๐Ÿ‘คpseudolus๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ236๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ143

(Replying to PARENT post)

Can someone please explain to me how this is not just a complete travesty and perversion of settlements?

>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?

๐Ÿ‘คLoughla๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Class action lawsuits are turning out to be a scam. It should be law that lawyers can't have more than something like 5% of the settlement, and companies should have to pay out as cash equivelant.

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.

๐Ÿ‘คexabrial๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Interesting side-note - as a minor who plays the game, Epic is essentially discouraging you at all from participating in the cash-sided part of the settlement with the follow-up of contract stipulation - if you request cash due to being a minor at the time of playing, Epic will force you to close your Epic Games account, across all games.
๐Ÿ‘คraunakdag๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

...but I'm sure the lawyers who brought the case aren't being paid with in-game currency, amiright?
๐Ÿ‘คyebyen๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Reminds me of the airline antitrust suit in the early 1990's. The settlement was 10% discount coupons (AirScrip) for seven of the airlines that were involved.

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.

๐Ÿ‘คnrhodes๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

This same Epic that is screaming to the world how Apple and Google are so bad boys.

Good example of dual morals.

๐Ÿ‘คpjmlp๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Is it possible to liquidate in-game currency for cash at the same price it would've cost to purchase it to begin with? If not the settlement cost Epic basically nothing.
๐Ÿ‘คendisneigh๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Can someone explain to a non-gamer what this is all about? Specifically, what's the legal issue here? The article doesn't really say.

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?

๐Ÿ‘คfingerlocks๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

What an absolute travesty. Epic is running a casino, encouraging players to gamble, but not for something of value, but an infinitely repeatable digital good. To be able to "pay off", if you could even go as far to call it that, in digital goods at effectively no cost to them then we're just encouraging further bad behavior.
๐Ÿ‘คonepointsixC๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I thought this was an Onion article. Wow.
๐Ÿ‘คthejoeflow๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Is there any effect on the game industry as a whole here? As far as I can tell, Overwatch has exactly the same loot box model. Is anyone suing Blizzard over this? Or is there some particular miniscule detail that made Epic's actions illegal, but selling randomized loot boxes in general is still OK?
๐Ÿ‘คjrockway๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I don't see why they'd be able to do this, considering that one of the main arguments for why lootboxes and virtual currency don't count as gambling is that they have no monetary value.
๐Ÿ‘คhn8788๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

There seem to be two beneficiaries from such class action cases: Lawyers who get paid, and prosecutors who get publicity.

The deterrent effect on the guilty party is negligible, and the benefit to the public is nil.

๐Ÿ‘คFatalLogic๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Class action lawsuits should require a "class advocate" who is only paid a flat percentage of the total amount awarded to the class in a settlement or court victory. The advocate would represent the class and would have the power to hire, fire, and negotiate compensation for any lawyers, and any settlement would require the advocate's approval.

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.

HT @MikeUt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26238726

๐Ÿ‘คistjohn๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Since this is a settlement, the court has nothing to say about it. It's entirely a private deal between the lawyers, who on one side are wholly failing to represent the plaintiffs.

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.

๐Ÿ‘คncmncm๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Ticketmaster lost a class action suit in 2016, but managed to be allowed to pay the customers it unfairly charged not in money, but in coupons for Ticketmaster.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7370600/ticketmas...

๐Ÿ‘คteddyh๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Ethics of paying off class actions with promotional/discount rewards aside, I'm kind of surprised they did settle. While many EU regulators have held loot boxes to be in violation of rules regarding licensed gambling or marketing gambling to kids, I'd always assumed the US would be more open to letting whales be eaten by the sharks based on their attitude towards free markets.
๐Ÿ‘คMacha๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Misleading, baity headline.

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.

๐Ÿ‘คrogual๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

"Even though it's settling a US lawsuit, Epic says this same deal will apply to all Fortnite players globally."

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.

๐Ÿ‘ค_0ffh๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I thought this was a joke, sounds like the premise for a south park episode.
๐Ÿ‘คkowlo๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Maybe if loot-boxes are considered gambling it is because the digital asset has monetary value, therefore it could be used as reimbursement in this case? shady
๐Ÿ‘คnico__๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

What's the actual claim behind the lawsuit?

I hate lootboxes, but what's the basis for damages?

๐Ÿ‘คklmadfejno๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

So as "punishment", Epic has to "pay" users in a fake currency which can only be redeemed for a limited set of Epic products and whose value is artificially controlled by Epic themselves. This sounds more like a marketing campaign than a legal settlement.
๐Ÿ‘คCivBase๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Can I pay my taxes with special in-country vouchers?
๐Ÿ‘คAcerbicZero๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

wow.. I'm sure many companies facing class action law suits would love to reimburse people with in-store vouchers..

How is this legal ? Isn't the whole loophole around in-game currency not receiving gambling regulation is because the currency is NOT redeemable ?

๐Ÿ‘คbilekas๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Do they also pay employees with company scrips?
๐Ÿ‘คsay_it_as_it_is๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

The degree of 'unethical' at play here is nothing short of epic.
๐Ÿ‘คjacquesm๐Ÿ•‘4y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0