lawsuit will be material. ... It seems to us if this is an issue of making sure the used games customer is fully informed, it should be easily fixable with some sort of label that [GameStop] can put on the used copy that fully explains the situation."

ACTUAL FEDERAL COURT FILING (PDF) (http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/107/1079852/Gamestop.pdf)

SOURCE (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27823/Class_Action_Suit_Accuse_GameStop_Of_Deceptive_Use d_Game_Practices.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News %29&utm_content=Twitter)

We told you so!

[spO.on]

I recently purchased 2 used PC titles from a UK retail chain known as "CEX" Computer Exchange namely Full Spectrum Warrior and Need for speed SHIFT. While paying for the titles i asked the guy behind the counter if either game used any anti cheat software and if so would i be able to return them if the Keys were found to have been banned restricting my use online. The guy replied that CEX does not buy used games that come with these Anti cheat programs only in the case that the game box is "sealed" and has obviously not been used.

Now while looking at the small selection of titles they had, i noticed two that i know for sure come with anti cheat software Call of duty 4 Modern Warfare and Call of Duty World at War, they had around 6 of each titles on the shelf and ALL had obviously been opened and to my suprise found that the booklets with the DVD keys printed on them were still inside :confused:

I failed to point this out to the guy behind the counter not wanting to stand there and cause him any embarassment but i feel a lot of these "Used" game stores need to spend more time on training thier staff in the products they sell and be more carefull to keep thier products safe, i could have sat there for 10 minutes noting down 12 legit keys.

[bullrees]

Seems a non issue to me. The guy had 7 days to try out a used game and to return it.

While the larger issue may still be there this is just a not a good argument for it.

[Frag]

I hope they get the game companies for this but I hope the judge only gives the guy his legal fees back and nothing more. $5 million...for what? Emotional trauma??

[Mike Nomad]

I hope they get the game companies for this but I hope the judge only gives the guy his legal fees back and nothing more. $5 million...for what? Emotional trauma??

Game Companies??? Gamestop is being sued.

Its called "Punitive Damages on behalf of the class"
Where the defendant’s conduct is found to be intentional or willful or wanton or malicious, the courts may permit an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Such awards are made to provide grave examples to other possible offenders/defendants from committing the same/similar offenses ("deceptive and misleading practices"). As such, I agree with the cause for high punitive damages. Additionally there must be enough funds made available to provide compensation for all participants in the class action.

Taking unfair advantage of consumers is a serious offense.

This case has merit, else the Court would not have allowed the Class Action to go forward.

[Misnomer]

Game Companies??? Gamestop is being sued.

Its called "Punitive Damages on behalf of the class"
Where the defendant’s conduct is found to be intentional or willful or wanton or malicious, the courts may permit an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Such awards are made to provide grave examples to other possible offenders/defendants from committing the same/similar offenses ("deceptive and misleading practices"). As such, I agree with the cause for high punitive damages. Additionally there must be enough funds made available to provide compensation for all participants in the class action.

Taking unfair advantage of consumers is a serious offense.

This case has merit, else the Court would not have allowed the Class Action to go forward.


Except for the fact that gamestop is not responsible for the online or other content provided by the software creator outside of what they are reselling on the disk. They are reselling you the physical item. It is not misleading so far as they are providing what is available in the box.

I have not seen said box, but I am willing to bet that it says that internet connection is required to recieve the DLC and that online features are subject to change. That would not really be false advertising then would it? Just think, if you bought any number of older EA games today you would not be able to play the multiplayer components online since EA has shut down the older servers. That isn't misleading the customer since the original packaging says there is an MP component? Online content is subject to change.

Of course then you have the additional issue that gamestop is not really responsible for the packaging. If I went to a used book store and bought a book that said it came with a cd, but could see that there was no CD, it should come as no surprise that the used book seller is not responsible. It is the same way as if the book was missing pages even. I am sure a few people have bought used cars without original manuals, car mats....

All depends on what is in the fine print.

Fining Gamestop millions of dollars because EA's packaging was not detailed enough does not seem to send any message for consumers. This guy is a test case and was probably put up to it by EA.

[zeroy]

If I went to a used book store and bought a book that said it came with a cd, but could see that there was no CD, it should come as no surprise that the used book seller is not responsible.

Of course he is! Its false advertising. Look it up, look it up some more. You could too sue that Book store. They are responsible for the accuracy of pricing and item sold (need to fit description). Common sense has nothing to do with it. Its basic law of consumer and i bet you Gamestop will be find guilty. Im starting to wonder which side are some of you guys on? A class action would not be allowed to be filled if there was no grounds for such.

[Misnomer]

Here in the U.S., where Gamestop and California are located, there is a rule of law based on caveat emptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor). Your laws in the UK provide for consumers differently. For example there is a lemon law for everyone concerning cars, in the U.S. that is state by state. Those are also major piece of property, minor things like books probably don't make it to small claims unless they are in a class action.

As the product is used and the product possibly informed the user that the online content could change, the consumer has probably been notified properly about the quality of the product they are purchasing. Whether or not this is true can be debated I suppose, but as far as I know you could not sue the seller of a USED book for a missing page either. You can choose not to go back to the shop and you can see if they will return the book, but when you purchase it used you have very few of the protections of quality assumed when you buy something new. I can't sue them for writing on the pages, dogeared quality, or a musty smell either.

