Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Perhaps we have different interpretations. What do you find unclear about the statement “you may not use anyone else’s account at any time, and you may not allow anyone else to use your account at any time.”?
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Yes. It would be difficult to detect, but that’s Kabam’s problem. If they do catch you, you have no defense that it is hard to detect in general so they shouldn’t enforce it on you. Jaywalking is difficult to catch everyone doing it, but people still get ticketed for doing it.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Yes. It would be difficult to detect, but that’s Kabam’s problem. If they do catch you, you have no defense that it is hard to detect in general so they shouldn’t enforce it on you. Jaywalking is difficult to catch everyone doing it, but people still get ticketed for doing it.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
Probably not compelled to take you back but this opens a can of worms as it could turn into a class suit, not that i’m saying there’s a probable cause but just saying laws are for everyone.
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Yes. It would be difficult to detect, but that’s Kabam’s problem. If they do catch you, you have no defense that it is hard to detect in general so they shouldn’t enforce it on you. Jaywalking is difficult to catch everyone doing it, but people still get ticketed for doing it.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
Probably not compelled to take you back but this opens a can of worms as it could turn into a class suit, not that i’m saying there’s a probable cause but just saying laws are for everyone.
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Yes. It would be difficult to detect, but that’s Kabam’s problem. If they do catch you, you have no defense that it is hard to detect in general so they shouldn’t enforce it on you. Jaywalking is difficult to catch everyone doing it, but people still get ticketed for doing it.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
Probably not compelled to take you back but this opens a can of worms as it could turn into a class suit, not that i’m saying there’s a probable cause but just saying laws are for everyone.
It’s hard to detect when it’s on video?
Very different rules between physical locations and online spaces.
#5 This is all new-ish and we set a new precedent in regards to the rights of players vs game hosts.
Money is being exchanged. Albeit at the players discretion. They are not buying anything outright. They are purchasing the chance of getting something they want which is gambling.
Enforcement is a different issue, maybe they have methods to enforce it and maybe they don’t. Just like I don’t think they would really know if your son is 12 or 14 and can or can’t have an account.
I’m just saying it is clearly written that you cannot use anyone else’s account at any time.
Clearly written? I disagree that it’s clear and think we’re reading it differently if you think it’s clearly written.
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
Yes. It would be difficult to detect, but that’s Kabam’s problem. If they do catch you, you have no defense that it is hard to detect in general so they shouldn’t enforce it on you. Jaywalking is difficult to catch everyone doing it, but people still get ticketed for doing it.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
Probably not compelled to take you back but this opens a can of worms as it could turn into a class suit, not that i’m saying there’s a probable cause but just saying laws are for everyone.
It’s hard to detect when it’s on video?
Very different rules between physical locations and online spaces.
#5 This is all new-ish and we set a new precedent in regards to the rights of players vs game hosts.
Money is being exchanged. Albeit at the players discretion. They are not buying anything outright. They are purchasing the chance of getting something they want which is gambling.
Gambling is not knowing the outcome. If it was actually gambling, the game would be age restricted to 21 and over.
When you're buying something in game, you're getting what you paid for in return. If I buy units, I'm getting units.
If I buy a soda at the gas station, I'm getting a soda at the gas station.
Again, you're posting things without doing any research. None of this is new and loot boxes have been around for ages.
When you buy something in game, you're buying to get ahead. You're not paying down your account or anything of the sort. If the game closed down tomorrow, you're not getting any money back.
You’re paying monies for the “chance” to get what you want. That is gambling. And they only restrict it to 13? What Country are we in?
If I buy a Paragon Crystal, I am buying the chance at a 4-7* champion. That's not gambling. You're not buying anything that you don't already know what's inside. You aren't paying money for something and then coming up empty handed. Again, you're saying things and you don't even know what the meanings are of what you're saying. This isn't a debate anymore.
You aren't even making valid arguments as you're just saying the asking the same questions again and again after being explained. There is no "keep going". You're completely out of your league here. Go help your son with his progression in the game.
You’re paying monies for the “chance” to get what you want. That is gambling. And they only restrict it to 13? What Country are we in?
In the United States, and in most western countries, gambling requires risking something of value (the wager”) for a random chance of something of material value.
The question of whether Kabam’s in-game goods have material value has legal precedent. For example, in Coffee v Google the court determined that lootboxes are not illegal slot machines under California law, quoting multiple precedent cases. They also quoted the Ninth circuit court which held that in-game items are not considered to have material value just because they can be bought and sold on secondary markets, when such sales would violate the operators terms of service (which they would in MCOC).
