Take-Two sues Chicago Transit for pulling GTA IV ads
The suit seeks an order for the CTA to run the ads, as well as at least $300,000 in damages. Reuters states the GTA IV posters were removed following a FOX news report on the ads. Now, we're not lawyers (although we do have one writing for us), so we can't say if the CTA violated a basic contract, but Chicago residents should let us know if they see the ads back up and snap a photo.
[Thanks to all who sent this in.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
syrik zero @ May 6th 2008 1:33PM
Take-Two must have more lawyers than any other developer.
StarFoxA @ May 6th 2008 1:40PM
Except for Nintendo's ninja lawyers.
syrik zero @ May 6th 2008 1:41PM
Ninja Lawyers? Hahaha
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ May 6th 2008 2:23PM
Sure, Ninjas are better than Pirates.
syco @ May 6th 2008 3:42PM
A little known fact about law ninja: You have to feed them...
vidGuy @ May 6th 2008 1:33PM
It should be a cut and dry case of breach of contract; however, I don't see how the CTA could violate Take-Two's free speech since the First Amendment only applies to restriction of speech made by the government. A private entity cannot violate free speech.
NoHitHair @ May 6th 2008 1:36PM
According to the suit, they breached a contract - that is something that can legally be pursued.
Besides which CTA is financially supported by the Regional Transport Authority, a PUBLIC enterprise with a board consisting of several appointees from the Mayor.
vidGuy @ May 6th 2008 1:37PM
Nevermind, while the CTA is made up of former private transportation companies the city bought them long ago: "The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is an independent governmental agency created by state legislation."
In that case, there may be a claim to free speech, though I think it's silly to claim you have a right to plaster what you want on the side of a city bus.
NoHitHair @ May 6th 2008 1:42PM
You absolutely have the right to "plaster what you want on the side of a city bus" when the bus company agrees to it in the first place, in writing, in a contract. If they didn't like what was being put on their busses in the first place, they shouldn't have put pen to paper.
vidGuy @ May 6th 2008 1:48PM
No shit Sherlock, that's why the first sentence I posted was "it should be a cut and dry case of breach of contract". My point was to point out that the free speech argument is weak sauce. It's not like I, a resident of Chicago with no contract with CTA, could post whatever I wanted on their buses.
You want more cities to be aware of our constitutional amendments, while I wonder if people really know how the rights are applied.
FOXHOUND @ May 6th 2008 2:04PM
I have to agree with Take-Two on this one. The bus ads are far from vulgar, they don't advertise anything violent, sexual, or degrading(though they could've won some "points" by mentioning the M-rating), and c'mon... if they're bitching because of the game's history or the fact that a crime title is listed on the side of the bus, that's a splash of weaksauce served with a crock'o'shaite.
There have been a lot more subjective ads(and even more scandalous histories)for movies and TV media than what they had on the bus there. Lighten up, America.
SirPasta117 @ May 6th 2008 3:06PM
You're right. Some 13 online knows more about the law then an expert team of lawyers working for a large time company......nice catch Harvey
NoHitHair @ May 6th 2008 1:34PM
At least Take-Two is aware of their guaranteed first amendment rights.
It would be nice if more cities were aware of our constitutional amendments.
GRANTED @ May 6th 2008 1:56PM
I hope you aren't referring to the Second Amendment...
brokenscope @ May 6th 2008 2:13PM
Well he could be referring to many of the other constitutional rights we should have.
The 4th 5th and 6th do get forgotten by some of our civil servants in their efforts to protect us and stop the terrorists.(cough)
Though the 2nd and 1st get ignored on occasion too.
John @ May 6th 2008 4:10PM
What's wrong with the 2nd amendment?
LaughingTarget @ May 6th 2008 4:53PM
Absolutely nothing, unless you're willing to tear up the whole Constitution just because you don't like part of it. Any Amendment can be stripped and canceled on us "for the children".
uskali @ May 6th 2008 2:05PM
Stupid CTA. The red line is severely fucked up, 300k could have done some good. Now that you will owe take two more than that, thats a pretty big swing. I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO SIT ON A STOPPED TRAIN FOR AN HOUR ANY MORE. TAKE THE FUCKING CASH YOU MORONS.
dext3r @ May 6th 2008 2:10PM
Yup, this is a very stupid situation they are in. Should have left the ads up, they aren't violent or any different from a movie ad. And now they have to waste more money on lawyers instead of ending the Slow Zone crap and taking forever on repairs on EVERY line. Not to mention the recent Blue line incident, which seems to happen more and more often. Didn't they just fix the tracks over there? What the hell are they doing?
danny. @ May 6th 2008 2:33PM
They switched to concrete ties in the subway and have been working on the Blue Line for years. I know Kiewit is currently doing work on it out by O'Hare.
