World of Warcraft player will be compensated for damage to his virtual image

[rhorle]

Just throwing out ideas here, though Blizzard "doesn't allow it under their EULA", people buy and sell accounts all the time. If you could compare your account to the going rate of a similar account, there'd be your monetary value. It could also be an issue of "I spent $40 on the game, $40 on the next 5 expansions, and $15/month for 10 years straight" as the valuation.

That seems fair since he was awarded a little over $1,000 usd. As well as 15% of conviction or that is what the appeals court said he would receive. Its not clear from google translate. It doesn't even seem to be about the account but about his image as a person. As the article mentions the judge saying virtual and physical image are the same. It sounds like a wealthy guy got upset he got banned and felt others would think less of him.

[SirCowdog]

Just throwing out ideas here, though Blizzard "doesn't allow it under their EULA", people buy and sell accounts all the time. If you could compare your account to the going rate of a similar account, there'd be your monetary value. It could also be an issue of "I spent $40 on the game, $40 on the next 5 expansions, and $15/month for 10 years straight" as the valuation.

I don't know, just guessing.

edit: as an example, I let my account lapse in WoD, but I know prior to that between expansion purchases and monthly sub fees I'd spent over $1,000 on it from vanilla up to that point. I've resubbed since then, but I had an unbroken sub for close to 10 years.

The way I see it, there's a difference between a black market pricing set by players, and a legal definition of the value of the account. The court can't acknowledge the value set by an illegal market, so determining the value of damages to the player in this case would have to be based on something more concrete, like any history of revenue associated with a twitch steam or other competitive venue.

Simply saying "I'm buttsore that my "ranked" account got banned and I couldn't play for 4 years" doesn't seem like a strong foundation. That's why I want to know how they determined this penalty.

[rhorle]

I think you're incorrect simply because the game doesn't require you to be 18+ to purchase or play it, and children cannot sign contracts, so....???

Blizzard accounts are only able to be created by adults. 1.A.i and 1.A.v

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal...ense-agreement

It says you have to be an adult to create an account. And children or minors can access your account according to local laws. Pretty much anywhere requires the account owner to be a legal adult even if kids will be the main user of the account. Because some one needs to be legally responsible in cases of disputes.

For some things though the required minimum age for a contract is 13. Facebook for example requires you to be 13 years of age to have a profile. Or at least did a few years ago.

[SirCowdog]

It doesn't even seem to be about the account but about his image as a person.

Yeah, and that's why I really question the findings of the court in this case.

Also, I don't know if this was brought up already or not, but there's a distinct difference between the court claiming they're awarding the player this amount of money, and actually collecting from Blizzard(although since WoW does have Brazillian servers, I would have to assume they also have a brazillian legal team who was involved in this case).

[Malikath]

You can be automatically banned just from few player reports (and no, GMs don't review those bans, don't trust them). It's really good that someone tries to change that. Corporations have too much power with too little responsibility.

these automated systems are probably going to be addressed with a bill soon, given the recent bill from the senate aiming at expanding first amendment protections to free online forum services.

[Monoxide]

Blizzard accounts are only able to be created by adults. 1.A.i and 1.A.v

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal...ense-agreement

It says you have to be an adult to create an account. And children or minors can access your account according to local laws. Pretty much anywhere requires the account owner to be a legal adult even if kids will be the main user of the account. Because some one needs to be legally responsible in cases of disputes.

For some things though the required minimum age for a contract is 13. Facebook for example requires you to be 13 years of age to have a profile. Or at least did a few years ago.

Again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be 100% wrong, but I still don't think that's correct. Like the Facebook thing...ok Facebook says you need to be 13, but Facebook isn't law. I mean, would that actually hold up in court?

Also what happens in a case like mine, where I made the account myself, I'm now an adult, but when I made the account I wasn't.

