Attorney General James Sues Game Developer for Promoting Illegal Gambling Through Video Games

Original post moderated

I agree w this alt

peatrick said:

Online gambling is the next fentanyl. It may not kill quite as many people, but it's without a doubt damaging to society. 

There's a reason we did not have any professional sports teams in Vegas for most of our lives. And it's not because gambling is harmless. 

Or society is corrupt and broken, this stuff should NEVER be normalized. While sports betting and other forms of gambling may not sound quite as severe as mainlining fentanyl, they are both without a doubt foolish... yet both are diseases of addiction and will destroy lives.

Just to be clear, I was commenting on a legal principle, and not directly on gambling. Wagering any sort of stake for a chance at winning more is inherently dangerous, and problem gamblers are a huge economic liability to their households and to society at large. The non-prescription use of fentanyl carries a high potential for harm to the one taking it, as well as to their family members, who will inevitably be affected by the physical, emotional, and mental injury that can arise consequently from the abuse of fentanyl.

Purchasing an opportunity to randomly gain access to one of a number of distinct digital licenses of varying intangible value is not gambling. Full stop. Trying to analogize gambling with the equivalent of opening a pack of Pokémon cards is a gross and inappropriate oversimplification. The legal system would see this the same way, and should continue to do so.

phatalerror said:

Just to be clear, I was commenting on a legal principle, and not directly on gambling. Wagering any sort of stake for a chance at winning more is inherently dangerous, and problem gamblers are a huge economic liability to their households and to society at large. The non-prescription use of fentanyl carries a high potential for harm to the one taking it, as well as to their family members, who will inevitably be affected by the physical, emotional, and mental injury that can arise consequently from the abuse of fentanyl.

Purchasing an opportunity to randomly gain access to one of a number of distinct digital licenses of varying intangible value is not gambling. Full stop. Trying to analogize gambling with the equivalent of opening a pack of Pokémon cards is a gross and inappropriate oversimplification. The legal system would see this the same way, and should continue to do so.

First off, I want to say that I absolutely adore your well-written, intelligent posts and comments.  What a breath of fresh air.  However, quite frankly, you could not be more wrong.  First off, your whole "rule of law" thing is such a load of shit.  I want to take you seriously, but I am astounded that is your uhhh justification for how or why EA is correct.  Talk about victim-blaming, my goodness.  We used to segregate people by the color of their skin, in 1857 Dred Scott ruled that black people were not citizens.  Then again in 1944, we "legally" concentrated Japanese-Americans into camps. The rules based order that we all wanted to believe governs our society has been demonstrated to be a fierce crock of shit.  So attempting to leverage any type of legal principle in matters of right and wrong, and allowing that to guide and inform your choices in the world is, misguided, at best.

But since you seem to prefer speaking in legalese, I think many of us can see that the landscape surrounding microtransactions (and gambling, as they are essentially equivalent, despite yer poorly informed take) is, as it should be, currently in a state of massive upheaval.  US courts have protected game companies, while they continue to abuse the player base.  The shift towards stricter regulation and "gambling" classifications is long overdue.  There's a reason that none of the major sports leagues wanted teams based in Las Vegas for the bulk of our lives.  NY Attorney General going after Valve is a decent start, but hoping that's just one of many to come.  You can dispute the whole "real-world" value aspect of MUT coins, but i can go out there today and spend twenty US Dollars on 1M coins (or whatever the going rate is -- i've never actually purchased coins from secondary markets, but i have friends who do so).  Would be trivial for me to demonstrate the real world value.  Anyone who claims otherwise is probably corrupt (or simply misinformed).  Court cases get dismissed, simply because these companies force us to sign our rights away before we're ever allowed to enter these games.  Just saying that MUT coins have no intrinsic value doesn't make it that way, these court cases are typically dismissed for ToS violations, for trying to escape the various walled gardens we're forced to play in.  Crypto (and NFTs specifically) have collapsed the whole real world value test, now it's just a matter of which governing agency is looking at them.  Digital goods absolutely have real-world, tangible value.  The IRS treats crypto (digital goods) as assets and are appropriately taxed as such.  The SEC has the Howey Test to determine what digital assets are considered securities.  Epic Games settled for something along the lines of ~half a billion dollars (while not outright admitting "gambling" per se) but they clearly deceived minors and removed their random loot boxes, in favor of more transparent purchases.  I'm not so sure the whole legal standard is on as solid ground as you seem to think.  I don't know if you're an actual attorney (i clearly am not), but these concepts do not require passing a bar exam to properly grasp.

