Class Action Lawsuit against Blizzard.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

But, the compromised accounts is mostly because the user doesn't take care of his/her system.

Passing the ball doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the chain for basic security.

The individual will be responsible for applying an authenticator. It's the responsibility of Blizzard to require it (to save on litigation fees...which is money lost for gaming mind you) and provide it at the moment of account creation.

The Law is pretty dry and cold on these matters.

[Deleted]

Blizzard is at fault for not requiring it, and not providing an easy way to know about it and to obtain it.

so every single online service that doesn't need an authenticator is as fault? and every service that requires a passcode/pin to login but doesn't have an authenticator is at fault? if so that makes 99% of companies at fault, or it could simply be the person getting hacked has poor skills at keeping their information secure and it could be their fault.

it's much more likely it is the minority that get "hacked" being at fault than the company with millions of users who never have a problem.

[Faroth]

All of this is just pointless, because the authenticator isn't required.

Blizzard basically is selling a game and letting folks use it without even a login password for their account. That's what basically what it comes down to for account security.

Battle.net
Login name
Password

Chase/Wells Fargo
Login name
Password

Blizzard does require a login password. Players don't take precautions and don't keep their computers secure. Players get hacked. It's Blizzard's fault for not forcing the authenticator as a requirement?

I don't know how much more in your face Blizzard can get saying "PUT AN AUTHENTICATOR ON YOUR ACCOUNT FOR ADDED SECURITY" than they already have, short of requiring every player to pay for one with every expansion, which means more expensive expansions for something you won't use (if you have one, you don't need 5).

[Kevyne-Shandris]

No, but it's advertised online, as well as some boxes actually have a piece of paper lying inside saying "Remember you can order or download an authenticator for extra security" - And you can't claim no, because I'm looking at it right now.

Paper INSIDE the box.

Not OUTSIDE *on* the box.

EA got into trouble with BF2142 when they did that. So wouldn't doubt Activision-Blizzard will get a dressing down for it too.

[GarGar]

What a joke. I can't imagine the lawyer who took the case is very smart.

"neither Activision nor Blizzard took "the legally required steps to alert" "

They emailed everyone, and they posted it on their forums. What more can they do? Did the guy want a phone call with a personal apology or something?

""tacking on" undisclosed costs after customers have bought games"

Good thing authenticators are optional, and with good personal security habits, you can remain safe without one. Of course, if you know enough about security to protect yourself without one, you probably also recognize the huge benefit it provides and will get one anyway.

Benjamin Bell is wasting his money and Blizz's money. The only party that wins here is the lawyers...

[alturic]

All of this is just pointless, because the authenticator isn't required.

Blizzard basically is selling a game and letting folks use it without even a login password for their account. That's what basically what it comes down to for account security.

The individual would have to be responsible to apply the authenticator, but Blizzard is responsible to supply it at the very start of creating an account.

The ball was dropped in the chain of basic security -- players can't make an authenticator itself and new players wouldn't know anything about it (it's not listed as something to get on the box, anyway).

Blizzard is at fault for not requiring it, and not providing an easy way to know about it and to obtain it.

I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, it sounds like you aren't and I can't comprehend why? I'm really confused what you mean by "letting folks use it without even a login password"? Why is Blizzard responsible for people making simple passwords, downloading everything and anything they find on the internet and using the same e-mail for every account they have ever made on a website? I'm not saying Blizzard shouldn't show a picture of the authenticator on the box, or in the installer but why exactly is it Blizzards responsibility to provide that extra security? Blizzard does what almost every bank does if your account is hacked, banks give you the money back, Blizzard gives you the items back. Banks don't require (let alone most don't even offer) authenticators to use them.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Blizzard does require a login password.

This is why fanboi forums are not a great place to discuss issues like this, because they're quick to have knee-jerk responses, so quick they don't bother to read what they're responding too in their zest to defend. In WoW especially as they have the impatience of programmers, wanting the formula for life in a one sentence Twitter like blurb.

Do you see the word "like" in that description above? I even underlined it for you.

Basically has the same meaning.

Since this IS WoW...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basically

Then WoWers wonder why lawsuits exist, again? They would argue even points like this, "just because"!

[alturic]

Passing the ball doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the chain for basic security.

The individual will be responsible for applying an authenticator. It's the responsibility of Blizzard to require it (to save on litigation fees...which is money lost for gaming mind you) and provide it at the moment of account creation.

The Law is pretty dry and cold on these matters.

