lawsuit posts (Subscribe to this feed)

Chalk up another frustrated party accusing SouthPeak of wrongdoing. The company has been sued by Section 8 developer TimeGate, which alleges that the publisher has withheld royalty payments and entered into a PS3 licensing deal on the game with Russian company IC, an arrangement that TimeGate claims SouthPeak had no right to make.

In legal documents obtained by Joystiq, TimeGate also alleges that this SouthPeak T-shirt promotion was unauthorized, that the publisher had mislead TimeGate about sales figures and that the publisher has stated it should not have to adhere to TimeGate's original agreement, as it had been made with Gamecock, which SouthPeak purchased in late 2008. We've reached out to SouthPeak for comment.

If you prefer your language far more formal, the lawsuit puts it like this: "[SouthPeak] failed to provide a sufficient sales report, withheld royalty payments and did not adhere to the obligation to act in good faith and fair dealing when they established the sham transaction in order to deprive TimeGate of royalties despite the special relationship between the parties and being in a position of trust."

No specific amount is mentioned in the suit, with TimeGate asking only for "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined" following an independent audit of Section 8's sales.

The new, extended deadline for THQ to sign its WWE licensing agreement elapsed two days ago, leaving several people in suspense about the outcome. Today, THQ shared the news that it has secured the exclusive rights to develop and publish games based on the WWE wrestling license for eight additional years, effective January 1, 2010.

Not coincidentally, THQ has also settled its legal issues with WWE toy producer Jakks Pacific. THQ and Jakks will dissolve their venture using the other universal solvent: money. THQ has agreed to pay the company $20 million, along with previously earned royalties, and will pay the WWE $13.2 million.

All of the companies found this agreement preferable to the previous offer, wherein WWE and Jakks would hit THQ with folding chairs while the referee mysteriously looked away.

It seems the Dungeons & Dragons franchise has brought more legal troubles upon Atari than it's probably worth. In August, Turbine Entertainment, developer of the MMO based on the tabletop game, sued the publisher for failing to "devote the necessary resources" to promoting and distributing the online RPG. Now, Hasbro, owner of subsidiary company Wizards of the Coast, which is the current owner of the D&D franchise, is suing Atari for allegedly breaching a licensing agreement the two parties struck up concerning Atari's use of the popular role-playing brand.

Hasbro's main complaint in the suit is that Atari might have taken part in an "unauthorized sublicensing relationship" with Namco Bandai during the latter's purchase of Atari's European distribution company this past March. According to the suit, Namco Bandai is a direct competitor to Hasbro and Wizards, and allowing them any access to the D&D license is a violation of the contract agreed to by Atari. Hasbro seeks compensatory damages, and also to terminate the allegedly violated licensing agreement, denying Atari further access to the brand.

In a press release statement, Wizards of the Coast president Greg Leeds said, "while unfortunate that we had to take this action, it is crucial for us to protect the Dungeons & Dragons brand." Leeds later added, "we have been working for several months now to reach resolution with Atari, and they have left us with no other choice than to pursue legal action."

Atari isn't taking these complaints lying down -- the publisher just distributed its own statement through PRNewswire, claiming, "Hasbro has resorted to these meritless allegations, in an apparent attempt to unfairly take back rights granted to Atari." The statement goes on to say, "we regret that our long-time partner has decided to pursue this action. Atari will respond appropriately through its legal counsel in court."

Last month, the extremely certain pop-rock outfit No Doubt sued Activision for allowing their likenesses to be used in Band Hero, where players could perform the game's entire catalog of songs as the Stefani-fronted group. According to the complaint, this feature turned the band's appearance in the game into a "virtual karaoke circus act." Earlier this week, The Hollywood Reporter dug up a countersuit filed against the band by Activision, who claimed No Doubt was in breach of a contract between the two parties, and had reaped unjust enrichment as a result.

Activision's main response to No Doubt's claim is that that the band requested their likenesses be limited to perform the band's own songs in-game -- however, it made this request "only after the Band Hero programming was finalized." Activision seeks an unspecified amount of damages and interest from the band, as well as court and attorney fees, and a return of all payments dispersed to the band for their initial involvement. Jeez, Activision. Might as well go ahead and ask for the kitchen sink while you're at it.

[Via GamePolitics]

Erik Estavillo has been given a handful of nicknames by the press recently – he listed "Professional/PSN Plaintiff," "The Serial Suer" and a few others when he spoke with Joystiq this morning. He assured us though, time and time again, "That WoW lawsuit, that's my final lawsuit. So people know, I'm not suing any more companies." In case you missed it, Estavillo is currently engaged in four separate lawsuits – one with Microsoft, one with Nintendo, one with Sony (in both Federal and State court), and one with Activision Blizzard. "One lawsuit for each major console maker and one for the PC, so four total," he clarified to us.

