Electronic Arts is the subject of a class-action complaint concerning EA's "Player Packs" (think loot boxes, where the "loot" is a particular sports player) in connection with dynamic difficultly mechanisms employed in EA Sport's Ultimate Team Mode games. The three named plaintiffs allege that EA, unbeknownst to users, employs dynamic difficulty mechanisms to increase the difficulty of a game to force users to purchase Player Packs in order to progress in the game. The plaintiffs allege that this combination of dynamic difficultly mechanisms and Player Packs constitute deceptive, unfair, and illegal conduct on behalf of EA that deprive a user's "benefit of the bargain" in purchasing the game and Player Packs.
It should be noted, however, that in the complaint the plaintiffs acknowledge that dynamic difficulty mechanisms both increase and decrease the difficulty of the game. That is to say, the underlying purpose of dynamic difficultly mechanisms is to increase user engagement, extend gameplay, and thereby increase user enjoyment. It may be hard to succeed on a complaint that admits that the complained-of action increases enjoyment.
Nonetheless, this is yet another example that loot boxes, and technologies used in tangent with loot boxes, continue to be a hot topic and the subject of legal review.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
This post first appeared in Frankfurt Kurnit's Focus on the Data blog (www.focusonthedata.com). It provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