This is not a situation where the law hasn’t been tested yet. This is a situation where the law has been tested many times, and determined the contrary. In fact, this precedent is considered strong enough that the plaintiff (Google) won on summary judgement to dismiss. The court dismissed that particular claim with prejudice without even having to take it to trial. The phrase “with prejudice” is a term of art in the legal profession. It means the court is not just saying they are dismissing that particular case, they are doing so with the extra prohibition that they cannot attempt to refile the same case with the same arguments for the same circumstances. It isn’t that the argument was defective and could be fixed. It is that the argument is completely without merit.
California’s laws on gambling are not all that dissimilar to the gambling statutes in other US states, and for that matter in most western countries.
Armchair lawyers need to up their game a bit and actually start reading the law as well as the legal precedents out there. Gambling is not defined as “paying money for a chance to get what you want.” If gambling was defined in that way, Topps baseball cards would be gambling. Secret Santa would be gambling. Cracker Jack boxes would be gambling. The people opposed to lootboxes *want* lootboxes to be defined as gambling. But if there was any legal justification for doing so, they would have actually gotten them banned or restricted long ago.
There are a few marginal cases where lootboxes were ruled gambling. Belgium, for example, apparently defines gambling in terms of “risking for profit or loss” and “profit” is not well defined in Belgium law, opening the door for the Belgian court to interpret lootboxes as having “profit.” But most other European countries have laws similar to the UK, which is itself similar to US law, which requires a legal, material gain.
Did you just chatgpt legal precedent? This place is insane.
from everything i’ve seen, DNA really likes legal mumbo jumbo. so i’m willing to bet it’s not chatgpt and he’s just nice enough to explain everything thoroughly
You’re paying monies for the “chance” to get what you want. That is gambling. And they only restrict it to 13? What Country are we in?
In the United States, and in most western countries, gambling requires risking something of value (the wager”) for a random chance of something of material value.
The question of whether Kabam’s in-game goods have material value has legal precedent. For example, in Coffee v Google the court determined that lootboxes are not illegal slot machines under California law, quoting multiple precedent cases. They also quoted the Ninth circuit court which held that in-game items are not considered to have material value just because they can be bought and sold on secondary markets, when such sales would violate the operators terms of service (which they would in MCOC).
This is not a situation where the law hasn’t been tested yet. This is a situation where the law has been tested many times, and determined the contrary. In fact, this precedent is considered strong enough that the plaintiff (Google) won on summary judgement to dismiss. The court dismissed that particular claim with prejudice without even having to take it to trial. The phrase “with prejudice” is a term of art in the legal profession. It means the court is not just saying they are dismissing that particular case, they are doing so with the extra prohibition that they cannot attempt to refile the same case with the same arguments for the same circumstances. It isn’t that the argument was defective and could be fixed. It is that the argument is completely without merit.
California’s laws on gambling are not all that dissimilar to the gambling statutes in other US states, and for that matter in most western countries.
Armchair lawyers need to up their game a bit and actually start reading the law as well as the legal precedents out there. Gambling is not defined as “paying money for a chance to get what you want.” If gambling was defined in that way, Topps baseball cards would be gambling. Secret Santa would be gambling. Cracker Jack boxes would be gambling. The people opposed to lootboxes *want* lootboxes to be defined as gambling. But if there was any legal justification for doing so, they would have actually gotten them banned or restricted long ago.
There are a few marginal cases where lootboxes were ruled gambling. Belgium, for example, apparently defines gambling in terms of “risking for profit or loss” and “profit” is not well defined in Belgium law, opening the door for the Belgian court to interpret lootboxes as having “profit.” But most other European countries have laws similar to the UK, which is itself similar to US law, which requires a legal, material gain.
Did you just chatgpt legal precedent? This place is insane.
Among the many things you seem to be ignorant of, ChatGPT has a distinctive style which is pretty different from the way I write. Moreover, there’s years of my post history which predate the invention of pubicly accessible LLMs.
You’re paying monies for the “chance” to get what you want. That is gambling. And they only restrict it to 13? What Country are we in?
In the United States, and in most western countries, gambling requires risking something of value (the wager”) for a random chance of something of material value.
The question of whether Kabam’s in-game goods have material value has legal precedent. For example, in Coffee v Google the court determined that lootboxes are not illegal slot machines under California law, quoting multiple precedent cases. They also quoted the Ninth circuit court which held that in-game items are not considered to have material value just because they can be bought and sold on secondary markets, when such sales would violate the operators terms of service (which they would in MCOC).