Aside from seeking money (anywhere from as low as $180 to $1 million, depending on the case), we asked Estavillo what his intentions were behind launching the multiple lawsuits. "What I wanted to do was exploit the weakness of each console and show that they're not impervious to flaws ... each console has a flaw and they should fix it," he said. During the interview as well as in some of his court filings, Estavillo claimed to be suffering from a variety of psychological maladies, and has repeatedly stated that he uses online gaming as his primary form of communication. "I told this other interviewer and it's true – I actually have no friends. I rely on online gameplay for socialization."

Though he's yet to win a case, his first (by default) could come as soon as December 3 – the end of Sony's 30 days to respond to a summons. If he does, that would mean $180,000 and a "no contest" ruling against Sony. Though he said he'll keep some of the money he may win, he noted that, "Half the money I get is gonna go to God. I'm giving half the money I get to CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network], local churches, charities, or poor people on the street."

We talked to Estavillo about a variety of other topics – from what games he plays to why he's subpoenaing celebrities instead of experts – but due to sheer length we've broken the rest of the interview out after the break.

Update: Erik Estavillo emailed us this evening to say that Sony has responded to his summons, thus closing out the possibility of a default settlement. The first hearing will be in early 2010.

Serial suit launcher Erik Estavillo is making a little name for himself in the game space, as his latest complaint seeks $1 million in damages from Activision Blizzard over the design of World of Warcraft. GamePolitics reports on the complaint, which claims that the publisher maintains a "harmful virtual environment to many of its customers by forcing them to follow the game's sneaky and deceitful practices." Estavillo alleges that the "calculated slow pace" of the game makes turning quests in take longer and thus generates more subscription revenue for Activision Blizzard.

If that wasn't enough, Estavillo also subpoenaed actress Winona Ryder and Depeche Mode's Martin Lee Gore to testify on his behalf regarding alienation. He explains that his health issues, which apparently include OCD, agoraphobia, depression (and more), mean that he "relies on video games heavily for the little ongoing happiness he can achieve in this life."

Estavillo had previously sued Sony after being banned from PSN and also has another suit against Microsoft and Nintendo, for his Xbox 360's Red Ring of Death and Nintendo's disabling of the Homebrew Channel in an update. Perhaps he'll have more luck suing over the design of a game in which millions happily pay to participate.

Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
The term "professional plaintiff" is thrown out at the idea that some people make their living as someone who partners with an attorney to bring so many lawsuits that their entire livelyhood rests on suing people. Googling the term will bring up dozens of results in many different areas of the law, but a series of events this week made me wonder if the game industry might just be the next target of this kind of behavior. Specifically, the reports of a class action over Xbox Live bannings and reports that the same person who sued Sony over being banned in Resistance is now suing Microsoft over red rings and Nintendo over homebrew.

So how does this professional plaintiff idea work? Speaking extremely generally, to bring a lawsuit, someone has to have standing, that is they suffered an injury and are substantially related to the harm that caused that injury so that they can sue over it. Past allegations of professional plaintiffs have often been related to suits related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, such that one disabled person is suing multiple establishments because they have standing to sue based on the lack of compliance with the Act. I'm sure many readers are thinking, "But how would this work in gaming? There are no gaming statutes that could give gamers standing to sue like that." Well, it's a pretty straightforward answer, actually.

Datel announced that it has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, in response to Microsoft's lockout (via Xbox 360 firmware update) of the company's Max Memory Cards. We doubt this is the "remedy" for the lockout issue to which the company previously referred, but it's certainly one way to address it.

"Microsoft has taken steps to render inoperable the competing Datel memory card for no visible purpose other than to have that market entirely to themselves," Datel attorney Marty Glick explained in a press release. "They accomplished their recent update by making a system change that will not recognize or allow operation of a memory card with greater capacity than their own. We believe that with the power Microsoft enjoys in the market for Xbox accessories this conduct is unlawful."

In the press release, Datel goes on to say that the lawsuit is intended to "restore competition" which, the company suggests, is beneficial to consumers. It's now up to a federal court in San Francisco to determine whether the Max Memory-crippling Xbox update constitutes unlawful anti-competitive behavior on the part of Microsoft.

The last time Datel went to court, it viewed the experience from the other side. Sony filed suit against the peripheral maker over the "Lite Blue Tool," which would have enabled users to run unsigned code on PSP hardware.

In response to a possible class action lawsuit resulting from a recent round of Xbox Live bans, Microsoft has now asserted the legality of its position. A spokesperson has told the Financial Post that piracy is a violation of the company's terms of use and that Microsoft is "well within its legal rights" to ban users from its Xbox Live.

It was reported earlier this month that the law firm AlbingtonIP is "investigating" the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over the bans. The firm argues that timing of the bans -- shortly after the release of Halo 3: ODST and just prior to the launch of Modern Warfare 2 -- was designed to get as much money from Xbox Live subscriptions as possible. In other words, the firm believes that Microsoft personally waited for a time when many people -- modders in this case -- would be purchasing Live subscriptions for popular games -- money that probably wouldn't be refunded after a ban.