Everyone knows almost no one reads ToS/EULA, so lets say a child went to Blizzard's website and downloaded the game. I just went there myself and hit the free trial button. When I did I put in that I was born in 2004, at no point did it say anything about me needing to be 18+ or that my parent needed to set up the account for me. Afterwards it asked for my parent/guardians email, which obviously I just provided one of my own emails. After checking the email I received, it didn't require anything on the parent/guardians behalf in order for the child to play. So a kid could play without their parents knowledge, and again, it doesn't say anywhere upon account creation that you need a parents permission. Plus a kid could just use a fake email for their parent/guardian.

So in this scenario, a kid COULD sign up by themselves, without ever knowing that they weren't supposed to. Then, a kid COULD take gift cards given to them by family members and use that to purchase the full game/subscription.

What happens if this account is banned? What happens if the account is banned after the child turns 18?

There's a lot of unanswered questions here and again, not being a lawyer, I can only speculate.

I'd also like to see examples of where a companies ToS/EULA held up in court.

[SirCowdog]

You can be automatically banned just from few player reports (and no, GMs don't review those bans, don't trust them). It's really good that someone tries to change that. Corporations have too much power with too little responsibility.

Those kinds of automated bans are temporary, and don't result in a 4 year perma-ban without review AFAIK. In this case there's an accusation of illegal gambling, which I don't believe is one of the options available for in-game reporting(I could be wrong here, since I don't have an active wow account to log in and check the options).

[Relapses]

given the recent bill from the senate aiming at expanding first amendment protections to free online forum services.

Care to shed any light on this bill? Something like that would effectively end moderation on a website like this since it's an entirely voluntary unpaid vocation.

[rhorle]

Also what happens in a case like mine, where I made the account myself, I'm now an adult, but when I made the account I wasn't.

You illegally created the account and so you were in breach of the ToS at time of creation. I don't know of specific cases where the creation date mattered. The courts have ruled that it doesn't matter if a person doesn't read the terms. The company just has to make it reasonable for a person to read it. That is why everywhere has you go out of your way to click something saying you agree or you've read them.

Yes a kid could sign up with out knowing any of that. Which means there are different laws that apply and Blizzard would likely be able to do whatever they wanted since your account was "illegal". It would likely result in stricter ways to determine the account owner is "of age". For Facebook it doesn't matter that Facebook isn't the law. The laws of the United States have defined minimum ages for certain contracts.

13 is just the minimum for certain things and children's privacy is still a pretty big concern. If you want examples of TOS held up in court then just google it. Most bar associations tell you they are legally binding. There are plenty of sites out there that say how to make it so your TOS are legally binding. This isn't some new or obscure stuff.

[Polybius]

these automated systems are probably going to be addressed with a bill soon, given the recent bill from the senate aiming at expanding first amendment protections to free online forum services.

Good luck with that.

[Vampyrr]

And what if blizz just refuses to abide by it? Not like the us company is beholden to some random verdict if they dont want to. The EULA/TOS kinda gives them carte blanche to remove access if they choose to

[Loveletters]

Good luck with that.

my thoughts exactly for such a large number of reasons that i wouldn't even know where to start and i am no expert.

[Thelxi]

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't the TOS prevent Blizzard from getting into exactly this kind of legal trouble?

[rrayy]

these automated systems are probably going to be addressed with a bill soon, given the recent bill from the senate aiming at expanding first amendment protections to free online forum services.

THey can try, but that is a blatant 1st amendment violation. The government cannot regulate speech. That will get struck down hard by the SCOTUS.

[Malikath]

Care to shed any light on this bill? Something like that would effectively end moderation on a website like this since it's an entirely voluntary unpaid vocation.

the 2nd bill from the missouri senator(the same one who put forward the bill to ban lootboxes), if you actually cared you'd pay more attention.