I am not a lawyer and I am not sure where you think I should look up the cases where people brought suit for used books missing pages.

In any case, that is not quite a proper analogy because missing pages are a defect or damage. Gamestop is not even selling games with defects, they are selling games with certain online components left out that may still be added later by the purchaser. Is there a reduced value to the games because they are used? Yes and Gamestop prices them lower, the higher value of EA's price on DLC access is their choice. Here's a better analogy for you. The book you buy used has a label on the front that says "free stickers inside" but because it is used the stickers are already gone.

[FightingScallion]

I suspect part of the rub here comes from the touchiness around all litigation. Some see it as the best (or only) recourse for any wrong. Others prefer to just take care of things at a nice low level.

Consider it this way: You're on the school-yard and some older kids trade you some cookies for your Jell-O. The exact words used are "Would you like to trade these cookies in exchange for your Jell-O?" They hold out the bag of cookies, which appear to be Oreos. You take the deal, give them the Jell-O and receive the bag of Oreos.

Upon eating the first Oreo, you discover that the evil older kids had taken Oreos, removed the yummy creamy center, and filled it with rice pudding. You had given them perfectly good Jell-O (in a neatly sealed container), but they had given you a modified product which did not meet your expectations.

Technically, they had only offered the product "as is". And really, they've done no damage to you other than violating your trust.

Now, in the law of the playground, you know that complaining to a teacher would be an option (and would get you some reparations, depending on the teacher). However, everyone would hate you. The better solution (the one your father would probably tell you) would be to learn your lesson, be more cautious, and maybe find a nice way to destroy the older kids' business (by spreading the word that they are scum, etc).

My feeling is that we learn "buyer beware" from a quite early age. Now, however, there seems to be a movement towards "seller beware", where everyone has to be paranoid about lawsuits because someone wasn't happy with their product.

My feeling is that you buy a "Used" product expecting some wear and tear or expended capability. A used tube of toothpaste, for instance, would be expected to be missing some toothpaste, even though the package still reads the full amount. With software, this may be shown through an unusable CD-Key, lack of downloadable content, etc. The issue comes only if the product is sold as new. That, however, is fraudulent, which is a different issue entirely.

If GameStop actually tells people that they get everything from a used game that they do from a new game, then there might be a case. But, if the person just didn't ask the right questions, then the blame falls on the buyer.

Maybe we just need less regulated school-yards again. That would help provide a environment for these once-common lessons to be learned. A little more self-regulation and cautiousness would save everyone a lot of trouble.

[Frag]

Can always count on you to point out mistakes Mike..thanks. Also, thanks for the legal definition of what punitive damages are. Of course the courts would never allow a case without merits to go through and the awarding of millions of dollars for something like this would never be considered frivolous :rolleyes:..just like the ppl that have sued companies like McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves and are then awarded thousands/millions because the company didn't put a common sense warning on it.

I realize a class action lawsuit involves more than just one person and I did say I think that the guy should win the case as I agree that those type of retail outlets (not game companies as I said earlier) should be held accountable for knowingly misleading the public about it. What I don't agree with is the awarding of those punitive damages even if it is something that a judge/jury may legally do. Just my opinion obviously whether you agree with it or not.


Game Companies??? Gamestop is being sued.

Its called "Punitive Damages on behalf of the class"
Where the defendant’s conduct is found to be intentional or willful or wanton or malicious, the courts may permit an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Such awards are made to provide grave examples to other possible offenders/defendants from committing the same/similar offenses ("deceptive and misleading practices"). As such, I agree with the cause for high punitive damages. Additionally there must be enough funds made available to provide compensation for all participants in the class action.

Taking unfair advantage of consumers is a serious offense.

This case has merit, else the Court would not have allowed the Class Action to go forward.

[zeroy]

As the product is used and the product possibly informed the user that the online content could change,

Online content could change? We are talking about a CODE inside a box sold that doesn't work as it was a one use only. RE-READ the OP perhaps. Could change is fine but its far for meaning its not there!

[rudedog]

Until this goes to court we can only speculate.

How hard is it for Gamestop to put a large sticker on the outside of the box that states.

Used game, additional DLC content may be missing or available for an additional cost from the publisher.

[TRTL]

Common sense has nothing to do with it.

You are right. That is EXACTLY the problem!!

Another bs lawsuit....

[Misnomer]

Online content could change? We are talking about a CODE inside a box sold that doesn't work as it was a one use only. RE-READ the OP perhaps. Could change is fine but its far for meaning its not there!

Do you have to be online to get the content? You cannot activate what is on the disk without connecting to the internet. The acronym DLC implies that it takes a download. Whether this is just an unlock from the DVD or an actual file, it requires connecting online. Therefore it is online content. We would laugh at someone who complained that they could not log into Blizzard with the used copy of WoW they just purchased. It is (mostly) on the disk, but they aren't going to play it without online activation. Putting the subject to change line on the box means that anything that is online is not guaranteed, that seems to be important in this case.

Even if it is already in the box you have to buy distinct access to the online portion according to EA. PC gamers are pretty familiar with this and it is not the legal issues that keep games like BF2 off the used racks, it is the tying of an account to a cd-key. I have seen BF2 on sale at second hand stores, I doubt their copy will ever be sold to an informed consumer. Even an uninformed consumer will return it within the 7 or so days guaranteed. If you buy BF2 used you could still play the single player against bots and therefore the product is usable as a game. At that point you are arguing whether or not they reduced their price enough to represent that the degradation of the product was enough for the absence of the MP. All of the games listed in the OP are playable without the bonus codes and have been marked down in price and labeled as being pre-owned.

