![]() Valve concealed the risks of loot boxes and failed to disclose the odds, they said.Īs part of its defense, Valve argued that loot boxes are not legally defined as gambling in the US, but the claim was dismissed for a much simpler reason. It came to be called the "Lootbox Theory." The claim was that Valve violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act by deceiving the parents into providing funds for their kids to spend on loot boxes, which they characterized as unlicensed gambling disguised as a videogame. ![]() With skin gambling out of the equation, the plaintiffs' remaining claim targeted CS:GO's weapon cases and keys themselves. When the parents brought it back up, the court dismissed it right away on the basis that the arbitrators had already made a judgement on the issue. Courts don't typically overrule decisions made in arbitration, so any dispute between the minors and Valve was over, and the claim that Valve was responsible for third-party skin gambling sites wasn't going to work. The case went forward, but the parents were running out of viable complaints to make. The parents appealed, and the appellate court decided that while the kids had agreed to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, the parents hadn't, so they were still allowed to sue. Valve couldn't get out of it that easily, though. ![]() One noted that the minor in question heard about skin gambling from friends, not from Valve, and chose to participate on his own accord and in violation of the Steam agreement. ![]() The plaintiffs were not able to convince them that Valve was the "proprietor" of skin gambling sites that used its API, or that it had used deceptive practices to encourage gambling on those sites. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |