(Replying to PARENT post)
Reminds me of the Equifax settlement which was a total scam. "Free Credit Monitoring" was BS, as Equifax was going to pay itself for the product, and everyone in the USA already has "Free Credit Monitoring" anyway. For leaking all of my personal details, I'd love to be paid for the time and money I've had to spend cleaning up their mistakes after Equifax hired a music major as the head of Information Security.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Two airlines that weren't part of the suit (Alaska and America West) agreed to accept the coupons since they didn't want to get left out.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Good example of dual morals.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Was Epic lying about the probabilities of getting rare items in these loot boxes? Or is it because "gambling" was marketed to children, in general? If the latter, why is this any different from similar non-online activities, like sweepstakes and raffles for children's toys?
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
The deterrent effect on the guilty party is negligible, and the benefit to the public is nil.
(Replying to PARENT post)
The advocate could choose to fork over half of the settlement to the lawyers if they judge that that is it what is necessary to win, but they could also negotiate lower fees or hire another firm if they believe the lawyers are charging exhorbitant fees or otherwise not representing the best interests of the class.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Epic got off practically for free, and have probably already hired the nephews of the opposing lawyers.
Those lawyers should be disbarred.
A solution might be to require the lawyers to take payment in whatever the injured parties got. But since legislators are mostly lawyers, don't expect anything to be changed about this sort of cushy arrangement.
(Replying to PARENT post)
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7370600/ticketmas...
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Yes, the in-game currency settlement is awful, but the Ars Technica headline writer is making it sound more awful than it really is, because, quote:
In addition to the virtual currency, Epic will also be providing "up to $26.5 million in cash and other benefits to U.S.-based Fortnite and Rocket League players" to settle the claims.
(Replying to PARENT post)
They wish! This can be no more than an offer which must be accepted before it "applies". I just don't know if anyone will actually bring this to court rather than accept the offer.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
I hate lootboxes, but what's the basis for damages?
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
How is this legal ? Isn't the whole loophole around in-game currency not receiving gambling regulation is because the currency is NOT redeemable ?
(Replying to PARENT post)
>In a way, the digital giveaway could even be seen as an effective promotion, luring players back to the games and creating the potential for them to spend more on additional microtransactions down the road.
That. That's the part I need explained to me. Get punished, but use the punishment to hook players even more. How is this allowed?