I stick by my feeling that this was not just some average consumer sticking up for his "right to free DLC" and there is a bit of corporate encouragement about it.

[zeroy]

Do you have to be online to get the content? You cannot activate what is on the disk without connecting to the internet. The acronym DLC implies that it takes a download. Whether this is just an unlock from the DVD or an actual file, it requires connecting online. Therefore it is online content.

And? With your logic buying a game second hand doesnt guarantee you can play online at all? What world do you live in? Not everyone can spot a dodgy deal when faced with one; As Rudedog said how hard is it for Gamestop to warn the customer about this? But of course they dont. Try and remember who is suffering from all these DLC schemes: THE USER. Which side are you on?


We would laugh at someone who complained that they could not log into Blizzard with the used copy of WoW they just purchased.

No I wouldnt laugh. I know many people who havent our insight when it comes to buying Video Games. There is nothing funny about shops trying to screw consumers.

[FightingScallion]

With your logic buying a game second hand doesnt guarantee you can play online at all?

I hate to ask this question, since I know it will start a flame war, but: So?

Really, it's a second hand game. Like with any second hand product, there's some form of degredation. Where is the benefit of buying a new game?

...and remember who is suffering from all these DLC schemes: THE USER. Which side are you on?

I'm on the side of law and common sense on this one. The user doesn't get a pass just because he's the little guy. I know this will go against a lot of our more charitable feelings, but the fact is that the user or the underdog or the poor person or whatever person or group that is less capable in a fight does not inherently have truth and good on their side. And this hardly feels like a good vs evil issue. Would it be easy for GameStop to provide more information? Sure. But why? What ever happened to the belief that "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is"?

Also, how are we suffering from DLC "schemes"? It may be irritating that the prices have gone up, but we keep paying those prices. And adjusted for inflation, they have't gone up too much. Figuring in the improved quality of games, it's not that bad. I'll still grant that I'm not happy with the price, but I don't think we're watching anything too terrible.

And yes, DLC sometimes makes you feel like maybe the game should have been that way before. Then again, we used to have "expansion packs" which breathed a little new life into your game and you could voluntarily buy or not buy. I suppose the issue is the split in communities now. But even without DLC, there was a split in communities. Who can forget the Infantry Only split with Vehicles Are Part of the Game in CoD:W@W, BF2, etc?

The sense of entitlement of gamers is starting to grate on me quite a bit, so I'm almost becoming reactionary against gamers. If you don't like/want something, don't buy it. Find something you like, and go with that. If there's nothing you like, make your own. If you can't/won't do that, then find another activity.

[Misnomer]

Try and remember who is suffering from all these DLC schemes: THE USER. Which side are you on?



It is not about sides, it isn't even about right and wrong. This thread was about a court case and the argument began about punitive damages. My point is that legally in the United States I don't think there is much likelihood that 5 million would be awarded for something that most likely falls under caveat emptor.

There is an important difference between gaming truth and reality. No matter how much we would like reality to enforce what is best for gamers, it probably won't. There is a danger here in interpreting these stories to fall in line with some sort of vision of gamer's truth and justice.

Just like the IW/Activision thing, more often than not it comes down to a fight over money between people who already have it.

[zeroy]

^^ I give up - Some things will never change.

[Herr Klugscheisser]

Haha I work with a guy who just bought a used game for Xbox360 just to find out the server was shut down in January for online play. He was not to pleased .... but thats console gaming for you.

[Misnomer]

Just thought I would throw this out there since I stumbled on it around shacknews.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/920668_54425_back.jpg

This is the back of the Dragon Age Box. In the middle left of the back of the box it says:

One time use code available with full retail purchase.

New link

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/950918_108169_back.jpg

[Mr.Ray]

It is not about sides, it isn't even about right and wrong. This thread was about a court case and the argument began about punitive damages. My point is that legally in the United States I don't think there is much likelihood that 5 million would be awarded for something that most likely falls under caveat emptor.

There is an important difference between gaming truth and reality. No matter how much we would like reality to enforce what is best for gamers, it probably won't. There is a danger here in interpreting these stories to fall in line with some sort of vision of gamer's truth and justice.

Just like the IW/Activision thing, more often than not it comes down to a fight over money between people who already have it.

Are you stupid or just pretending to be stupid or just naturally argumentative?

Of course it is about sides. It is about the truth. It is about the consumer being taken for the proverbial ride. Most of GameStop's profits come from the used software market. What is so difficult about putting up a sign in the window, a sticker on the packaging, a notice at the checkout that states that not all features that were available with the new release are now available or active? Is it going to hurt the store to be totally honest with their customers?

I think that you and your buddy here are backing up each others stand just simply to hear your own voices. I don't mind that all that much but I do wish that there was even an ounce of intelligence in your debate. In the meantime all I can gather is that you think that it is alright for the consumer to be ripped off in the secondary market. You don't think that companies like GameStop need to be honest about what they are selling because you think that their customers are too stupid to realize they are getting less than the original release so it is not up to GameStop to educate the unwashed who can only afford the trade-ins?

I don't give a damn what the industry is in any country, honest information about the product MUST be given. If the company is making a profit from the sale then they must be upfront about the product to the best of their ability.