This is not a situation where the law hasn’t been tested yet. This is a situation where the law has been tested many times, and determined the contrary. In fact, this precedent is considered strong enough that the plaintiff (Google) won on summary judgement to dismiss. The court dismissed that particular claim with prejudice without even having to take it to trial. The phrase “with prejudice” is a term of art in the legal profession. It means the court is not just saying they are dismissing that particular case, they are doing so with the extra prohibition that they cannot attempt to refile the same case with the same arguments for the same circumstances. It isn’t that the argument was defective and could be fixed. It is that the argument is completely without merit.
California’s laws on gambling are not all that dissimilar to the gambling statutes in other US states, and for that matter in most western countries.
Armchair lawyers need to up their game a bit and actually start reading the law as well as the legal precedents out there. Gambling is not defined as “paying money for a chance to get what you want.” If gambling was defined in that way, Topps baseball cards would be gambling. Secret Santa would be gambling. Cracker Jack boxes would be gambling. The people opposed to lootboxes *want* lootboxes to be defined as gambling. But if there was any legal justification for doing so, they would have actually gotten them banned or restricted long ago.
There are a few marginal cases where lootboxes were ruled gambling. Belgium, for example, apparently defines gambling in terms of “risking for profit or loss” and “profit” is not well defined in Belgium law, opening the door for the Belgian court to interpret lootboxes as having “profit.” But most other European countries have laws similar to the UK, which is itself similar to US law, which requires a legal, material gain.
It’s a Canadian company.
Last I checked, Canada was a country in North America that most people consider to be a “western country” in this context. Of course, Canada can be kind of weird, but their gambling statutes, as far as I have seen, conform to that of most western countries.
If you think you can drive this discussion to some gotcha moment, you should be aware I’ve beeen discussing legal issues surrounding the gaming industry with actual lawyers for over 19 years. I am not a lawyer, but I know what I’m talking about and unlike you, I’m not educating myself with an hour of two of Google and Wikipedia.
You pay money. You get random “prize”. How is this hard to understand?
You pay money, you get absolutely nothing. There's no coin slot that spits out coins when you win. There's no lottery ticket you can cash in at the kiosk, no token you can redeem for money, no electronic transfer to your Account. The game could fold tomorrow, and you would still have paid for nothing. It's not Gambling, nor is it regulated by the age of majority as is the case of all other forms of Gambling. If you're going to talk legality, specifics matter. You're playing a game that has elements of chance to it. When all is said and done, we take absolutely nothing home because it is property of Kabam.
Comments
So, if the account owner is logged in on their device and gives it to me, is that account sharing/piloting?
It’s the dumbest rule and not at all clear.
And you seem to have a very confused internet-couch-potato view of the law. I’ve read the TOS, multiple times, and almost every time that they have revised it. The terms are explicit and clear. You seem to think if they say something like “you can’t account share” and they don’t specify *how* they could possibly catch all violators that this is then not clear. The law says murder is illegal, but the law doesn’t specify how murderers are caught.
But please, sue Kabam. So many people think they know the law and think this is possible, claim “lots of people” win such lawsuits even though almost no one actually does, and those who do win on very specific, narrow grounds. I keep hoping that someone actually attempts this for real, even though I know almost no competent lawyer would take this case.
It is perfectly legal for Kabam to specify a set of conditions you must accept to play the game. There are people who think those terms aren’t “legally binding” but those people don’t understand the law. If they did understand the law they would understand that whether the terms are legally binding or not only matters in certain very specific situations. In terms of whether you’re allowed to do it and play the game, it is irrelevant. The terms are prerequisites to play the game, because it is not legal to play the game without accepting the terms of service. You can choose not to accept the TOS, but then continuing the play the game without accepting the TOS is theft of service. You can’t say I refuse to accept the TOS, and instead I choose to play the game on my own terms. You don’t own the game. The owner of the game gets to decide who plays it and who doesn’t.
Someone suing Kabam claiming that their account sharing terms are ambiguous, illegal, or otherwise non-binding will face one of four possibilities. Possibility #1: summary judgment in favor of Kabam. They could simply win as a matter of law, that the TOS is explicit and enforceable. Possibility #2: they could go to trial and lose on the facts for essentially the same reasons. Possibility #3 is the court rules that when the player chose to not accept the TOS they should have stopped playing the game, and the player loses on Kabam’s counterclaim that the player was stealing the service.