We cannot allow every company and organization in the known universe to establish their own guidelines, of what is considered value.  Just because EA Orlando / Tiburon says these are merely "games of chance" and include fun little surprises, doesn't make it so.  I assure you, this is not the first time that your almighty legal system has gotten things wrong.

If purchasing an opportunity to randomly gain access to one of a number of distinct digital licenses of varying intangible value is not gambling, how or why would Epic Games settle out of court (and change the way their loot boxes operate, removing the random chance aspect)?  The whole "random" aspect of it absolutely turns this into a clear example of gambling.  Even yer own arguments fail to hold up, I'm not so sure the legal system does see it that way... but the should continue to do so aspect of yer argument is disturbing.  I get it, people are wrong all the time... but are we even playing the same game?  Clearly your experiences have not been the same as so many of us.  Stockholm syndrome much?

peatrick said:

First off, I want to say that I absolutely adore your well-written, intelligent posts and comments.  What a breath of fresh air.  However, quite frankly, you could not be more wrong.  First off, your whole "rule of law" thing is such a load of shit.  I want to take you seriously, but I am astounded that is your uhhh justification for how or why EA is correct.  Talk about victim-blaming, my goodness.  We used to segregate people by the color of their skin, in 1857 Dred Scott ruled that black people were not citizens.  Then again in 1944, we "legally" concentrated Japanese-Americans into camps. The rules based order that we all wanted to believe governs our society has been demonstrated to be a fierce crock of shit.  So attempting to leverage any type of legal principle in matters of right and wrong, and allowing that to guide and inform your choices in the world is, misguided, at best.

But since you seem to prefer speaking in legalese, I think many of us can see that the landscape surrounding microtransactions (and gambling, as they are essentially equivalent, despite yer poorly informed take) is, as it should be, currently in a state of massive upheaval.  US courts have protected game companies, while they continue to abuse the player base.  The shift towards stricter regulation and "gambling" classifications is long overdue.  There's a reason that none of the major sports leagues wanted teams based in Las Vegas for the bulk of our lives.  NY Attorney General going after Valve is a decent start, but hoping that's just one of many to come.  You can dispute the whole "real-world" value aspect of MUT coins, but i can go out there today and spend twenty US Dollars on 1M coins (or whatever the going rate is -- i've never actually purchased coins from secondary markets, but i have friends who do so).  Would be trivial for me to demonstrate the real world value.  Anyone who claims otherwise is probably corrupt (or simply misinformed).  Court cases get dismissed, simply because these companies force us to sign our rights away before we're ever allowed to enter these games.  Just saying that MUT coins have no intrinsic value doesn't make it that way, these court cases are typically dismissed for ToS violations, for trying to escape the various walled gardens we're forced to play in.  Crypto (and NFTs specifically) have collapsed the whole real world value test, now it's just a matter of which governing agency is looking at them.  Digital goods absolutely have real-world, tangible value.  The IRS treats crypto (digital goods) as assets and are appropriately taxed as such.  The SEC has the Howey Test to determine what digital assets are considered securities.  Epic Games settled for something along the lines of ~half a billion dollars (while not outright admitting "gambling" per se) but they clearly deceived minors and removed their random loot boxes, in favor of more transparent purchases.  I'm not so sure the whole legal standard is on as solid ground as you seem to think.  I don't know if you're an actual attorney (i clearly am not), but these concepts do not require passing a bar exam to properly grasp.

We cannot allow every company and organization in the known universe to establish their own guidelines, of what is considered value.  Just because EA Orlando / Tiburon says these are merely "games of chance" and include fun little surprises, doesn't make it so.  I assure you, this is not the first time that your almighty legal system has gotten things wrong.