Passing what ball? Maybe the confusing part is you not wording it correctly and stating that a company can't provide a layer of security AND charge for it? I know that's definitely false, which is why I'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying but please explain why this is on Blizzard to require and provide, for "free"...

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 11:27 AM ----------

Paper INSIDE the box.

Not OUTSIDE *on* the box.

EA got into trouble with BF2142 when they did that. So wouldn't doubt Activision-Blizzard will get a dressing down for it too.

That's where you are wrong. The problem would be if it was required, and THEN inside the box they had the paper that side "Oh yea, you can purchase your required authenticator at our website". The thing is, it's not required. It's not NEEDED. It's optional. Most optional things in life, come with a price.

[Lochton]

Paper INSIDE the box.

Not OUTSIDE *on* the box.

EA got into trouble with BF2142 when they did that. So wouldn't doubt Activision-Blizzard will get a dressing down for it too.

Yes, inside the box, they don't need to do more because nothing more is needed. If you want it, Blizzard have it in stock for you to order right away. And to be honest, shipping for it is so fast. I ordered mine from the US, and it was in my hands 2 days later in Denmark. That is pretty good seeing how cheap it was.

Blizzard doesn't have to give it to you, they rely on you knowing the basics on maintaining your personal security via cleaning/scanning your system now and then, nothing more is needed. The authenticator just makes you more safe, and in the end, why should you have something for free that costs money to make? You already get the application for free, get that instead then.

Just like EA with SWTOR, they made the authenticator, but the first version made wasn't even to support EU, but only ment for US. Then they changed it because EU players would like to have the extra safety to, just incase.

Blizzard puts advertisements up about having your account extra secured, it's your job to get it then if you want it. They already gave you as we keep repeating in this thread, "The standard security procedure". If this cause wins, what stops the next person from chasing fools gold? Suddenly dragging Mastercard to court for not applying additional security for free. Heck, if this case succeeds, the door is basicly open to allow people to drag security companies to court because they don't dog patrol the garden since they are already a customer of the alarm system.

[Deleted]

A lawsuit thread on a fanboi forum isn't going to be very unbiased and fair with opinions...that's for sure!

But seriously the lawsuit does have a point, and one that I am glad being pointed out, that the authenticators should be a requirement to play the game and included (in the box or downloadable).

This game has too many compromised accounts, and one less headache in operating the game is good business sense. Certainly more than paying to defend against this lawsuit.

First of all, you cannot shit on biased discussion and then use the term "fanbois" and come off as anything but a flaming jackass, because you claim to want something you yourself fail to provide in a most basic sense. Not to mention; duh? This is a fansite, most people on here will in fact enjoy the product the website is centered around.

Issue with the authenticators isn't about what you appear to think. This isn't about Blizzard, this is about the consumer. Blizzard does what it can to make it more difficult to compromise accounts, even you seem to have figured out it is plain good business to do so, so then it becomes an issue of figuring out why they don't do what you suggested. Don't worry, it is easy. Blizzard is a business, if they included a product worth 6USD with the gamebox, then the price of the box would go up by 6USD. The pricetag for the consumer would remain identical, however with the increased pricetag potential consumers are turned away right at the gate because why purchase something you don't believe you need?

You're a biased person, it is OK, but at least try to get that whole idea about wanting unbiased discussion out of your head. For one, it is impossible, secondly you don't fit the imaginary criteria of being unbiased.

[alturic]

This is why fanboi forums are not a great place to discuss issues like this, because they're quick to have knee-jerk responses, so quick they don't bother to read what they're responding too in their zest to defend. In WoW especially as they have the impatience of programmers, wanting the formula for life in a one sentence Twitter like blurb.

Do you see the word "like" in that description above? I even underlined it for you.

Basically has the same meaning.

Since this IS WoW...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basically

Then WoWers wonder why lawsuits exist, again? They would argue even points like this, "just because"!

You're really bad at giving examples of what you mean.

Let me break this down. You stated WoW doesn't even require a login password. It does. People pointed that out to you.

[Gsara]

Yea, but to be honest, I'd like to see Blizzard losing a lawsuit.

Why? Any decision made will affect all game companies not just Blizzard. People go after Blizzard because they are a high profile, high income gaming company.

[Deleted]

Maybe in the future, my keychain (key for my appartment, letterbox, car(if I had one) and everything) will have to be renamed to "donglechain"?


Also, if the lawsuit is successfull, I'll call EA and DEMAND my free SW:TOR dongle THIS INSTANT, else I'll drag them to court and sue the butter off their bread =)

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, it sounds like you aren't and I can't comprehend why?