Possibility #4 is the player somehow magically wins on all counts, and then Kabam bans them the next day because they decide that player is not a player they want playing the game, and decides to close their account at their own discretion.
Kabam can decide they do not want you playing their game, just like McDonalds can decide they don’t want you as a customer. Even if you somehow win, there’s no way to compel Kabam to take you back.
First ban is a week long. Second is a month long.
Idk about third one
I have gotten both for account sharing
Very different rules between physical locations and online spaces.
#5 This is all new-ish and we set a new precedent in regards to the rights of players vs game hosts.
Money is being exchanged. Albeit at the players discretion. They are not buying anything outright. They are purchasing the chance of getting something they want which is gambling.
When you're buying something in game, you're getting what you paid for in return. If I buy units, I'm getting units.
If I buy a soda at the gas station, I'm getting a soda at the gas station.
In comparison, if I buy this toy https://www.kohls.com/product/prd-5236916/squishmallows-mystery-mini-2-inch-plush.jsp?skuid=37483745&CID=shopping30&utm_campaign=PRESCHOOL TOYS&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=google&utm_product=37483745&utm_campaignid=20477191850&CID=shopping30&utm_campaign=SSC&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=google&utm_campaignid=20477191850&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA04arBhAkEiwAuNOsImdtGsjK60lOL-1GlWAwbXYSy7zTtS2WNcwQ5EbkSISKiFNSpT09yxoCSlgQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds is it gambling because I don't know what I'm getting?
Again, you're posting things without doing any research. None of this is new and loot boxes have been around for ages.
When you buy something in game, you're buying to get ahead. You're not paying down your account or anything of the sort. If the game closed down tomorrow, you're not getting any money back.
What Country are we in?
Saving this one in my hole I’m supposably digging.
You pay money. You get random “prize”.
How is this hard to understand?
You aren't even making valid arguments as you're just saying the asking the same questions again and again after being explained. There is no "keep going". You're completely out of your league here. Go help your son with his progression in the game.
It's time to give up.
The question of whether Kabam’s in-game goods have material value has legal precedent. For example, in Coffee v Google the court determined that lootboxes are not illegal slot machines under California law, quoting multiple precedent cases. They also quoted the Ninth circuit court which held that in-game items are not considered to have material value just because they can be bought and sold on secondary markets, when such sales would violate the operators terms of service (which they would in MCOC).
This is not a situation where the law hasn’t been tested yet. This is a situation where the law has been tested many times, and determined the contrary. In fact, this precedent is considered strong enough that the plaintiff (Google) won on summary judgement to dismiss. The court dismissed that particular claim with prejudice without even having to take it to trial. The phrase “with prejudice” is a term of art in the legal profession. It means the court is not just saying they are dismissing that particular case, they are doing so with the extra prohibition that they cannot attempt to refile the same case with the same arguments for the same circumstances. It isn’t that the argument was defective and could be fixed. It is that the argument is completely without merit.
California’s laws on gambling are not all that dissimilar to the gambling statutes in other US states, and for that matter in most western countries.
Armchair lawyers need to up their game a bit and actually start reading the law as well as the legal precedents out there. Gambling is not defined as “paying money for a chance to get what you want.” If gambling was defined in that way, Topps baseball cards would be gambling. Secret Santa would be gambling. Cracker Jack boxes would be gambling. The people opposed to lootboxes *want* lootboxes to be defined as gambling. But if there was any legal justification for doing so, they would have actually gotten them banned or restricted long ago.
There are a few marginal cases where lootboxes were ruled gambling. Belgium, for example, apparently defines gambling in terms of “risking for profit or loss” and “profit” is not well defined in Belgium law, opening the door for the Belgian court to interpret lootboxes as having “profit.” But most other European countries have laws similar to the UK, which is itself similar to US law, which requires a legal, material gain.
Did you Wikipedia “gambling”?
You do have a mind of your own outside of the Internet right?
If you think you can drive this discussion to some gotcha moment, you should be aware I’ve beeen discussing legal issues surrounding the gaming industry with actual lawyers for over 19 years. I am not a lawyer, but I know what I’m talking about and unlike you, I’m not educating myself with an hour of two of Google and Wikipedia.
It's not Gambling, nor is it regulated by the age of majority as is the case of all other forms of Gambling. If you're going to talk legality, specifics matter. You're playing a game that has elements of chance to it. When all is said and done, we take absolutely nothing home because it is property of Kabam.