lawsuit posts (Subscribe to this feed)

Despite PopCap's claim to appeal the original ruling of the lawsuit between it and MumboJumbo, a judge has awarded another $2.7 million to MumboJumbo citing "legal fees," according to Develop. 193rd Civil District Court Judge Carl Ginsberg ruled earlier this week that PopCap would be burdened with the amount (which includes $525,000 in "post-verdict appeals"), making the total sum that MumboJumbo receives $7.3 million.

The case originally derived from an alleged breach of contract on PopCap's part regarding the right to sell its own games in North America -- in so many words, the lawsuit found that PopCap had illegally broken an agreement with MumboJumbo and sold/marketed said games in NA (those monsters!). That said, the agreement was for MumboJumbo to handle that sales/marketing, thus making PopCap in breach of contract in doing so. Sound confusing? It's business, folks. We're right there with you.

Konami announced yesterday that Upper Deck had been forced to settle with the company after allegedly printing hundreds of thousands of faked Yu-Gi-Oh! cards in China and bringing them stateside. On any other day, this news would just be kind of funny, but it's elevated by attorney for Upper Deck Richard Howell who said "At this point, Upper Deck doesn't have a lot of Life Points. We're talking about behavior that, from a defense attorney's standpoint, I can't defend and I am not going to defend. I'm here defending a counterfeiter. And now I have to deal with that issue."

That's right: Life Points. Dude learned enough about Yu-Gi-Oh! to drop Yu-Gi-Oh! references. Man, that's the kind of lawyer you want to have. ... Unless, we guess, you're Upper Deck, in which case, it seems like you probably could have chosen a guy that didn't tell people how guilty you were.

Now, see, we were pretty certain that nobody was still working for Jellyvision -- however, we wouldn't be willing to risk a pricey copyright infringement suit over that assertion. According to the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Aflac recently drew the ire of the developer by designing a new web-based promotion titled You Don't Know Quack. Jellyvision now seeks a court order to prevent Aflac from trademarking the title, as well as monetary damages. Hopefully, if the studio wins, they'll spend said damages on developing a new You Don't Know Jack, and not, you know, yachts.

However, we really don't see the similarities between the two games. One is a hilarious and entertaining series of trivia games, and one is an interactive commercial featuring that talking duck which has never, ever, ever been funny.

[Via Gamasutra]

In a lawsuit filed by Philadelphia-area lawyer Samuel Lassoff, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly taking money from consumers for Microsoft Points that were erroneously used during "incomplete and/or partial downloads of digital goods and services and refused refund of same." The Horsham, Pa. resident claims that "an invoice he received early this month from Microsoft included charges for purchases he couldn't complete due to a balky download system," according to an InformationWeek.com report. Furthermore, he contends that this was no accident on Microsoft's part.

When we called Mr. Lassoff's law office for comment, we were met with a disconnected number message. However, the lawsuit's Facebook page (it's a brave new world, folks) calls the suit a "class action on behalf of several million US customers exposed to Microsoft Point fraud." Citing "fraud, breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices," Lassoff seeks a "full refund to all US consumers of all Microsoft Points fraudulently charged to consumers for incomplete or partial downloads of purchased digital goods and services."

Aside from his current lawsuit, Mr. Lassoff previously sued Google, Yahoo, and IAC Interactive in 2006 -- all three suits were eventually dropped.

[Thanks, Zo]

Microsoft has registered a motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit originally filed by unofficial memory card maker Datel, in which Datel claimed that by locking out its cards, Microsoft was being illegally anti-competitive in the field of 'Multiplayer Online Dedicated Gaming Systems" and their accessories. Microsoft's motion to dismiss (here's the PDF link) actually cites one of its biggest rivals, Apple, who fought off another unofficial vendor by claiming that its users (us) had knowingly agreed that by using its products, any aftermarket products had to come from Apple as well. You can't run OS X on any computers not made by Apple, says Microsoft, and so you can't use any non-Microsoft memory cards on your Xbox.

