LGJ: Products LiabilODST
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

Something that comes up from time to time in the gaming world is faulty products. Or potentially faulty products. Most recently, it seems to be Halo 3: ODST at the center of the issue (which, for the record, I've had no trouble with thus far), but the issue has touched numerous games, including Guitar Hero III, and consoles. While most people might lump all this together into 'stuff that's broken,' the reality is it touches two legal topics: warranty and products liability.
To make the distinction between the two simple, a warranty makes sure you get a working product, and products liability makes the manufacturer liable for damages the product may cause because of defects. Both concepts are ones that arise from state law, and thus the exact provisions do vary among the US states, and of course they vary between countries. But there are once again some general rules that can be applied to the ideas, as well as some complexities that enter specific to the gaming world.
To begin with warranties, they can fall into two categories: express and implied. Most big ticket items have express warranties; that is, the warranty is spelled out in full. Even most game consoles have express warranties in the documentation that accompanies the system. Implied warranties are warranties that apply to all products sold unless an express warranty ways otherwise. Typically, those warranties are things like the implied warranty of merchantability, which means the item is what it is reported to be and reasonably functions as stated.
This dynamic, however, is much more complex in a software context in the present. I remember years ago I returned one of the games in the Legacy of Kain series because of a game-breaking glitch in the PS2 version that corrupted my save in the next to last chapter of the game. The PS2 had no means to patch the game, I found the glitch in the first few days I owned the game, and the store, a GameStop in Austin, TX, had no issue with a return for that reason. The game has changed since then, so to speak.
Today, it's difficult to say whether any game could be released in an inoperable fashion, given that pretty much anything could be patched. You run into an interesting warranty question at that point: when, if ever, could a game be returned on a warranty claim? Certainly, if there as a manufacturing problem with the disc such that it did not work, it would be a warranty issue. However, glitches, even ones that make the game unplayable in some way, are not likely to trigger a warranty claim so long as they are patched in a reasonable amount of time. If anything, it's an indication the company's quality control/quality assurance department needs to be more thorough in testing. Moreover, most software includes a disclaimer as to warranty in the EULA. So long as the physical media isn't faulty, it's likely that disclaimer would prevent recovery for a glitch in the game.
Which brings us to the idea of products liability. In general, the idea here is that the government wants to prevent manufacturers from releasing dangerous products, and as a public safety issue that's a good goal to have. To that end, producers have to create products that are safe as intended and warn people about possible dangers. And in this way, if a game came on a faulty disc that, say, shattered in the drive causing damage to the system or people, the manufacturer would almost certainly be held liable, even with a liability disclaimer.
Software, however, has a long-standing precedent that flaws in the code are not flaws in the product, and they are not held to products liability standards. In fact, most all software license agreements explicitly disclaim liability for damage cause by the software. Take a look at the World of Warcraft EULA, paragraph 11. This is a fairly standard limitation of both liability and warranty. In short, if the game damages your computer, they're not liable. Similarly, if another game causes your Xbox360 to fail or your PS3 hard drive to corrupt all your save files, the manufacturer is not liable. While the clause is all-encompassing, I would still contend that most courts would award recovery if the physical media, that is the CD, was faulty.
Of course, that may not be the way things continue forever. There has been growing talk of changing the landscape of products liability with respect to software. Much of this focuses on malware, but it's a basic certainty that any rules applied to other software will apply equally to games. For now, however, it seems that the rare occasions where disks are actually faulty have been, by and large, addressed by the manufacturers without intervention by the courts or the government, which does put the game industry in a pretty good light when it comes to not overburdening the consumer with the resolution of an error.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

To make the distinction between the two simple, a warranty makes sure you get a working product, and products liability makes the manufacturer liable for damages the product may cause because of defects. Both concepts are ones that arise from state law, and thus the exact provisions do vary among the US states, and of course they vary between countries. But there are once again some general rules that can be applied to the ideas, as well as some complexities that enter specific to the gaming world.
