I received this e-mail and checked...(This is from the suit filed in 2008) It's legit: To view this email as a web page, click here. GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.) Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW If You Purchased Certain Electronic Arts Brand Football Video Games Between January 1, 2005 to the Present You May Be a Class Member. Membership as a class member in the Electronic Arts Litigation is the result of a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division (Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW). What Is This Class Action About? The class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's antitrust and consumer protection laws in connection with the sale of certain football video games. Plaintiffs, purchasers of Electronic Arts' football video games, claim that Defendant Electronic Arts entered into a series of exclusive licenses with the National Football League (NFL), National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA), National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), and Arena Football League (AFL), which Plaintiffs claim foreclosed competition in an alleged football video game market. Plaintiffs allege that this series of exclusive licenses caused customers who purchased certain football video games to be overcharged. Defendant Electronic Arts has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct. The Court has not decided whether the Defendants did anything wrong, and this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party to this litigation. Who Are Class Members? The Class includes all persons who, during the period January 1, 2005 to the present, purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football League brand video games published by Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005 to the present. Excluded from the class are purchasers of software for mobile devices, persons purchasing directly from Electronic Arts, persons purchasing used copies of the relevant football video games, and Electronic Arts' employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies. What Should I Do? (Getting Further Information) If you believe that you may be a class member (see above "Who Are Class Members"), you should get more detailed information about the class action and its potential effect on you and your rights. Further information can be obtained by going to the following website: www.easportslitigation.com. Additional information about the lawsuit may be obtained from Plaintiffs' Counsel website at www.hbsslaw.com, or by calling Plaintiffs' Counsel at 1-206-623-7292. To Remain a Class Member If you are a class member and you do nothing, you will be bound by the court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final Settlement or Judgment. To Exclude Yourself from the Class (Deadline to Request Exclusion: June 25, 2011) If you are a class member and you want to exclude yourself from the class and keep your right to sue Defendant, you must take further action before June 25, 2011. By that date, you must request exclusion in writing to this address: Electronic Arts Litigation Exclusion P.O. Box 8090 San Rafael CA 94912-8090 Or submit a request for exclusion electronically at the following website: www.easportslitigation.com For further information about excluding yourself from the class go to the following website: www.easportslitigation.com Please do not telephone or address inquiries to the Court. April 6, 2011. By Order of the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.).
What they should sue them for is monopolizing the NFL Video game market, and then putting out a shitty product knowing they could get away with it.
Oh well. I remember joining some random class action suit against AT&T. Like 3 years later I got a check for $2.67. Bought myself some gum.
I took away that it was for overcharging customers for the game. I can see how this could tie in with it being a shitty game, but I don't think thats the same.
if the plaintiffs win, it inherently means there are damages because their claim is that they were artificially overcharged due to the monopoly. if the court deems they were overcharged, the damages are the amount they were overcharged. the crux of the case is that in the face of competition with 2k video games, EA had to lower their price from $49.99, the standard price for that generation of video games, to $39.99 to compete because their sales dropped. so, by monopolizing the NFL license they eliminated the competition and can now charge the standard generation price of $59.99 rather than a competitive price lower than the standard price that the 2k series caused. EA's defense is that $59.99 is the standard price of games, not $39.99 which was a last gen price, but they have to then show why they dropped it from the last gen standard of $49.99 which is obviously due to competition. clearly competition in the NFL video game market causes games to be priced lower than standard video game prices, so the EA eliminating competition has allowed them to charge more, and the damages are the difference they can charge with the absence of competition. the last gasp defense is that the NFL has the right to license their property to single licensees and eliminate competition, but the Reebok/NFL monopoly suit loss clearly reflects otherwise. precedent and evidence makes this a pretty clear cut case.
The overcharging part is probably only in there to establish economic tort and the ability to recover damages. It should conversely , if successful, remove barriers to entry for a company like 2k to reestablish their position in the market.
I read the first case which was in 09 and unless I missed something they were asking for an injunction only...which would mean no damages.