Because I'm not a fanboi who writes for Blizzard's PR department.

The individual has their responsibility, and the company has their responsibility.

The ball was dropped.

The policy of Blizzard to make authenticators as an option is really the biggest issue here.

Blizzard takes a stance with authenticators like motorcycles and helmets. But unlike a motorcyclist who must learn via instruction and passing written and performance tests that state a helmet is required to operate that vehicle. The individual will be solely at fault for disobeying not only instruction, the law.

Here that doesn't exist, especially for a new user browsing the Wal-Mart game section and buys the game (or for the matter the typical WoW player who doesn't bother to read these gladiator tested forums).

If it was required and a player refuses to apply the authenticator, yep, he's 100% at fault.

That isn't the case now.

[Deleted]

This is hilarious.

You don't have to pay for one. You can use a mobile to do the same thing. It should get laughed out of court.

[alturic]

Because I'm not a fanboi who writes for Blizzard's PR department.

The individual has their responsibility, and the company has their responsibility.

The ball was dropped.

The policy of Blizzard to make authenticators as an option is really the biggest issue here.

Blizzard takes a stance with authenticators like motorcycles and helmets. But unlike a motorcyclist who must learn via instruction and passing written and performance tests that state a helmet is required to operate that vehicle. The individual will be solely at fault for disobeying not only instruction, the law.

Here that doesn't exist, especially for a new user browsing the Wal-Mart game section and buys the game (or for the matter the typical WoW player who doesn't bother to read these gladiator tested forums).

If it was required and a player refuses to apply the authenticator, yep, he's 100% at fault.

That isn't the case now.

I don't know what country you live in, but it must have some of the strictest online usage laws in the known world if that mentality is ingrained into you. You have not given a single reason as to why an authenticator should be REQUIRED to play a game, let alone BANKING. What you are saying (since you are very careful to point the finger to Blizzard alone for some reason) is that ANY and ALL online login systems should use authenticators. That's what I'm trying to get out of you, why do you think Blizzard should REQUIRE authenticators but not every other online service that uses a login/password system, which is... well hey look at that I gotta grab my MMO-C authenticator, oh wait...

I'm confused why you think Blizzard and ONLY Blizzard (as an online service) is REQUIRED to give/use authenticators for their game, but no other service is?

This isn't about PR, hell I don't even have an active sub to WoW, nor do I play D3 or SC2 currently. This is about common-sense.

[Deleted]

If it was required and a player refuses to apply the authenticator, yep, he's 100% at fault.

That isn't the case now.

if it was required you wouldn't be able to access the account without one.

however it is not required hence you can login without one, so it is nobodies fault that he doesn't have an authenticator, however it is the users fault if his information was got through his computer or he didn't take action when notified that the accounts database was compromised, if he is claiming he was hacked because of the blizzard database why did he leave his login credentials the same after everyone was notified that the data could of been taken? it's a failing on the users end either way, blizzard has took all the action they could and offer several optional services to improve security. so it comes back to it was user fault and short of blizzard coming round your house and holding your hand there is nothing else they could of done, other than lockdown all the accounts and force everyone to reverify their accounts and change their information but anyone with half a brain would of changed all this anyway.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

You're really bad at giving examples of what you mean.

Let me break this down. You stated WoW doesn't even require a login password. It does. People pointed that out to you.

This is the only, and I mean only, online forum anyone has said I wasn't clear.

People understand general statements. They understand figures of speech. They understand off hand remarks. Now if English isn't your first language then state so, but don't claim I'm not clear. Especially when I tend to write even in sentences to be point blank.

Now they'll be confused about the word "tend"...

[Homicidal Maniac]

This is the only, and I mean only, online forum anyone has said I wasn't clear.

People understand general statements. They understand figures of speech. They understand off hand remarks. Now if English isn't your first language then state so, but don't claim I'm not clear. Especially when I tend to write even in sentences to be point blank.

Now they'll be confused about the word "tend"...

You should probably stop dodging the rest of his post.

[alturic]

This is the only, and I mean only, online forum anyone has said I wasn't clear.

People understand general statements. They understand figures of speech. They understand off hand remarks. Now if English isn't your first language then state so, but don't claim I'm not clear. Especially when I tend to write even in sentences to be point blank.

Now they'll be confused about the word "tend"...

No, you really are bad at making analogies, an authenticator is not a "login password" which is what you were alluding it was when you stated that, at least I hope so, because your arguments would look even weaker if that's not what you meant.

Let me ask you this point blank, do you think EVERY online website/service should require authenticators? If not, why should Blizzard?