- - - Updated - - -

THey can try, but that is a blatant 1st amendment violation. The government cannot regulate speech. That will get struck down hard by the SCOTUS.

you should read it first, it would allow the state to sue the offending forum service provider for infringing on the 1st amendment rights of it's users.
and no, they won't.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't the TOS prevent Blizzard from getting into exactly this kind of legal trouble?

allow me to simplify this:
The Law>>a notarized agreement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>an unnotarized written agreement signed in veiw of a notary>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an actual pile of horseshit>an unnotarized agreement>an actual pile of dogshit>TOS.

[rrayy]

the 2nd bill from the missouri senator(the same one who put forward the bill to ban lootboxes), if you actually cared you'd pay more attention.

- - - Updated - - -



you should read it first, it would allow the state to sue the offending forum service provider for infringing on the 1st amendment rights of it's users.
and no, they won't.

Again, yes it will. That is a blatant attempt to circumvent the 1st Amendment to regulate speech by the government. ISP's are not government agencies, therefore there is no infringement of anyone's 1st Amendment rights. This bill absolutely will be killed by the SCOTUS.

[rhorle]

you should read it first, it would allow the state to sue the offending forum service provider for infringing on the 1st amendment rights of it's users. and no, they won't.

The supreme court already ruled that private entities have the right to censor the speech on their platforms. Both in the case of social media sites and a private TV station that is a public access station. WoW, Blizzard, and these forums do not apply to freedom of speech protections. Also the bills introduced by Senator Hawley focus on large technology companies and not all platforms.

This isn't really the place for this type of discussion though as this isn't general off topic. A ToS also is a legally binding contract even if you do not read it as upheld by the courts. Click wrap (the I agree button/checkmark) is enforcable. The courts have upheld this as long as it is clear the I agree applies to the terms. And also that it is not hidden down the page prior to acceptance.

Click wrap and ToS being enforceable though are stray from relevancy to the topic. Because this is a case where the Terms apparently do not apply since the courts in question have deemed it so despite Blizzards more then adequate legal team.

[Socialhealer]

allow me to simplify this:
The Law>>a notarized agreement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>an unnotarized written agreement signed in veiw of a notary>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an actual pile of horseshit>an unnotarized agreement>an actual pile of dogshit>TOS.

But blizzard have been more like China lately, they could just go, oh you decided unban and 5000 whatevers? If you say so...(does nothing) then what happens oh nothing. nice Law xD

[Malikath]

Again, yes it will. That is a blatant attempt to circumvent the 1st Amendment to regulate speech by the government. ISP's are not government agencies, therefore there is no infringement of anyone's 1st Amendment rights. This bill absolutely will be killed by the SCOTUS.

i disagree, i think it only effects forum service providers who want to moderate along their political bias as it states that as a requirement, i do however believe we should de-privatize the internet as ISPs have shown themselves to be price-gouging and monopolizing in addition to illegal selective throttling of competitor's sites.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...tflix-traffic/
this bill will bring this discussion to the floor and in the light of ISP's and FOFSP's actions i think we will see not just this bill enforced but the total break-down and absorption of the privatized internet infrastructure into ownership of the US state not just for it to operate in an unbiased and free way as a public service but as a vital requirement to maintain the privacy and security, digital and non, of US citizens and internet user's in general.

- - - Updated - - -

But blizzard have been more like China lately, they could just go, oh you decided unban and 5000 whatevers? If you say so...(does nothing) then what happens oh nothing. nice Law xD

then they're opened to increasingly punitive measures, eventually concluding in their assets being seized and their company shutdown by court order.

[Ielenia]

Lol. I did a few more clicks and ran some stuff through google translate and apparently this guy was banned in 2015. So he has fought for 4 years to get his account restored because he was rank 6,700 something out of 10 million players. There is definitely something messed up here or some weird local thing he exploited to get the decision.

Believe me, the R$5000 he'll be getting is going all to his lawyers for the fees. Along with his car, maybe, if it's true that he went 4 years like this. All of this for pixels. Some people surprise me.