More on the Shutting of a Virtual Currency
I asked Nick Kam (who unlike myself actually understands law) to take a quick look at the virtual currency class-action lawsuit filed against Google. Here’s his take (emphasis mine):
Upon a cursory review of Google’s Notice of Removal to Federal Court which contains a summary of the Complaint filed in Santa Clara Superior Court, it seems the Plaintiffs’ central claim is one of unjust enrichment. They didn’t get the benefit of the bargain with Google through their purchase of gold from the in-game store or from the secondary market, which they claim Google and Slide, Inc. promoted or at least encouraged. Said another way: Google got something for nothing and the Plaintiffs want their money back.
But there’s more. If you look at item three in paragraph five, the Plaintiffs want the game to stay online: they seek “an injunction barring Defendants ‘from terminating the SPP gaming application as announced in September, 2011.” Not only do Plaintiffs want their money back, they also want to keep playing SuperPoke! Pets. Presumably they’ll turn around and buy more gold once the game’s back online.
It’s important to note that Plaintiffs’ first claim of relief sought is preventing Google from enforcing the Terms of Use of SPP. I’d be willing to wager there’s something in there that says: “This gold has no real world value and we can shut the game off whenever we want.”
You’d have to review the Complaint to see all of their causes of action to try and recoup their virtual-bucks for a better idea of how this is going to shake out.
6 notesShowHide
-
socialcipher liked this
-
petervidani liked this
-
diskgrinder said:
the technical argument, whether it goes one way or another, is always going to be google minus
A crap pun. But still appropriate.
-
jetxx2004 reblogged this from dbreunig
-
jetxx2004 liked this
-
dbreunig posted this