To begin with warranties, they can fall into two categories: express and implied. Most big ticket items have express warranties; that is, the warranty is spelled out in full. Even most game consoles have express warranties in the documentation that accompanies the system. Implied warranties are warranties that apply to all products sold unless an express warranty ways otherwise. Typically, those warranties are things like the implied warranty of merchantability, which means the item is what it is reported to be and reasonably functions as stated.
This dynamic, however, is much more complex in a software context in the present. I remember years ago I returned one of the games in the Legacy of Kain series because of a game-breaking glitch in the PS2 version that corrupted my save in the next to last chapter of the game. The PS2 had no means to patch the game, I found the glitch in the first few days I owned the game, and the store, a GameStop in Austin, TX, had no issue with a return for that reason. The game has changed since then, so to speak.
Today, it's difficult to say whether any game could be released in an inoperable fashion, given that pretty much anything could be patched. You run into an interesting warranty question at that point: when, if ever, could a game be returned on a warranty claim? Certainly, if there as a manufacturing problem with the disc such that it did not work, it would be a warranty issue. However, glitches, even ones that make the game unplayable in some way, are not likely to trigger a warranty claim so long as they are patched in a reasonable amount of time. If anything, it's an indication the company's quality control/quality assurance department needs to be more thorough in testing. Moreover, most software includes a disclaimer as to warranty in the EULA. So long as the physical media isn't faulty, it's likely that disclaimer would prevent recovery for a glitch in the game.
Which brings us to the idea of products liability. In general, the idea here is that the government wants to prevent manufacturers from releasing dangerous products, and as a public safety issue that's a good goal to have. To that end, producers have to create products that are safe as intended and warn people about possible dangers. And in this way, if a game came on a faulty disc that, say, shattered in the drive causing damage to the system or people, the manufacturer would almost certainly be held liable, even with a liability disclaimer.
Software, however, has a long-standing precedent that flaws in the code are not flaws in the product, and they are not held to products liability standards. In fact, most all software license agreements explicitly disclaim liability for damage cause by the software. Take a look at the World of Warcraft EULA, paragraph 11. This is a fairly standard limitation of both liability and warranty. In short, if the game damages your computer, they're not liable. Similarly, if another game causes your Xbox360 to fail or your PS3 hard drive to corrupt all your save files, the manufacturer is not liable. While the clause is all-encompassing, I would still contend that most courts would award recovery if the physical media, that is the CD, was faulty.
Of course, that may not be the way things continue forever. There has been growing talk of changing the landscape of products liability with respect to software. Much of this focuses on malware, but it's a basic certainty that any rules applied to other software will apply equally to games. For now, however, it seems that the rare occasions where disks are actually faulty have been, by and large, addressed by the manufacturers without intervention by the courts or the government, which does put the game industry in a pretty good light when it comes to not overburdening the consumer with the resolution of an error.
[Image Credit: JoshMcConnell]
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bradwart @ Sep 29th 2009 11:06PM
Good article. It's not something you think about often. If I bought a piece of crap, I usually groaned and tried to sell it to some other fool. I never would have thought about returning it.
albinogoldfish @ Sep 29th 2009 11:42PM
Isn't that strange to think about, I'm not going to throw around analogies, but when something doesn't work as intended, in any form, why aren't they held responsible?
Don't even get me started on patches....not everyone in america has internet
Bane @ Sep 29th 2009 11:12PM
So I can get my money back for Two Worlds?
Gamer4Life @ Sep 29th 2009 11:43PM
Hey Two Worlds was actually fun, though I'll admit the voice acting was probably the worst I've ever heard but I don't play games for the voice acting.
Snowblind @ Sep 30th 2009 5:45AM
PERCHANCE!
I'd say the game had some good ideas, but it had horrible story, characters, voice work, animation, dialogue.. and for the most part the universe and lore read like bad fanfiction.