This fella will most likely not win the court case but he is a winner in my eyes for drawing attention to a disgusting business practice. And, in my eyes you have argued for the companies that do this. So yes there are sides and I can clearly see what side you are on.

You wont agree with this but that is OK, I'm not going to fuel your need to argue nor provide you with your debate fix. I stated my opinion and for me it ends here and now, besides, I prefer to discuss things in an intelligent manner with those who are capable of the same.


It strikes me that if given the choice to argue about something and the topic was "Where does the sun come up and where does it set?" you would claim from the west to the east just so you could push your point.

[England4eva]

The onus of checking what is possible regarding second hand products should always be on the buyer. Just because gamestop is a physical retail store doesn`t change much. If you bought a second hand car from a guy in the classified ads of a paper you wouldn`t expect them to tell you the ins and outs of what it can and can not do. It`s down to yourself to research.

Claiming customers might be more ignorant that then rest of us is just pure drivel, if you`re buying second hand you`re after a bargain and should research what you`re buying. If you`re buying new then you should expect it to do everything it says on the tin, and even then still research what you`re buying.

just like the ppl that have sued companies like McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves and are then awarded thousands/millions because the company didn't put a common sense warning on it.

Isn`t this whole thing more a reflection of modern north american society rather than if these cases actually have real merit. If you can sue, do sue affair.

[Mr.Ray]

I understand what you are saying England4eva and normally I would agree that in the secondary market you need to be careful and do some research. Comparing all this to buying a used car from someone in a private deal such as this I would be and expect others to be very leary of the claims of the current owner. But when it comes to used software I think that it becomes a bit more complicated. The buyer beware aspect is still there but I think that we should expect a bit more due diligence from the seller. I dont like the expression "You get what you pay for". I dont buy cars from private individuals without insisting that I see the service records, the safety certificate etc. I think that the general public should have access to much better representation of the product about to be purchased and perhaps this case will in some manner take us a step down the road to realizing this.

Also there is this factor to consider which makes a bit of a difference when comparing all this to a second hand car scenario.....

"GameStop is a fully licensed business subject to the laws of the various States and Countries it does business in. That was/is a major reason why the Class Action went forward."

[zeroy]

The onus of checking what is possible regarding second hand products should always be on the buyer. Just because gamestop is a physical retail store doesn`t change much. If you bought a second hand car from a guy in the classified ads of a paper you wouldn`t expect them to tell you the ins and outs of what it can and can not do. It`s down to yourself to research.

Not sure on which planet/country you live but here in Ireland (and same in France) the Dealers are obliged to produce the history of the car and tell you about any inherent fault to a vehicle they are selling - The only case they dont is if they sell you the vehicle "AS SEEN" or "AS IS".

I wish you guys would stop the nonsense. Gamestop deliberatly dont specify anything on those used games - possibly by ignorance of the DLC stuff but most likely because it would unjustify the price tag and make the item a lot more hard to sell. Gosh im glad im not in the States or UK seems you guys are getting vaseline rubbed in when buying second hands!

[England4eva]

the Dealers are obliged to produce the history of the car and tell you about any inherent fault to a vehicle they are selling

Which is why I specified "from a guy in the classified ads of a paper" in my analogy. From a car dealer this is true, but from "dodgy dave" in the small ads I wouldn`t expect them to tell me all what is required. It probably wasn`t the best situation to state as as Mr.Ray correctly points out, dodgy dave is a regular guy and Gamestop is a company.

Gamestop deliberatly dont specify anything on those used games - possibly by ignorance of the DLC stuff but most likely because it would unjustify the price tag and make the item a lot more hard to sell.

I think this is the case with many things either new or second hand. This will happen on a daily basis. Companies only generally tell you enough and not what isn`t included, anything you expect it to include is only expectation, and who is at fault then?

If everything had to explain everything in all minor detail the world would grind to a halt in fear of missing something.

Sure, they should mention it might not have this, or that, but again the consumer has the chance to ask in the store if such and such can be activated, if they don`t know, then you buy on the side of caution. If they say you can and you can`t then you have a case for returning it, or whatever other avenue you choose to explore.

In reality whoever is in the class lawsuit should only at most get back what they paid and only after Gamestop have refused to refund the money. Banding around millions of dollars is just a chancer chasing the cashcow imho.

[Herr Klugscheisser]

I'm pretty sure GameStop has a 7 day return policy on used games ...

[Mike Nomad]

I'm pretty sure GameStop has a 7 day return policy on used games ...

Yes they do and often an individual store manager will extend a courtesy and refund after more than 7 days has passed.

But that's not what the suit is about - its about not telling people they will be charged more money for the DLC since its a used product. Now if they paid an appreciable lower amount for this used product its almost a certainty the Judge would not have allowed a Class Action.
The Plaintiff in this matter paid $55.00 for a used game and was not informed that he would be charged $15.00 to use the download code on the box. In essence, he's paying MORE than MSRP for the game.
Obviously, he had not nor had the Judge or anyone else seen the disclaimer in small print on the back of the box. Now, one must wonder if that small print is there on every box from day one.

In any case, its still incumbent upon the seller (Gamestop) to follow the law.

[Misnomer]

Obviously, he had not nor had the Judge or anyone else seen the disclaimer in small print on the back of the box. Now, one must wonder if that small print is there on every box from day one.