If purchasing an opportunity to randomly gain access to one of a number of distinct digital licenses of varying intangible value is not gambling, how or why would Epic Games settle out of court (and change the way their loot boxes operate, removing the random chance aspect)?  The whole "random" aspect of it absolutely turns this into a clear example of gambling.  Even yer own arguments fail to hold up, I'm not so sure the legal system does see it that way... but the should continue to do so aspect of yer argument is disturbing.  I get it, people are wrong all the time... but are we even playing the same game?  Clearly your experiences have not been the same as so many of us.  Stockholm syndrome much?

These kids here not only CANT but won’t read that. Attention span of a peanut, intellect of one as well.

Outstanding write up however. Spot on as well. And no I’m betting dude isn’t a lawyer, but watches judge Judy and 1st 48.

The whole license thing however muddies everything up. Once we get a serious White House back we should see some kind of action is my hope.

BaileyAdams said:

These kids here not only CANT but won’t read that. Attention span of a peanut, intellect of one as well.

Outstanding write up however. Spot on as well. And no I’m betting dude isn’t a lawyer, but watches judge Judy and 1st 48.

The whole license thing however muddies everything up. Once we get a serious White House back we should see some kind of action is my hope.

I sincerely doubt that whoever is in the White House cares in even the slightest about Madden licensing.

weplaythose said:

I sincerely doubt that whoever is in the White House cares in even the slightest about Madden licensing.

I get you, I meant it as a trickle down effect

peatrick said:

First off, I want to say that I absolutely adore your well-written, intelligent posts and comments.  What a breath of fresh air.  However, quite frankly, you could not be more wrong.  First off, your whole "rule of law" thing is such a load of shit.  I want to take you seriously, but I am astounded that is your uhhh justification for how or why EA is correct.  Talk about victim-blaming, my goodness.  We used to segregate people by the color of their skin, in 1857 Dred Scott ruled that black people were not citizens.  Then again in 1944, we "legally" concentrated Japanese-Americans into camps. The rules based order that we all wanted to believe governs our society has been demonstrated to be a fierce crock of shit.  So attempting to leverage any type of legal principle in matters of right and wrong, and allowing that to guide and inform your choices in the world is, misguided, at best.

But since you seem to prefer speaking in legalese, I think many of us can see that the landscape surrounding microtransactions (and gambling, as they are essentially equivalent, despite yer poorly informed take) is, as it should be, currently in a state of massive upheaval.  US courts have protected game companies, while they continue to abuse the player base.  The shift towards stricter regulation and "gambling" classifications is long overdue.  There's a reason that none of the major sports leagues wanted teams based in Las Vegas for the bulk of our lives.  NY Attorney General going after Valve is a decent start, but hoping that's just one of many to come.  You can dispute the whole "real-world" value aspect of MUT coins, but i can go out there today and spend twenty US Dollars on 1M coins (or whatever the going rate is -- i've never actually purchased coins from secondary markets, but i have friends who do so).  Would be trivial for me to demonstrate the real world value.  Anyone who claims otherwise is probably corrupt (or simply misinformed).  Court cases get dismissed, simply because these companies force us to sign our rights away before we're ever allowed to enter these games.  Just saying that MUT coins have no intrinsic value doesn't make it that way, these court cases are typically dismissed for ToS violations, for trying to escape the various walled gardens we're forced to play in.  Crypto (and NFTs specifically) have collapsed the whole real world value test, now it's just a matter of which governing agency is looking at them.  Digital goods absolutely have real-world, tangible value.  The IRS treats crypto (digital goods) as assets and are appropriately taxed as such.  The SEC has the Howey Test to determine what digital assets are considered securities.  Epic Games settled for something along the lines of ~half a billion dollars (while not outright admitting "gambling" per se) but they clearly deceived minors and removed their random loot boxes, in favor of more transparent purchases.  I'm not so sure the whole legal standard is on as solid ground as you seem to think.  I don't know if you're an actual attorney (i clearly am not), but these concepts do not require passing a bar exam to properly grasp.

We cannot allow every company and organization in the known universe to establish their own guidelines, of what is considered value.  Just because EA Orlando / Tiburon says these are merely "games of chance" and include fun little surprises, doesn't make it so.  I assure you, this is not the first time that your almighty legal system has gotten things wrong.