Joystiq's Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, classified the suit as a likely "cash grab," explaining that anyone savvy enough to mod an Xbox would know to stay well away from Xbox Live. We might add that major releases, like ODST and Modern Warfare 2, are the biggest targets for piracy, and likely correspond with rises in illegal downloads. And that just might have something to do with the timing of the bans in question.

[Via Kotaku]

After being banned from the PlayStation Network for hateful comments stated in Resistance's online community, Erik Estavillo launched not one, but two, lawsuits against Sony for infringing on his "first amendment rights" -- an argument that was shot down by Judge Ronald Whyte simply because "Sony is not part of the government."

However, what Estavillo lacks in civil online discourse, he makes up for with sheer determination and persistence. In addition to Sony, he now has both Microsoft and Nintendo in his sights. Estavillo is seeking $75,000 from Microsoft for the "undue stress" and "sadness" caused by his Xbox 360's RROD. "Microsoft should have to bear the burden that is now put on the shoulders of this disabled plaintiff," his claim states -- a burden that is equivalent to the sum of 375 Xbox 360 systems, apparently. Nintendo is being sued for interfering with Estavillo's "pursuit of happiness." And how exactly is Nintendo doing that? "Deleting, blocking or prohibiting the Homebrew Channel and Ocarina applications" via a system update.

We're hoping you can see the sheer brilliance of Estavillo's strategy. He's offering the perfect opportunity for PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo fans to agree on something for once.

Boutique law firm AbingtonIP is "investigating" what it considers the "convenient" recent Xbox Live bannings. The firm posits that the "tens of thousands" of banned Xbox Live subscribers who used modded consoles deserve recompense due to the timing of the action. The firm believes that said timing -- i.e., after Halo 3: ODST and shortly before Modern Warfare 2's releases -- was executed to net Microsoft as much money as possible out of potential Xbox Live subscribers before banning the modded devices. The class action lawsuit would attempt to obtain a refund for the prorated sums left on the banned Xbox Live subscriptions.

According to Joystiq legal columnist Mark Methenitis' analysis: "To me, this certainly sounds a lot like a cash grab directed at a company with deep pockets, but perhaps there are more facts than they are letting on." He explains that a user savvy enough to have a modded console would also know not to connect it to Live without "serious risk." Methenitis concludes, "If, in fact, Microsoft is inducing people to buy a service only to terminate them, then there's certainly a deceptive business practice concern. But this seems far more cut and dry than that."

[Thanks, C. Carl Carlston]

On November 10th, Bareis Technologies, LLC filed a lawsuit against Ubisoft, Sony Computer Entertainment, Electronic Arts and Disney Interactive Studios, claiming that various games, including Tom Clancy, SOCOM and NASCAR titles, infringe upon a patent filed in 1996. "Optical disk having speech recognition templates for information access" describes a process "integrating automatic speech recognition technologies into optical disk players for command and control purposes."

As is typical with lawsuits of this nature, the plaintiff is seeking "no less than a reasonable royalty" for the supposed use of this "stolen" technology. Should the case make it to court, the plaintiff will have a few hurdles to overcome. Primarily, lawyers will have to prove how a patent largely targeted towards accessing specific music tracks on audio CDs is applicable to the video games in question.

Considering it's been over seven years since the debut of the first SOCOM game, it's surprising that the plaintiff has waited so long to file this suit. Perhaps it's telling that the company going forward with the lawsuit has done so little in the thirteen years since filing the trademark that it has no web presence whatsoever.

[Via GamePolitics]

As if, in this world of economic hardship and international strife, you need another thing to worry about. iPhone developer Storm8 has been accused of stealing the phone numbers of players that downloaded its apps like Vampires Live and Zombies Live in a suit filed in San Francisco on behalf of Lynnwood, WA resident Michael Turner.

The company acknowledged the number harvesting in August, calling it a "bug," though the suit claims only specific code could have recorded and transmitted the numbers. So ... apparently that's a thing that happens. Have a great Saturday!

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Well, after the incident with Courtney Love and Kurt, it looks like the whole issue of famous musicians in games is back in the press with No Doubt suing Activision over Band Hero. A one time event is an anomaly, but twice in just a few months suggests something else. Of course, both of these all tie back to the contract, and since I'm a transactional attorney who spends the majority of most days negotiating and drafting agreements like these, I'm hoping I can shed a little light on what might be causing the problems. Since I wasn't involved in these particular negotiations nor have I read these contracts, all of what I'm presenting is speculation.

But before I begin, I suppose I should answer the simple question, "What is a contract?" I assume that most people reading this have at least some idea, but just in case, it's worth describing in detail. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties to perform certain promises in the future. In theory, to form a contract there are five elements: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and formalities. In reality, it's fairly simple. The parties must have a meeting of the minds, that is agree to the same terms, which is often viewed as an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Each party must put up something of value, called consideration, for the contract to be valid. The parties must intend to enter into a contract, and be of the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement. And then the agreement is generally recorded in writing, as most jurisdictions have rules that require written agreements, which is then signed by the parties. And that is how a contract is born, in theory anyway.