Thank you Mike for actually looking at the picture I posted, though I guess it is a broken link now. Seems that even when I bring blatant unequivocal proof to these forums I am still trolled. I will go look for another picture with the words:


http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/950918_108169_back.jpg

One time use code available with full retail purchase.

Rather than get into the argument of whether caveat emptor should be the basis of laws again (that even differs between states in the U.S.), we can deal with the fact that the customer was warned. Full Retail Purchase.

Now I am not quite as skeptical as Mike about the case being allowed in court. There are many cases allowed in California with no real basis. This does not mean that the plaintiff always wins. In fact the judge could still dismiss the court as he is hearing it.

It was not post facto on the box. In the PDF for the suit itself posted on IGN (http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/107/1079852/Gamestop.pdf)you can see a really bad photocopied version of this image on page 6 (7 of the PDF). While not a great picture, you can see that the warning is there. On page 5 of the suit (6 of PDF) you can see those words exactly referenced. If anyone can find clear pictures for the other boxes shown in the suit that would probably help the situation too.

On the following page the suit states:

"Customers rely on these representations, and their belief that the content is part of the game leads them purchase the game. The small print does not in any way tell customer who are purchasing used copies of the game that they would not get access to these features. In the case of "Dragon Age Origins" the text states that you would get the use code with a 'retail purchase' of the game. However, consumer who purchase the used game at a full retain store like GameStop, instead of from an online marketplace such as eBay.com, or from an individual, do not get these additional features."

The argument in this section seems to be two fold.

1. The word full does not apply to buying used or new, it applies to the type of store you purchase it in.

2. Gamers are too dumb to read this anyway AND GameStop pressures them to overlook this statement or somehow conceals it.

Once again, legally I think this means that the class action should fail. It in no way means that I support Gamestop's sale of used games or think that EA devised means of targeting those sales is anything more than a money grab. Neither of these arguments seem to legitimate to me, but I suppose it can be debated. If anything I think the judge would rule that EA must mark the boxes better for such DLC. If gamers only buy based on images and the small print does not matter legally, then EA would be the one at fault since they took the steps to mark the policy on the box in the first place.

If you still think it is just a few people that like to hear themselves, check out the Shacknews thread (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/63029) . If you find any other public forum discussing the issue most likely they will have people who argue customer resposnibility in this case.

[zeroy]

we can deal with the fact that the customer was warned. Full Retail Purchase

We are starting to run in circles and all this for what seems to me very obvious. Gamestop are not playing fair - want the proof? Check this page out (http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=73884):

You can purchase the Full Retail on this page @ $59.99 or a used copy @ $49.99 - NOWHERE when purchasing the used copy you see a notice of the Single-use code inside the box. Ah yes! found it! on the back of the box which you can see via THIS LINK (http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/PopBackofbox.aspx?Product_ID=73884).

The pic actually:

http://www.gamestop.com/common/images/bbox/200634_lback.jpg

Now few things:

- Note the mention on main page: " This pre-owned product is guaranteed to work and includes a box with original cover art and instruction manual."
- The box pic is very bad resolution and hard to see.
- When you find the mention "Available with full retail purchase. Single use code expires April 1st 2011" on the back of box, try and find the * it refers to. I couldn't find it.

We can run around all day/night the plaintiff has a valid point - even more obvious on the online Gamestop shop. Im however sure more trolling will take place to argue those facts.

[zeroy]

2. Gamers are too dumb to read this anyway AND GameStop pressures them to overlook this statement or somehow conceals it.

Gamers? No thats the all point. Of course experienced gamer will spot this and probably even know in advance! What about my wife going to Gamestop to buy me a game as a present (ok she is cheap as this is second hand!)? See the point better? You are currently beside your shoes my friend.

[Misnomer]

I'll grant you the online sales seeming a bit limited in the information you can read, but as one poster has already said. That is true with any used game, even ones with canceled online features. You can read it just fine when you get it. Online shops are an interesting case and are not mentioned so far in what I have read of the PDF. Part of the case comes from the man's interactions with a manager when he requested a return.

Thanks for the image. That it includes the same statement as the Dargon Age box satisfies my wondering whether it was an isolated case. The argument really does seem to boil down to the word "full" and the ability to read said word. If your wife bought you a PC game and didn't read the fine print about sys reqs and you opened it, you would not be able to return that product here in the U.S. at least. If you recieved a non-shrink wrapped box you should read the fine print too. The better part of your example would be that you may not recieve the gift to be an educated consumer in 7 days or less. That is a fair point, I still think it is EA's responsibility to mark the box better if the word "full" is confusing.

As it reads in the case, the word full seems to have been picked by EA to specifically target Gamestop but leave individuals selling on Ebay alone. Once again implying that this case is being backed by EA.


While there will likely be more trolling, I think it would only be fair to admit that there are facts worth arguing here. Perhaps even enough to get people to stop calling me names since I brought a fair amount of evidence with me. It is not cut and dry GameStop ripping off customers.

[Mr.Ray]

Sure EA and other companies should mark their boxes better but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic is GameStop and their actions or lack thereof.

As far as Im concerned the studios are off the hook in this one. They did not resell their own product. GameStop took on the responsibility and garnered profit by the sell of the product while in their inventory. It has been noted that no attempt was made by that company to give full disclosure of the product to the consumer. Game smart buyers may have a leg up on other consumers buying the same product but that is not enough in my opinion to allow GameStop to just assume anything.

