Lawsuit calls Epic Games' blind-drop loot boxes 'predatory'

[Cal Jeffrey]

Big quote: "Epic has perfected a predatory scheme whereby it exploits players, including minors, by inducing them to purchase in-game loot boxes in the pursuit of the best in-game loot." — Class action complaint case no. 2:19-cv-1488

As if its legal team did not have enough frivolous lawsuits to deal with over its dance emotes, now Epic Games is getting sued over “predatory” loot boxes.

The parents of a minor child in California have filed a lawsuit on his behalf that claims Fortnite Save the World's blind-draw loot boxes were unfair and deceptive. Epic effectively did away with blind-draw boxes when it introduced the “X-Ray Llama” back in January with patch 7.30. Up until that time, the lawsuit claims, Epic made off with loads of cash via deceptive business practices.

The filing argues that the Llama loot boxes rarely dropped rare loot. That would seem to make sense — that rare item are indeed rare, but lawyers for the plaintiff state that since Epic did not disclose the chances of receiving such loot, it was engaging in “predatory tactics” to relieve players from their money unfairly.

“[The] Plaintiff, like hundreds of thousands of consumers, fell for Epic’s deceptive sales practices and purchased Epic’s Llamas hoping for rare and powerful loot. [The] Plaintiff did not receive that desired loot and never had a realistic chance of doing so.”

They claim that had Epic made the odds for rare drops known, the plaintiff would never have bought the loot boxes in the first place.

The filing did not explain how the plaintiffs or attorneys determined that the odds of receiving rare loot were unrealistically low. Without a clear argument on how they discovered the odds, they will have a hard time convincing the courts that they were cheated. Remember, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

The lawsuit seeks "injunctive relief" of an undisclosed amount, a constructive trust containing all of the money received from the plaintiff(s) transitions, and an award consisting of all money "wrongfully acquired."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78992-lawsuit-calls-epic-games-blind-drop-loot-boxes.html

 

[m4a4]

And how did this teenager pay for this? The parent's unsupervised credit card? Because if so, I don't feel sorry for their irresponsibility.

If it was the kid's money, then maybe they'll have something. Or, at the least, will hammer the idea that real money blind lootboxes (gambling) are indeed something to phase out once and for all.

That said, it's good on Epic for jumping out of the lootboxes sooner than it seems like they needed to. They certainly made a killing off of those...

 

[brucek]

"The filing did not explain how the plaintiffs or attorneys determined that the odds of receiving rare loot were unrealistically low"

There are jurisdictions (outside the US) that require the odds be disclosed. They probably got them from there. Even if not they might be able to get it via discovery.

My personal outlook runs towards the libertarian but even so if I were an analyst for one of these companies I'd have to take seriously the idea that regulation is coming. With the link between virtual goods and cash growing ever more tight, it starts to sound like gambling which many jurisdictions are already happy to outlaw or regulate. It's kids, which tends towards more vs. less regulation. And it's undisclosed odds/mechanisms, which can open the door as here to allegations of deception, and/or cost publishers support of free market type folks they might otherwise enjoy.

 

[fps4ever]

If I purchased a loot box I would assume I would have a better chance at rare loot. Otherwise why would you purchase them in the first place? I have no skin in the is game so to me a "fool and his money are soon parted" but that does seem like a grey area money grab situation added for no benefits to the consumer.

 

[gollum21]

If I purchased a loot box I would assume I would have a better chance at rare loot. Otherwise why would you purchase them in the first place? I have no skin in the is game so to me a "fool and his money are soon parted" but that does seem like a grey area money grab situation added for no benefits to the consumer.

I think part of Fortnite's appeal rather than being free-to-play is that while you can buy things like cosmetics, you don't gain a competitive edge by having things like a better chance at rare loot. Pay to win in multiplayer shooters tends to throw balance out the window and discourages more players than it attracts.

Seeing as Fortnite has had plenty of opportunity to implement pay to win but hasn't as far as I know I'd be skeptical and look up what the loot llama actually does before purchasing it. If someone is used to sinking money into an online multiplayer shooter for something like better loot than other players and they don't get it, well, I say GOOD. I can't say Fortnite is something I play often but imo Epic Games gets a +1 in my book.

This is far less shady than buying an online multiplayer only to find out you'll always be at a disadvantage to players putting even more money into the game.

 

[captaincranky]

While I completely agree that loot boxes are "predatory", I'm wondering when a gamer's own stupidity, greed, bad judgment, and total lack of impulse control, became actionable against a game publisher.

Maybe a new "anonymous" support group needs to be formed. Perhaps it could be named something like, "Gaming Intensive Gamblers Anonymous". Or, "GIGA" for short..

Throw down those joysticks, shun those game controllers, and get thee to a meetin'.

 

[Hexic]

How did l guess the plaintiff was from California...

It's a free game. Rare items are... Rare to find, it kind of enforces it's own term. Stop complaining about acquiring rare items on a free game.

 

[fps4ever]

I think part of Fortnite's appeal rather than being free-to-play is that while you can buy things like cosmetics, you don't gain a competitive edge by having things like a better chance at rare loot. Pay to win in multiplayer shooters tends to throw balance out the window and discourages more players than it attracts.

Seeing as Fortnite has had plenty of opportunity to implement pay to win but hasn't as far as I know I'd be skeptical and look up what the loot llama actually does before purchasing it. If someone is used to sinking money into an online multiplayer shooter for something like better loot than other players and they don't get it, well, I say GOOD. I can't say Fortnite is something I play often but imo Epic Games gets a +1 in my book.

This is far less shady than buying an online multiplayer only to find out you'll always be at a disadvantage to players putting even more money into the game.

If the loot boxes are purely for cosmetic items or non leveling then there is no issue. If they offer to help the player level up or give advantage then that is shady to deceive customers whether you or I think its fair or not. Don't like it don't buy the game just as players have a choice to buy loot boxes or not.