If purchasing an opportunity to randomly gain access to one of a number of distinct digital licenses of varying intangible value is not gambling, how or why would Epic Games settle out of court (and change the way their loot boxes operate, removing the random chance aspect)?  The whole "random" aspect of it absolutely turns this into a clear example of gambling.  Even yer own arguments fail to hold up, I'm not so sure the legal system does see it that way... but the should continue to do so aspect of yer argument is disturbing.  I get it, people are wrong all the time... but are we even playing the same game?  Clearly your experiences have not been the same as so many of us.  Stockholm syndrome much?

Sorry @peatrick, I know I struck a nerve here, and I wasn’t trying to victim-blame. Allow me to state my position on a few things:

• Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is founded on good ethics or morals.

• Just because a law exists doesn’t mean individuals or companies won’t push the boundaries of what is legal or illegal.

• Laws necessarily exist to protect the innocent and naïve, because at times individuals or companies are predatory in their behavior.

I’m not a lawyer. Perhaps I could have been. Law has always been interesting to me. I’m certain however that if I had chosen a career in the legal field, I would have had to make compromises I find ethically unacceptable.

I personally do not participate in “gambling” or anything like gambling. Nor do I think it is healthy, regardless of consent. (Not here to judge anyone here; it’s simply my position and provided a context for my comments.) I would have no objection to gambling being outright banned, whether “gambling” as codified or gambling in the sense of the term.

As for the issue with Epic Games, settlements often happen when a defendant finds itself in a vulnerable legal position. Their defense may have had merit that could have withstood scrutiny, but American juries can be fickle, and honestly, that is why a lot of corporations settle cases, only to change nothing about their behavior, and only a handful of clauses in their Terms of Use. I’m not familiar with the Epic Games case, so I can’t comment directly on their merits, only on the propensity for lawyers on their heels to cut their losses while there can still be profit to be made.

peatrick said:

Online gambling is the next fentanyl. It may not kill quite as many people, but it's without a doubt damaging to society. 

There's a reason we did not have any professional sports teams in Vegas for most of our lives. And it's not because gambling is harmless. 

Or society is corrupt and broken, this stuff should NEVER be normalized. While sports betting and other forms of gambling may not sound quite as severe as mainlining fentanyl, they are both without a doubt foolish... yet both are diseases of addiction and will destroy lives.

Wild take comparing any drug to MUT or any form of gambling , obviously you can be addicted to many things but most people don't know someone who lost everything due to gambling  ( I understand some people do )  and most here not only know someone who has had severe struggles  with drugs but have family member who have .

Buccs4047 said:

Fake news. We all know the odds when opening packs. By law EA has to put that on the pack. Other than that..   WE are the dumb dumbs that spend the money. EA isn't doing anything wrong. Every year they push it, to see how dumb we are, spending $1400 on packs to get Lamar. Wtf people!! Come on.

That's a very robot like unempathetic aegument people use. By that logic you are ok with codeine ruining peoples lifes cuz it's legal. Well it shouldn't be. Just as gambling. Especially for kids. These companys are ruthless. Don't look for excuses for people without any decency.

Cizzle said:

That's a very robot like unempathetic aegument people use. By that logic you are ok with codeine ruining peoples lifes cuz it's legal. Well it shouldn't be. Just as gambling. Especially for kids. These companys are ruthless. Don't look for excuses for people without any decency.

I'm looking at it like a 57 year old, not a kid. Of course I'm not ok with a lot of things in life. But... people need to take responsibility for their actions. We are talking about opening packs, right? If you are like me, and spend money on this game.. it's dumb! But I won't blame anyone else but myself.

Buccs4047 said:

I'm looking at it like a 57 year old, not a kid. Of course I'm not ok with a lot of things in life. But... people need to take responsibility for their actions. We are talking about opening packs, right? If you are like me, and spend money on this game.. it's dumb! But I won't blame anyone else but myself.

That's what you don't understand being part of the ruthless mob. I am not talkin bout myself. I am thinking about people who have a gambling problem or else and EA preying on those people. I agree people need to take responsibility. But that's true for companys as well. They know what they are doing very well. This is designed to make people addicted. I have enough money and are mentally stable. But this is not everybody and a state needs to take care of their people like parents with their children.