Again, what is so difficult about GameSpot or EB or any other used game seller to put up simple warnings that "A Used Game May Not Carry The Same Features Of The Original Release"

Why mountains have to be created from molehills is obviously beyond me. Laws are laws and sometimes the courts have to get involved in circumstances such as are described in this topic. If nothing else becomes of it then at least some people (consumers) will be a bit more cautious and perhaps some companies will become a bit more diligent in communication with their buying customers.

[England4eva]

- When you find the mention "Available with full retail purchase. Single use code expires April 1st 2011" on the back of box, try and find the * it refers to. I couldn't find it.

The * is in the top right hand corner in the black circle that says "Bonus downloadable content included*"

[zeroy]

The * is in the top right hand corner in the black circle that says "Bonus downloadable content included*"

Was waiting for someone to find it: You win! Duh! Unsurprisingly you missed the point completely :D

[FightingScallion]

So, what is reasonable punishment against a company that gives you a chance to return something that doesn't work if it doesn't work?

[Misnomer]

So, what is reasonable punishment against a company that gives you a chance to return something that doesn't work if it doesn't work?


Apparently, 5 million dollars and a requirement to print thousands of stickers explaining EA's policies in brightly colored monosyllabic phrases.

[zeroy]

So, what is reasonable punishment against a company that gives you a chance to return something that doesn't work if it doesn't work?

You don't get it do you? I can see in your reasoning how it went right over your head.

Apparently, 5 million dollars and a requirement to print thousands of stickers explaining EA's policies in brightly colored monosyllabic phrases.

Nice to finally see what side you are on - I thought for a second you were on the side of the little guy. Im glad you can even take the p*ss out of it.

[Mr.Ray]

So, what is reasonable punishment against a company that gives you a chance to return something that doesn't work if it doesn't work?

What are you talking about? The game apparently worked but not all the frills that were attached with the original release. Trying reading all the posts and do try to keep up.

Apparently, 5 million dollars and a requirement to print thousands of stickers explaining EA's policies in brightly colored monosyllabic phrases.

Being flip is usually indicative of a lost argument. And why are you stuck on EA? EA is not the issue here. For goodness sakes you should really keep up with the thread as well. The issue here is GameStop and most likely other such stores.

Do you two rehearse your threads to back one another up? How is that working for you? From what I can see it isn't working. :D

[zeroy]

Just found this also from Gamestop website (http://www.gamestop.com/gs/help/returns.aspx)

This is Gamestop game return policy:

Returned product(s) must be in the original packaging and include any manuals, cabling and accessories in saleable condition. We reserve the right to limit returns to unopened or defective products. Defective product(s) will be replaced with a like item, upon return. Terms and conditions of manufacturer's warranty apply to defective video games systems and computer hardware after 30 days.

We do not accept returns of:
Any product(s) returned more than 30 days from the date on the packing slip.
Any product(s) that has been opened (taken out of its plastic wrap).
Any product(s) not in its original condition.
Any product(s) that is damaged, played, or is missing parts.
Any product(s) that were sold as part of a bundle, unless the bundle is returned complete.


Note the last item how ironic you cant return an incomplete bundled product but they will gladly buy it of you for peanuts (40% margin in general) and re-sell it to a dubious Joe for 95% of the retail price with the missing bundled codes!

[England4eva]

Nice to finally see what side you are on - I thought for a second you were on the side of the little guy. Im glad you can even take the p*ss out of it.

What have sides got to with anything? He`s airing his opinion, it doesn`t agree with yours, it makes this discussion worth bothering with.

Just because we are all consumers doesn`t mean by natural process we must instinctively stick up for the "little guy" - Stupidity or ignorance by the customer is not always a good enough reason to chase damages.

This is a get rich quick story, who would get the 5 million dollars? The people in the lawsuit, every customer who has ever had the same grievance?

Give the guy his money back and lets move on, there are more pressing issues in the world.

[FightingScallion]

What are you talking about? The game apparently worked but not all the frills that were attached with the original release. Trying reading all the posts and do try to keep up.


I have been reading all the posts, thanks. Apparently, however, I'm still completely missing what the point is. It's either that, or you're missing the points I (and, I suppose, Misnomer) have been trying to make. Which is not to say we're right, but only to say that we have a valid point of view for consideration.

Alright, here's another example:

You go to buy a used DVD. The DVD is guaranteed to work, have a box, have the little insert (if it originally came with one), and be packed with love. You have 7 days to return it (based on, as best I can tell, anything from it being a scratched DVD to you blaming your spouse's bad breath on the movie). This matches, nearly precisely, the GameStop policy. The guy at the shop tells you it'd be great for you to buy this, since "you get the same viewing enjoyment at just a fraction of the price."

Now, the DVD comes with a starburst on the case that says you can get free tickets to see the sequel of this movie in theaters (which came out 5 years ago). The store made no effort to cover this starburst. The ticket offer inside no longer works (or may not even be there, since the previous owner may have used it). It also has a starburst that says "special offers inside". Note, these are printed on case in some way (so, covering them or something might damage the art, which would offend collectors).

Would you realistically expect that you'd be deserving of those tickets? No. The assumption in that case was that the coupons in the case would no longer be valid (or might not come with it). So, you have been denied a selling feature of the product, mostly because you bought it used.