I mean, the name of the world is "Antaloor".
kojo87 @ Sep 29th 2009 11:16PM
this isn't exactly related but this article reminds me of a law i learned from my friends lawyer mom. there is no legally binding contract for any purchase made by a minor. so if you are under 18 you can return anything you bought at any time. the first thing i thought of when i heard this was video games. you could essentially "rent" as many games as you wanted for as long as you wanted as long as you had enough money for an upfront "deposit" that would be entirely refunded when you returned it. sure there are some ethics issues attached to this but for you cold-hearted 15 year olds out there that want to screw with your local Gamestop, this might be valuable information.
disclaimer: you might want to double check this before you do it but my source is credible to my knowledge
vidGuy @ Sep 29th 2009 11:38PM
While it is technically correct that a person under the age of majority (usually 18) cannot enter into a binding contract, there are a number of things preventing your scenario from playing out.
A minor can ratify a contract by continuing to use a product for a reasonable time. If you don't return the product within a short period of time, you are bound by the sale.
The purpose of protecting minors from binding contracts is to prevent them from harmful obligations that the law presumes they cannot understand. I don't think any modern judge would believe that a 15 year old doesn't understand that he is bound to the sale of a video game after his purchase is made. It would be a tough sale to say that, absent some mental deficiency, and no appellate court would recognize the argument as it would set a bad policy precedent (i.e. allowing anyone under the age of 18 to return purchased products for full price).
Anyway, it won't work.
kojo87 @ Sep 30th 2009 1:02AM
thank you. i kinda figured a legal loop-hole this glaring couldn't exist but i was just relaying what i had heard from what i believed to be a credible source.
see kids this is why you double check your facts.
Crusty Magic @ Sep 29th 2009 11:16PM
Great article.
Could you imagine if you could still get away with returning games at the store because of a fault in the programming?
I would have returned Gears of War 2 the week after I bought it because of the fuck fest multiplayer.
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Sep 29th 2009 11:24PM
This article makes me think of those games released with online functionality not completely working properly (Castle Crashers for the 360). What kind of timeframe could one put on the fixing of these issues before it leads to claims of 'damages' or 'warranty'?
Also, how has Microsoft been able to avoid lawsuits with so many RRoD's floating around? I mean, I know they do exchanges, but how do they appease individuals that are on their 4th, 5th replacement?
Has no one been successful in mounting a case against them in these circumstances (even though it seems as a major breach in expressed warranty if they are not able to provide a viable replacement)?
speedmetaldemon @ Sep 29th 2009 11:44PM
to me it is about 'intent'. The whole ODST error issue is not the same at RROD. That was Microsoft intentionally pushing unfinished product to beat the compitition and that was an ethical violation of consumer trust. This was an unintentional problem that isn't as wide spread that could be easly remedied probably by an update.
thain @ Sep 30th 2009 9:01AM
The thing is, if they replace a product, (as with RROD) then they have lived up to their warranty.
Both implied and Express warranties usually accept replacement as a valid option for a faulty unit (as long as the replacement works).
I think patches would also fall under some variation of replacement, as they effectively replace part of the broken code in your software.
speedmetaldemon @ Sep 29th 2009 11:25PM
Why is this subject so damn complicated!? If many people purchase the same game and it doesn't play, (ta da!) the product broken. Now we've got to get all philosophical about it. What does the word "product" really mean? What do you mean the word "is"? Give me a break. If my new car's steering wheel just falls off after making a left turn then its broke and if it happens to a few people then there is something wrong. I don't think the company would get a site to waste time and space debated if a steering wheel falling off REAALLY means the WHOLE car is broken.
vidGuy @ Sep 29th 2009 11:41PM
I'd like to see you read the UCC (that's the Uniform Commercial Code for the layman) and tell me sales contracts aren't complicated. Most law schools have an entire course on one small aspect of the UCC, titled Sales.
AvA (ice~) @ Sep 29th 2009 11:27PM
really a great article. you guys should do op-eds.
speedmetaldemon @ Sep 29th 2009 11:29PM
Really, Some one spent the entire day finding a way to link a faulty Halo ODST game code to a faulty Playstation product. I guess they've invented a new game "Six degrees of blaming Playstation".