I'm currently working on a station renovation downtown. It's not CTA funded however.
danny. @ May 6th 2008 3:28PM
Also, they are better than the (painfully unfunny) moosejaw bus ads that say something like "the people in the car behind this bus are naked"...
dext3r @ May 6th 2008 2:08PM
The CTA really can't afford to piss away more money. I still see the ads at bus stops.
empt @ May 6th 2008 2:48PM
They have been taken off the sides of busses, but they are still up in the shelters at bus stops.
At least one is, cause I saw it on Monroe Ave this morning......
Ben! @ May 6th 2008 8:01PM
I was going to say the same thing. I see one near Michigan/Chicago every day. I only saw them on buses for one day a few weeks ago, though.
rv @ May 6th 2008 2:58PM
How is that "lol"?
Free mode is fun. I spent 3 hours last night drag racing at the airport
xFenixKnightx @ May 6th 2008 3:18PM
"lol" because its a duhhh statement. Free mode? The whole game is fun. I have a game save just to screw around and another just for the missions.
danny. @ May 6th 2008 3:30PM
The CTA has nothing to do with the shelters. They are run by an advertising company called JC Decaux. The city does get revenue, but the ads are not tied to the CTA.
kip (SSBB:3437-2813-1377) @ May 6th 2008 3:47PM
What does this have to do with the post?
grap3fruitman @ May 6th 2008 3:58PM
I do agree that what the CTA did was stupid but as a Chicagoan I have a feeling that this will backfire against Take Two. The CTA has recently cut back on service so much and should Take Two win this lawsuit it will cause only further cut backs. When the public finds out that service is being cut due to Grand Theft Auto (in actuality the CTA's stupidity) it will only hurt GTA and T2's image in the city among the general public. Gamers will likely just be fazed slightly, if at all.
LaughingTarget @ May 6th 2008 4:54PM
Maybe Chicago should ban guns instead...oh, wait...
xavier @ May 6th 2008 5:07PM
go take two!!!
i live in chicago and i didnt think the ads were cool..
i think they should worry about crime in our city instead of banning ads for a game..
LAWL @ May 6th 2008 6:27PM
Awsome,i was wondering WHEN these was going to happen,i always knew it WAS going to happen.
Common,you make some ADs contract,pay the service and these guys just pull it and breack it up? thats not how laws work ,and T2 sure knows A LOT about teh laws systems.
Kuro @ May 6th 2008 6:57PM
I'm from SF and when i visited Chi the bus prices were already high as hell. Prepare for 5$ bus rides, people!
Sesur @ May 6th 2008 7:34PM
good. fuck 'em.
Dave @ May 6th 2008 8:05PM
What I don't get is how spending $300,000 sells more copies of the game. They would have to sell 5,000 copies to make up for the ads on the bus in one city. Were 5,000 people on the fence about buying GTA, but decided to buy it just because they saw a bus ad?
Catprog @ May 6th 2008 8:22PM
they don't get $60 from each game. You have the retailer and console manufacture cut. So the amount needed is more then 5,000
vidGuy @ May 6th 2008 9:11PM
You apparently aren't a marketer. Marketing makes little logical sense, IMO, because it usually works out that way.
blahblahbloo @ May 6th 2008 9:53PM
The $300,000 is aimed at people who don't regularly read the gaming press, and thus weren't necessarily aware of GTA4's impending release date.
NoHitHair @ May 7th 2008 1:52AM
Blahblahbloo is mostly right - I believe Take Two's advertising is largely focused on those who planned to purchase it whenever it came out but were unaware of any impending release date.
Though I'm sure their campaign has other indirect targets: those who have heard of GTA through it's notoriety but know little else; those who are looking for a good gift for a friend (a very common marketing advantage); bandwagoners (another marketing advantage); etc..
The advertisements that never made any sense to me were ones for companies such as Lockheed-Martin. How the hell am I gonna buy a Trident missile?