So:
- The fact that the sequel came out 5 years earlier is similiar to servers being pulled after a time (such as EA recently did). Despite that, there is no reasonable expectation that you will get some kind of payment for them not existing any longer. In fact, I would expect that it wouldn't be an issue even if you bought a new copy of the DVD 5 years later that still had the sticker because they didn't sell well.

- The fact that the coupons (or "special offers") are not, in fact, inside would probably be something like the online activation code not being inside. This is a promised feature (possibly even a selling point, or why would they do it?). The DVD still works (SP mode? LAN play?), but the coupon isn't there (online play won't work).

- The guy at the store said "same viewing enjoyment...". But wouldn't you have gotten to see the sequel with the other one? Let's say the sequel was still in theaters when you bought it. Would that have been a reasonable expectation within "viewing enjoyment"? I doubt most people would have assumed that.

- Even if you were expecting these things, you are allowed to return the DVD on discovery of these issues, within 7 days.

- If you receive a used DVD as a gift after 7 days after it was purchase, you can't return the used DVD. This is nothing new. Thus, if you discover these missing coupons (and you really, really wanted them), you're just out of luck.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't nuances that might make this different in the long run. But I would bet that if you brought a similar case as this GameStop one, but did it with used DVDs, you'd be laughed out of every online forum out there.

[TRTL]

Do you two rehearse your threads to back one another up? How is that working for you? From what I can see it isn't working. :D

How is that different than you RGN guys??? Seems like you guys do the same thing. But maybe it's just me.

[Mr.Ray]

What have sides got to with anything? He`s airing his opinion, it doesn`t agree with yours, it makes this discussion worth bothering with.

Just because we are all consumers doesn`t mean by natural process we must instinctively stick up for the "little guy" - Stupidity or ignorance by the customer is not always a good enough reason to chase damages.

This is a get rich quick story, who would get the 5 million dollars? The people in the lawsuit, every customer who has ever had the same grievance?

Give the guy his money back and lets move on, there are more pressing issues in the world.


I still have to wonder why sticking up for the little guy is so wrong to you. I'm a consumer too and if I didn't side with this fella, at least on principle, then I would have to be considered to be siding with the corporations. Maybe this guy is not worried about the actual 5 million dollars. Maybe he is using that amount to draw attention to the issue. I doubt very much that he will ever see that money nor does he care. His concern is the lack of protection or information regarding used software. Maybe his concern is that most people are not fully aware of how computer/console software works in the sense of offers, CD keys, DLC etc. The point, I'm sure, is to draw attention to what rights and perhaps limitations come from buying used software. Some of the additional concerns could be that someone buys the used software goes and uses the CD key only to find out that the key has been banned globally and so his purchase is lost. Can he go back to the store and cry foul? No sir, the store will say that he is a hacker and got caught. So sorry, go pick another one of the shelf and try again after you pay for it and take it home.

So giving the man his money back just to shut him up is not the point here. Yes, there are greater concerns that need addressing in this world but that is not the topic being discussed in this thread.

I have been reading all the posts, thanks. Apparently, however, I'm still completely missing what the point is. It's either that, or you're missing the points I (and, I suppose, Misnomer) have been trying to make. Which is not to say we're right, but only to say that we have a valid point of view for consideration.

Alright, here's another example:

You go to buy a used DVD. The DVD is guaranteed to work, have a box, have the little insert (if it originally came with one), and be packed with love. You have 7 days to return it (based on, as best I can tell, anything from it being a scratched DVD to you blaming your spouse's bad breath on the movie). This matches, nearly precisely, the GameStop policy. The guy at the shop tells you it'd be great for you to buy this, since "you get the same viewing enjoyment at just a fraction of the price."

Now, the DVD comes with a starburst on the case that says you can get free tickets to see the sequel of this movie in theaters (which came out 5 years ago). The store made no effort to cover this starburst. The ticket offer inside no longer works (or may not even be there, since the previous owner may have used it). It also has a starburst that says "special offers inside". Note, these are printed on case in some way (so, covering them or something might damage the art, which would offend collectors).

Would you realistically expect that you'd be deserving of those tickets? No. The assumption in that case was that the coupons in the case would no longer be valid (or might not come with it). So, you have been denied a selling feature of the product, mostly because you bought it used.

So:
- The fact that the sequel came out 5 years earlier is similiar to servers being pulled after a time (such as EA recently did). Despite that, there is no reasonable expectation that you will get some kind of payment for them not existing any longer. In fact, I would expect that it wouldn't be an issue even if you bought a new copy of the DVD 5 years later that still had the sticker because they didn't sell well.

- The fact that the coupons (or "special offers") are not, in fact, inside would probably be something like the online activation code not being inside. This is a promised feature (possibly even a selling point, or why would they do it?). The DVD still works (SP mode? LAN play?), but the coupon isn't there (online play won't work).

- The guy at the store said "same viewing enjoyment...". But wouldn't you have gotten to see the sequel with the other one? Let's say the sequel was still in theaters when you bought it. Would that have been a reasonable expectation within "viewing enjoyment"? I doubt most people would have assumed that.

- Even if you were expecting these things, you are allowed to return the DVD on discovery of these issues, within 7 days.

- If you receive a used DVD as a gift after 7 days after it was purchase, you can't return the used DVD. This is nothing new. Thus, if you discover these missing coupons (and you really, really wanted them), you're just out of luck.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't nuances that might make this different in the long run. But I would bet that if you brought a similar case as this GameStop one, but did it with used DVDs, you'd be laughed out of every online forum out there.

