Categories
Uncategorized

Is a Bad Review Defamation? Protecting Your Business Reputation Online.

Following my previous article about online defamation, business owners frequently ask me whether they can “sue” Facebook or Yelp or Google, etc., to get a negative review removed. Or whether they can “sue” the poster for “reputation damages.” This is especially common in the trucking industry, where Carrier411 hosts a platform that allows brokers and customers to review carriers. Often times, a dispute or a misunderstanding between a carrier and a customer leads to a “report” or a bad review on Carrier411 that causes frustration and may even result in lost business.

A negative review by itself is not always defamation. To win on a defamation claim in court, you need to prove: (1) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (2) unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actionability per se or the existence of special harm.

What does this all mean for the business owner faced with a negative review?

  • First, a successful defamation claim requires a false and defamatory statement. This is the most commonly misunderstood element, but it is absolutely critical. A negative review – even if the business owner has a different side of the story, or does not agree with it – is not actionable unless it is actually false. A statement of opinion – even if negative – is not a false statement of fact because there is no such thing as a false opinion. That is an important difference, especially in the age of social media. A person may go on your restaurant website and freely post something like “I hate the atmosphere and I did not like the food here at all.” That is not defamation, even though it is a negative review. Rather, it is a statement of opinion. A good test is to ask: how am I going to prove that the statement is false? What types of evidence will I introduce to refute the “facts” that were posted? There is no evidence that you can introduce to refute a statement of opinion – in other words, the customer’s perception of atmosphere and the food is their own. If they did not like it, then it is their opinion, and they are entitled to it. Also, the statement must be defamatory, that is injurious to your business reputation. A statement that is false, but is not negative or otherwise critical of your business is not actionable. For example, if a review says “This restaurant is located in midtown Detroit,” when in fact the restaurant is downtown, the statement is false, but not defamatory.
  • Second, there must be unprivileged publication. “Publication” just means dissemination to others – meaning third parties. Of course, if something is posted online, it is published. “Unprivileged” means that the statement is not made in the context of a protected communication, such as a legal filing with the court, a police report, or some other type of special protected communication.
  • Third, the false statement must be made with at least negligence. That simply means that the person making the statement either knows that it is false or does not bother to try to find out before publishing. Even if a person publishes a false statement about your business, they may not be liable if they consider it true based on a reasonable inquiry.
  • Fourth, there must be an element of damages. In business cases, this element is usually satisfied automatically, as damages to business reputation are considered actionable per se. However, actual damages are still critical and must be proven – otherwise you may end up recovering only nominal damages. While punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorney fees, are available under MCL 600.2911, there are no guarantees that they will be awarded. A case is always more persuasive if there are actual damages that are proximately caused by the negative post, review, or other published statement.

Even if you can prove the four elements, there are practical factors to consider before filing a lawsuit. Are you prepared to bear significant litigation costs – thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars? Are you prepared to invest time away from your business to prove your case? Never treat litigation as an investment opportunity because no business owner makes money paying their attorney and spending time in court.

The good news is that there are other options besides litigation that you can discuss with your attorney. Often times, an informal discussion with a dissatisfied customer can solve the issue. A cease-and-desist letter can be effective as well. If the potential damages are significant, pre-suit mediation may be the most cost effective option to resolve the dispute.

One final note – in Michigan, defamation claims must be brought within a year of the event. Other states may have different deadlines, but if you think you may have a claim, talk to an attorney sooner rather than later.

Dan Artaev is an experienced business attorney who advises a number of domestic and international businesses on various topics, including defamation. Email us or call us to set up your free initial consultation.

© 2024 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.-

Categories
Uncategorized

But Your Honor, He Said a Bad Thing About Me on Facebook: Business Defamation Claims in the Age of Social Media

It is 2024 and every business has an online presence – whether through a website, on Google, or on social media. It is more important than ever for business owners to know what can and cannot be said (i.e. posted) regarding their business online. In other words, can you sue to get that negative review off of Google? Or what about that irate ex-employee that keeps posting false information to your Glassdoor page? Can an overzealous freight broker’s post against a trucker on Carrier411.com lead to a lawsuit?

In a recent Michigan case that involved Carrier411, Penguin Trucking Inc. and E.L. Hollingsworth & Co., faced off in a business defamation case. The two companies were contracted for the same job at different rates by an outside third party. However, by the time the two companies found out about the scam, Penguin Trucking had already had the freight in its possession and was unable to make a deal with E.L. Hollingsworth for them to reconcile and both deliver the freight.

Since Penguin Trucking already held the freight, they decided to enter into a deal directly with the end customer for the delivery. Shortly thereafter, an E.L Hollingsworth employee posted a scathing report on Carrier411.com, a trucking monitoring service website. The employee wrote that Penguin Trucking “held [the] load hostage,” attempted “in-transit agreement modification,” and accused them of “unethical or deceptive business practices.” In any industry, potential customers are reluctant to do business with companies that have negative reports written about them, like those written on Carrier411.com. In the trucking business, Carrier411 reviews are especially crippling and can even destroy a smaller or startup business. Penguin Trucking experienced these adverse effects first-hand when it lost out on a contract with a shipper based on the FreightGuard. In litigation, Penguin Trucking proved not only that the online statements were false, but that the loss of the shipper contract was directly linked to the Carrier411.com review. Penguin Trucking was awarded $612,400 in damages for this lawsuit.