I'm pretty sure most of this falls apart just from looking at other sports titles. 2k baseball is $59.99 on the Xbox 360 with 0 competition. The Show is $59.99 on the PS3 with 2k NBA 2k is $59.99 with 0 competition NHL 11 is $59.99 with 0 competition NHL 10 and 2k 10 were both $59.99
no it doesn't, it simply reveals that other sports games are not affected by price or competition or aren't interested in price competition in the market (which is only an issue if the parties conspire to fix the price which they have not), but there is factual evidence that shows that Madden has a lower value than standard video game pricing when faced with competition. all you showed is that those league games priced themselves similarly. that does nothing to dispute the fact that when NFL 2k5 lowered their price, it changed the market for NFL games and forced Madden to lower their price to be competitive, and thus to raise the price EA had to get the exclusive license and eliminate the competition. none of what I said falls apart at all because the case is about NFL and licensed football games, not any other type of video game or sports games in general. I think you missed this key part of the claim: not to mention you seem to misunderstand basic economic principals -- of course with no competition a product can charge more, that's the very backbone of the case. that's why those other games you listed adhere to standard pricing with no competition. competition forces competitive pricing practices, and EA eliminated the competition so they could charge more for their games, and thus the standard video game pricing for football games is artificial and doesn't apply to the NFL video game market -- the market has proven that with competition the NFL video game market price is lower than standard video game prices.
So because 2k was selling a game at a loss at $20 per game somehow that makes Madden cheaper? That like saying because Wal-Mart sells a brand of tv for $200 that all other stores have to sell that brand of tv for $200 also since apparently that's what it's worth. I believe both companies lost money that year. The 2nd part is kind of weak figuring 2k came out with a football game after 2k5 not to mention Backbreaker and EA did drop the AFL license. Then you have the online NFL game that came out last year then the iphone NFL game.
The damages don't necessarily have to be the full price difference between Madden games and 2Kx games. I'm sure evidence will be introduced as to what Madden would have cost if there was competition, and damages would be the difference between that price and the actual price. It looks like they would be suing for both an injunction and damages.
you still don't seem to grasp the argument. yes, if Madden's sales decline because other people are buying another game, and then to compete EA has to lower the price of Madden to compete, it does mean it has less value. I can't believe you are actually confused by this most basic principle. this isn't opinion, this is market fact. first of all, they weren't selling it at a loss, they were selling it at a lower profit margin. big difference between the two. all individual units are sold at less than the cost to develop the game; the developers then choose the profit margin they will accept in the objective of earning back that cost by the quantity they sell. 2k was willing to have to sell more units to earn back the cost while EA is trying to sell less and maximize the profit. and secondly, the argument doesn't state anyone has to sell anything at a particular price, so your Wal Mart example has no merit. basic economics states that in the face of competition the market will determine the price. if Wal Mart sells a TV at price x, the competition will either have to adjust their price or lose sales. that doesn't reflect anyone having to do anything -- they choose to do it. but the law doesn't allow for a company to monopolize a market simply to raise a price. and that is what has happened, or is being argued. the value of NFL licensed football games was proven to be 70% of the standard video game price during the last gen. to be able to charge 100% of the standard price, EA has monopolized the NFL licensed market and artificially raised the price beyond its market value thus causing consumers to have to spend more to get an NFL game than they would otherwise have to if there were competition. this is the argument being made, and the facts seem to back it up. you don't really seem to grasp the argument of the claimants or the evidence of their support, as your examples you provided do nothing to dispute it. again, you seem to miss the fact that they are suing on behalf of the price of NFL licensed games so non NFL football games do not apply. it wouldn't be hard to make the argument that they are distinct markets and not competition. Backbreaker wasn't competing with Madden is the argument; hence why they defined specifically the scope of the lawsuit being NFL, NFLPA and AFL games. I'm surprised they aren't suing the NFL since the NFL admitted they were seeking a sole licensee for the video game market. sure seems the NFL didn't like their prices lower and wanted to eliminate competition so their video game price would increase. proving that may be difficult, but it certainly seems easy to argue that EA and the NFL acted jointly to fix the market price.