Yeah, you are still missing the point. Nice write up on DVD's though. If this ever becomes an actual issue or a class action suit then perhaps you can resurrect this particular argument. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges please. Any idea what the ratio is of people that buy used DVD's vs computer/console software? You are just muddying up the waters with irrelevant filler. I'm trying very hard not to laugh you out of this online forum.

How is that different than you RGN guys??? Seems like you guys do the same thing. But maybe it's just me.

@TRTL

WoW!! since you named RGN by name how about just coming on over there and we will discuss our site and styles over there in a brand new thread that I personally invite you to start. Got the cajoles? Up until now I thought that only those other two here shared a brain....perhaps with you tapping into their brain is putting a lot of strain on it.

[TRTL]

@TRTL

WoW!! since you named RGN by name how about just coming on over there and we will discuss our site and styles over there in a brand new thread that I personally invite you to start. Got the cajoles? Up until now I thought that only those other two here shared a brain....perhaps with you tapping into their brain is putting a lot of strain on it.
I tried that, but Mike deleted my account right away. Maybe you need to ask someone else if they have the cajoles.:D

[Mike Nomad]

I tried that, but Mike deleted my account right away. Maybe you need to ask someone else if they have the cajoles.:D


I deleted your fourth duplicate account.... as per your request almost two months ago.

There is however, your original account - registered Oct. 24, 2007 still there. You can use that one. Let me know

[Misnomer]

I still have to wonder why sticking up for the little guy is so wrong to you. I'm a consumer too and if I didn't side with this fella, at least on principle, then I would have to be considered to be siding with the corporations. Maybe this guy is not worried about the actual 5 million dollars. Maybe he is using that amount to draw attention to the issue. I doubt very much that he will ever see that money nor does he care. His concern is the lack of protection or information regarding used software.

We are not saying there is anything wrong with sticking up for the little guy, but it is not guaranteed by law and most likely will not be in this case. Robin Hood was still an outlaw remember. Your thoughts about the little guy here are just conjecture, you assume the best of this guy. I differ because everything in this lawsuit reminds me of public statements made by EA about GameStop recently.

That distinction of GameStop being a "Full Retail" shopping experience as opposed to Ebay is especially suspicious. The language in that suit shows that they are using the implied warranty language Mike talked about (that has a difference between a merchant and an individual seller), but because there is no defect in the product (implied warranties are usually about the product meeting regulation to be sold in that area and having a returnable period) it is about the interpretation of a "full retail" purchase and the packaging. Nothing I read about implied warranties said anything about packaging except that some areas do not recognize the "as is" designation other's in forum have mentioned.

Maybe his concern is that most people are not fully aware of how computer/console software works in the sense of offers, CD keys, DLC etc. The point, I'm sure, is to draw attention to what rights and perhaps limitations come from buying used software. Some of the additional concerns could be that someone buys the used software goes and uses the CD key only to find out that the key has been banned globally and so his purchase is lost. Can he go back to the store and cry foul? No sir, the store will say that he is a hacker and got caught. So sorry, go pick another one of the shelf and try again after you pay for it and take it home.


This is not exactly relevant to the thread other than to say that this issue already exists for many other forms of software. If you can't do it with most forms of software why should you be able to with console? Drawing awareness works with E. coli in your meat or faulty brakes on a lot of cars, it is hard to get your local legislature to pay attention to 10 dollars difference with used products that warn you even in small print. It is unlikely that this class action could involve even the number of people in the Spore DRM class action. If it does turn out like the Spore case, it would cause Gamestop to change their policy or EA to changes theirs. Since EA is dead set on putting Gamestop out of the used game business, I think it is more likely the other way. GameStop would likely just stop the resale of all Limited Free DLC games, or give gamers back even less for their trade in because they would be forced to offer it at a lower cost. EA and Gamestop are fighting over customers, but they aren't having a price war. The consumer loses out either way, regardless of ideological side.

We talk all the time about how consoles are becoming more like PCs, well it looks like their used sales are headed the way of PC used sales. People have argued a long time against the return policy with PC games, but it hasn't ever made it as punitive damages in a class action suit. I am not sure how far that has gotten in court. Anyone?

[TRTL]

I deleted your fourth duplicate account.... as per your request almost two months ago.

There is however, your original account - registered Oct. 24, 2007 still there. You can use that one. Let me know

Thats funny how it just gets re-activated. ;)

[Mr.Ray]

<sigh> Think what you like.

[Misnomer]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/63310

UK Chain Warns Buyers of Missing Used Game DLC
by Brian Leahy Apr 14, 2010 4:30pm CST

MCV (via GamePolitics) reports that the UK video game shop GAME has started placing warning stickers on used games that no longer have included DLC in response to the US lawsuit against GameStop over that very issue.

"Pre-owned copies of applicable titles have stickers on them saying 'check with staff for availability of downloadable content', giving staff the chance to explain clearly the difference so that our customers understand the benefits of buying both pre-owned and mint," a GAME representative explained to MCV.

The move is a good one for informing customers what they are purchasing as well as avoiding any future legal drama, especially with the UK's aggressive consumer protection laws.


Looks like you guys arrived at the proper conclusion here. Stickers were deemed to be necessary in the UK.