Patrick Klepek at GiantBomb has a rather interesting piece up that details the recent settlement from GameStop over their selling a used game to a customer.
Granted, it was a bit more involved than just a simple used game sale. The game was Dragon Age: Origins. James Collins picked the game up used on January 6, 2010 for $55 (USD). The box claimed that it came with free downloadable content. What it didn't mention, and what the employees didn't mention, was that it only applied to the purchase of a new copy of the game. Collins, if he purchased the DLC separate would spend $15 for it, netting him a loss of $10 than if he simply bought the game new.
Attempts to return the game proved to be fruitless as the seven day return period had already expired. So Collins did what most people do in these situations and filed a lawsuit against GameStop. This lawsuit combined with lawsuits from Matthew Proctor over The Saboteur and one from Danoby Ortiz over Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition. With their powers combined, their individual lawsuits resulted in a class-action lawsuit that could benefit many people if won.
This also resulted in the GameStop Settlement website which will soon have claims forms for affected persons to fill out. The weird thing is, at present, anybody can fill out the forms and make claims whether or not they are telling the truth. So long as the game in question was a used game purchase that "offered free downloadable content to consumers of a new copy" then the game fits the settlement criteria.
Granted, if you are caught lying, you are making the claims under penalty of perjury. So that would be quite stupid of you to do. Where does GameStop go from here? Let's see what GiantBomb has to say.
Granted, it was a bit more involved than just a simple used game sale. The game was Dragon Age: Origins. James Collins picked the game up used on January 6, 2010 for $55 (USD). The box claimed that it came with free downloadable content. What it didn't mention, and what the employees didn't mention, was that it only applied to the purchase of a new copy of the game. Collins, if he purchased the DLC separate would spend $15 for it, netting him a loss of $10 than if he simply bought the game new.
Attempts to return the game proved to be fruitless as the seven day return period had already expired. So Collins did what most people do in these situations and filed a lawsuit against GameStop. This lawsuit combined with lawsuits from Matthew Proctor over The Saboteur and one from Danoby Ortiz over Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition. With their powers combined, their individual lawsuits resulted in a class-action lawsuit that could benefit many people if won.
What happened is a preliminary ruling by the courts on the settlement agreement. There will not be a trial, though a trial was the original goal of Collins’ lawsuit. There’s an unlikely chance the settlement dies, as there is a period between now and September 17 for objection from outside parties. Those parties do not include GameStop, who has already agreed to the terms of the settlement.
If you purchased a used game from GameStop between March 23, 2006 and April 9, 2012, you’re affected.
And because it’s a settlement, GameStop doesn’t have to admit it did anything wrong.
If you purchased a used game from GameStop between March 23, 2006 and April 9, 2012, you’re affected.
And because it’s a settlement, GameStop doesn’t have to admit it did anything wrong.
This also resulted in the GameStop Settlement website which will soon have claims forms for affected persons to fill out. The weird thing is, at present, anybody can fill out the forms and make claims whether or not they are telling the truth. So long as the game in question was a used game purchase that "offered free downloadable content to consumers of a new copy" then the game fits the settlement criteria.
Consumers can, should they chose to then be legally liable, make claims on purchases that may or may not have happened. You only have to enter the game name, date of purchase, location of purchase and whether the extra content would have been available through Xbox Live or PlayStation Network.
“Option Two Claim: Settlement Class members may elect to receive a $5 payment and a $10 Store Credit. Settlement Class members who elect to make an Option Two Claim shall not be required to provide proof of purchase, nor shall it be required that GameStop verify their purchase through GameStop’s own records.”
“Option Two Claim: Settlement Class members may elect to receive a $5 payment and a $10 Store Credit. Settlement Class members who elect to make an Option Two Claim shall not be required to provide proof of purchase, nor shall it be required that GameStop verify their purchase through GameStop’s own records.”
Granted, if you are caught lying, you are making the claims under penalty of perjury. So that would be quite stupid of you to do. Where does GameStop go from here? Let's see what GiantBomb has to say.
In addition to the pseudo refunds, GameStop stores in California must also have “shelf takers” near used games, warning consumers about possible additional purchases related to used games, counter mats that include similar warnings, and a disclaimer on GameStop’s official website. All of this will last for two years.
Having established a legal framework, the law firm is already seeking individuals with similar stories in states other than California, but lawyer Andrew Ehmke of Texas-based Haynes and Boone is hesitant to read too much into it.
“That seems unlikely,” Ehmke told me. “What might happen, though, is that GameStop might be sued in a handful of the larger states. On the flip side, GameStop could also be considering options to minimize the risk from these future lawsuits by preemptively providing a similar settlement offer to any of its customers, but that’s speculation on my part.”
One scenario could involve GameStop getting ahead of the problem, rather than untangling a series of legal battles.
“I would not be surprised to see GameStop adjust its marketing, advertising and pricing across the country for used games that contain the first-time buyer one-time use codes,” said Ehmke. “It may be too much of an administrative hassle to have different pricing and advertising in different states.”
Having established a legal framework, the law firm is already seeking individuals with similar stories in states other than California, but lawyer Andrew Ehmke of Texas-based Haynes and Boone is hesitant to read too much into it.
“That seems unlikely,” Ehmke told me. “What might happen, though, is that GameStop might be sued in a handful of the larger states. On the flip side, GameStop could also be considering options to minimize the risk from these future lawsuits by preemptively providing a similar settlement offer to any of its customers, but that’s speculation on my part.”
One scenario could involve GameStop getting ahead of the problem, rather than untangling a series of legal battles.
“I would not be surprised to see GameStop adjust its marketing, advertising and pricing across the country for used games that contain the first-time buyer one-time use codes,” said Ehmke. “It may be too much of an administrative hassle to have different pricing and advertising in different states.”