As with most legal filings, the situation is complicated. Datel is also trying to claim that Microsoft has a grip on the console market by claiming that the much better selling Nintendo Wii isn't actually a part of that market, which leaves Microsoft in the weird position of arguing that yes, there are plenty of consoles (including the PSP and even the PlayStation 2) that "have outsold the Xbox 360." And Microsoft also argues that Datel's cheat-enabling memory cards "undermine quality user experience" on Xbox Live, which would also be reason enough to keep them off the system. Interesting arguments, all, but we'll have to see which emerge victorious after a hearing scheduled for March 2 in San Francisco.

In a recent legal battle fought in the Dallas courts, casual game publisher MumboJumbo was awarded $4.6 million in "damages" from ... casual game publisher PopCap Games? Really! According to a press release announcing MumboJumbo's win, the two companies entered into a publishing agreement in 2006 "whereby MumboJumbo would produce, distribute and sell certain PopCap games in North America." Following the trial, a Dallas jury "agreed that PopCap breached the contract when it went behind MumboJumbo's back and decided to market and sell its games on its own."

When we contacted PopCap for comment, a representative told us: "PopCap continues to believe that it did nothing wrong in this case, and will vigorously pursue its claims and defend itself through the appeals process." That said, given the basis of the jury's verdict (again, according the MumboJumbo's press release) is allegedly based on "PopCap's own internal e-mail messages, which showed the company employed a calculated use of false and misleading statements," we're not exactly sure how well the appeals process will go.

It seems all the legal rigmarole between Interplay and Bethesda isn't slowing down the former's work on Project: V13, an MMO set in the latter's Fallout universe. At least, that seems to be the message from Interplay, which recently announced a development partnership with Masthead Studios, which is lending Interplay its technology, tools and resources as it continues work on the post-apocalyptic online game.

In fact, Interplay is so confident in the game's future release, it went ahead and announced a tentative date for the game's beta testing phase: 2012. Perfect! That should leave a few months for them to work out the kinks, then a few months for us to enjoy the game post-launch, and then the sun will explode.

In April of 2009, Rockstar Games settled out of court with with "over 100" Rockstar San Diego employees to the tune of $2.75 million (approximately $27,500 per person). The case, "Garrett Flynn, et al. v. Angel Studios, Inc./Rockstar Games et al.," was filed on August 21, 2006, by ex-Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn on behalf of themselves and fellow 3D artists, alleging that Angel Studios/Rockstar San Diego had "failed to pay overtime compensation ... to certain Angel employees whose primary duties are or were to create, produce, copy and/or install images into video games, using commercial or in-house software computer programs."

Sound familiar? That's likely due to the past week's barrage of Rockstar Games employees speaking out against alleged quality of life issues at the developer's various studios, including claims of "numerous non-exempt designers and artists have had their overtime pay cut as a result for being 'too senior.'"

In a press release issued after the settlement, Rockstar Games refuted the lawsuit's claims. "Angel denies the allegations in the lawsuit and admits no liability or wrongdoing in settlement." The settlement document (obtained earlier today by Joystiq) also spells out Rockstar's reasons for settling the suit, saying "further litigation would be protracted and expensive for all parties." Unsurprisingly, the company also contested in the settlement that a ruling against it was "relatively unlikely" for a number of reasons.

That said, when a multi-billion dollar corporation settles a suit with its employees out of court and awards them nearly $3 million in compensation, that's quite a statement unto itself -- regardless of the great lengths at which the final court settlement goes to deny that claim. We've contacted Rockstar Games for comment and haven't heard back as of publishing.

The Entertainment Software Association today announced an early victory in its ongoing lawsuit with the Chicago Transit Authority over the banning of game-related ads in April 2008. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has sided with the ESA, granting a preliminary injunction, in turn, allowing video game advertisements to once again be displayed in Chicago's transit system.

A "preliminary injunction" in this case means that, for the time being, the CTA can't ban gaming ads. Pending further litigation, the injunction could still be repealed or further solidified. ESA head Michael Gallagher said in the release that he still hopes the CTA wil "see the futility in pursuing this case further," adding that to continue further will only "waste taxpayer money and government resources."

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.