DeepFriedSushi @ Sep 29th 2009 11:33PM
oh no... lets not even utter a single word of negativity towards sony. stop being naive ps1, ps2 had their share of problems.
Tom Kalinske @ Sep 29th 2009 11:34PM
No one has said it's the game code. They've said it's the older 360 drives. Could be a compression error, a pressing error, or any number of things.
speedmetaldemon @ Sep 29th 2009 11:39PM
I've heard it was something in the code, but who knows. My point being is that if a game ceases to work through no fault of the user then the product is broken. If it was a fundemental flaw that was always there then the product is still broken. What this article does is argue over symantecs.
wormania @ Sep 29th 2009 11:58PM
Law is nothing but semantics. The sooner you learn this the sooner a lot of things in life will make much more sense.
vidGuy @ Sep 30th 2009 12:19AM
Example: I wrote a 15-page trial brief on whether my client "repaired" or "reconstructed" a microphone when he replaced the windscreen. I'm currently writing another trial brief on whether a parrot can qualify as a service animal (like a seeing eye dog) under the Fair Housing Act.
Semantics makes me money.
aristokrat @ Sep 30th 2009 1:10PM
Woah, a parrot as a service animal? "Turn left, squawk!"
Please tell me your arguing for its inclusion.
vidGuy @ Sep 30th 2009 2:25PM
Yep. My client has an anger management issue and the parrot talks to him to calm him down. It says "calm down, Charlie. Don't worry about it, Charlie." I'm arguing that he should get to keep the parrot in his apartment despite the no-pet policy. FYI, though, I'm still in law school so this is a completely fictional scenario. I really don't think it would be a winning argument in real life.
johnnynumber5 @ Sep 29th 2009 11:29PM
I want to know what Mr. Methenitis has to say about the possible implications of that rumor about Microsoft buying EA. In terms of what some people on that thread claimed would be a monopoly.
As usual very informative article. I still miss the Philosony articles from Kylie Prymus ... whatever.
kylie.prymus @ Sep 30th 2009 1:11PM
Aww, someone remembers me!
[Shameless Plug]
I've started a blog at optimusprymus.blogspot.com. It's been on hiatus for the past few months but it's starting back up again. Come say hi!
johnnynumber5 @ Sep 30th 2009 2:07PM
Awesome!
Of course I'll come by and say hi!
Reading your entries was the best part of what used to be PS3 Fanboy. You kind of remind me of my friend Benny who is a professor of economics at one of (if not THE) oldest colleges in the state of FL ... glad to know you are back and blogging again.
Neuromancer @ Sep 29th 2009 11:40PM
Clever title but at first I thought it read LabiaODST and that was kind of disturbing.
Guinea Rabbit @ Sep 30th 2009 12:59AM
Microsoft? Actually being held liable for their mistakes? That'll be the day.
Scott @ Sep 30th 2009 3:12AM
I really enjoy reading these articles. I just want to point out a small error. You place blame on bug squarely on the sole of the QA department which is not usually the case. With the amount of man hours put into games especially AAA titles most bugs that make the game unplayable, even more so in the case of ones encountered by a normal player, are found and reported by the QA department. The call whether they get fixed is not in there hands. It usually falls into the producers hands. They make those decisions based on a number of factors like how often it happens, what are the use cases(based on how often and how hard it is to get it how many people will see it), and difficulty to fix. After having worked in QA for quite a while it makes me sad how people tend to throw all the blame onto them without thought that there is an entire team responsible for said game.
Danthok @ Sep 30th 2009 11:14AM
Speaking of Legacy of Kain, when is the next one going to be developed?
cylet @ Sep 30th 2009 12:54PM
so.. is halo odst gonna get fixed?
Rob @ Sep 30th 2009 3:56PM
Is patching a valid excuse in the console realm? A sizeable proportion don't hook their consoles to the network. Plus, if the patch is ever taken offline for any reason, it's a coaster. Also, how do caps and pay per MB providers impact this? You're paying another charge to get the product as advertised.
Oh, and which Legacy of Kain? I've played most of them and never ran into that issue.