I doubt this will go anywhere. Pretty much every redemption game is set up like this. This includes claw machines and even ticket-dispensing games. While I don’t know what the legal precedent for...
I doubt this will go anywhere. Pretty much every redemption game is set up like this. This includes claw machines and even ticket-dispensing games. While I don’t know what the legal precedent for this is, I doubt that in the literal decades of this practice that it would have never gone to court.
Key Master has been the target of multiple court cases in the past, dating back to at least 2013.
(...)
In 2015, Sega and another angry player reached a class action settlement, but the settlement was rejected by the judge due to administrative reasons, like a high attorney’s fee and failing to identify and paying affected class members. In 2019, the state of Arizona sued an arcade machine distribution company, Betson Coin-Op, over the Sega Key Master machines and how they’re programmed. Attorney General Mark Brnovich said that system made the game more like a slot machine, which is only allowed in licensed casinos in Arizona.
Previously, Arizona had prosecuted a criminal case against Jonathan Sanborn, who licensed Key Master machines from Betson for two years, set to only allow players to win after 2,200 losses. In that case, Betson settled for $1 million and agreed not to sell or lease Key Master machines in Arizona.
Yes, I also read the article. As far as I am aware, settlements do not attribute to legal precedent. Beyond that, I was talking about the use of similar 'sweepstakes' style rigging in all types of...
Yes, I also read the article. As far as I am aware, settlements do not attribute to legal precedent. Beyond that, I was talking about the use of similar 'sweepstakes' style rigging in all types of machines rather than this one particular example.
Well sure no problem. I was prompted to respond because of this I'm not sure what "legal precedent" even means, to be honest. But it seems to me they went to court in some shape.
Well sure no problem. I was prompted to respond because of this
doubt that in the literal decades of this practice that it would have never gone to court.
I'm not sure what "legal precedent" even means, to be honest. But it seems to me they went to court in some shape.
Ah, I see, that's understandable. The concept of legal precedent is a bit hard to define, but it's basically the practice of using historical cases to decide how to deal with current cases. So if...
Ah, I see, that's understandable.
The concept of legal precedent is a bit hard to define, but it's basically the practice of using historical cases to decide how to deal with current cases. So if there were a case where this kind of game fixing was ruled to be against the law, the lawyer for the person suing Sega right now would present the preceding case to tell the judge how to deal with the current case. It's why you see them bringing up old cases in legal briefs; it's basically like academic citations being used for the practice of law.
To what extent are lower courts bound by the decisions of higher courts?
Generally, lower courts are free to decide claims regardless of the decisions issued by superior courts. However, in 2006, the Federal Constitution was amended to allow the Supreme Court to issue binding precedents regarding matters which it has repeatedly reviewed. If the binding precedent is ignored by a lower court, the Supreme Court may be petitioned directly.
The issue of a binding precedent requires approval of at least two-thirds of the Supreme Court justices, and is subject to the same control of constitutionality as all laws.
Yes. The Supreme Court does not do that often I think -- I am not a lawyer. But that's how we got gay marriage (or "civil union" as they call it). Edit: this general kind of law system is...
Yes. The Supreme Court does not do that often I think -- I am not a lawyer. But that's how we got gay marriage (or "civil union" as they call it).
Edit: this general kind of law system is obviously not exclusive to Brazil...
Coincidentally, I saw this very machine on a shopping mall just this week -- in Brazil. I'll tell my lawyer friend about that, that could be a lucrative suit for him and his possible clients...
Coincidentally, I saw this very machine on a shopping mall just this week -- in Brazil. I'll tell my lawyer friend about that, that could be a lucrative suit for him and his possible clients...
I doubt this will go anywhere. Pretty much every redemption game is set up like this. This includes claw machines and even ticket-dispensing games. While I don’t know what the legal precedent for this is, I doubt that in the literal decades of this practice that it would have never gone to court.
From the article:
(...)
Yes, I also read the article. As far as I am aware, settlements do not attribute to legal precedent. Beyond that, I was talking about the use of similar 'sweepstakes' style rigging in all types of machines rather than this one particular example.
Well sure no problem. I was prompted to respond because of this
I'm not sure what "legal precedent" even means, to be honest. But it seems to me they went to court in some shape.
Ah, I see, that's understandable.
The concept of legal precedent is a bit hard to define, but it's basically the practice of using historical cases to decide how to deal with current cases. So if there were a case where this kind of game fixing was ruled to be against the law, the lawyer for the person suing Sega right now would present the preceding case to tell the judge how to deal with the current case. It's why you see them bringing up old cases in legal briefs; it's basically like academic citations being used for the practice of law.
Yeah, Brazilian law is quite different.
Since I was curious about the differences regarding precedent:
Legal systems in Brazil: overview
Yes. The Supreme Court does not do that often I think -- I am not a lawyer. But that's how we got gay marriage (or "civil union" as they call it).
Edit: this general kind of law system is obviously not exclusive to Brazil...
Coincidentally, I saw this very machine on a shopping mall just this week -- in Brazil. I'll tell my lawyer friend about that, that could be a lucrative suit for him and his possible clients...