Michigan’s laws are clear about what constitutes defamation and what does not. Most other states have similar laws that protect against false statements that damage a business’s reputation. There are four elements to a defamation claim in Michigan:

  1. A false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
  2. An unprivileged publication to a third party;
  3. Fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
  4. Either special per se harm or actual damages proximately caused by the statement.

For a more in-depth look at what each element means and requires, check out my latest article about protecting your online reputation.

If someone is posting intentionally false information about your company on the Internet (including a false FreightGuard report on Carrier411) you have a right to defend your company. An experienced attorney can help with various options short of litigation, such as sending a cease-and-desist letter and negotiating a resolution on your behalf. If litigation does become necessary, we can also provide the necessary support and consultation to take your case before the proper court.

Have more questions? Contact our firm by email or call us today to set up your free initial consultation.

© 2024 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Skill-Based Gaming 2024: Demand For Innovation Amid Regulatory Uncertainty.

Since the firm’s inception in 2020, Artaev at Law has worked extensively with companies offering real-money skill-based gaming in the U.S. and internationally. In 2024, the market continues to grow, transform, and gain both appeal and legitimacy as an entertainment alternative. Recently, FanDuel joined the competition with its FanDuel Faceoff app. Its entry into the space is notable because it is marks a gambling industry heavyweight’s entry into the niche space of skill-based real money gaming. FanDuel’s roots are in fantasy sports and the brand is currently well-positioned in the online gambling market, along with DraftKings and well-known casino brands like Caesars and MGM. In contrast, the skill-based real-money gaming market has historically been dominated by specialized developers like AviaGames (Pocket7), Papaya Games, and Game Taco (formerly known as Worldwinner). Many independent studios also used Skillz branding and platform for their own take on the “casual” and “social” gaming categories.

4 Takeaways for the Industry

So why do FanDuel and its Faceoff app matter to skill-based real-money gaming? A major gaming market player’s entry into the skill-based sector is a bellwether and indicative of broader market trends:

  1. Skill-based real-money gaming is alive and well. The market is far from saturated and is still ripe for innovative offerings that may appeal to different demographics. For example, sports-based and party-style games may draw younger male customers, as opposed to the traditional solitaire/bingo offerings that have historically targeted older, female players.
  2. Skill gaming may expand an existing entertainment brand. FanDuel is already associated with gambling and sports, but not necessarily skill-based word games or Wheel of Fortune. FanDuel Faceoff is another vertical to expand crossover appeal to existing customers, as well as to reach new demographics.
  3. Online gambling markets may be becoming stale and driving demand for alternative gaming entertainment. As more states legalize sports betting and casinos (including the ability to wager online), consumer resources are being spread thin across identical gambling products. Entertainment consumers may be looking for innovation instead of yet another sports book or slot machine. The recent uptick in Pick’em Style fantasy sports (and scrutiny of) offerings by companies like Underdog Sports and Prize Picks shows that consumers are interested in something different. Accordingly, skill-based gaming is an exciting opportunity for gaming (and entertainment) companies to differentiate themselves and cater to demand.
  4. Skill games can compliment and enhance your existing gaming or non-gaming product. Faceoff complements but does not replace FanDuel’s existing fantasy sports, sports betting, and casino gambling products, which are in different apps. Yet the login info is the same across the FanDuel universe. This strategy shows how existing entertainment brands can gamify (or further gamify) their products to expand their verticals. The interest in play-to-earn video games is just one example of the tremendous appeal and potential of game monetization.

Demand for Innovation Runs Into Regulatory Uncertainty

With Super Bowl LVIII and the interest in “novelty prop bets” on everything related to Taylor Swift, it is clear that there is consumer appetite for something new. Some companies, like the aforementioned PrizePicks and Underdog Sports, are offering their own spin on the existing DFS or fantasy sports models. Peer-to-peer marketplaces combine social elements with a decentralized “no-sports-book” mechanism. Even full-scale prediction markets that offer bets on world events and scientific achievement have manifested themselves as lucrative economic opportunities.

What is also clear is that state and federal regulators are still playing catch-up to market-driven innovation. Most gaming models are unlicensed, and rely on either the skill-based or fantasy sports exceptions to anti-gambling laws. Certain states have passed legislation targeting skill-based machines – for example, a few years ago Utah banned so-called “fringe gaming,” – but it is still uncertain whether the ban applies to software downloaded to a smartphone or only stand-alone machines. More recently, states like Michigan and New York have enacted new fantasy sports rules that prohibit player vs. house pick’em bets popularized by Underdog and PrizePicks. Adding to the confusion, each state defines and regulates gambling differently.

Accordingly, the experienced and knowledgable attorneys at Artaev at Law are here to help your skill game venture. Need a legal opinion to get your app approved? Onboarding with a payment processor? Need help navigating terms and conditions or a privacy policy? Contact Artaev at Law PLLC today for your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, tax, or investment advice. Every situation is different and has its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2024 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Are Skill-Based Real-Money Games Legal in the United States?

The skill-based real-money game sector continues to grow in 2024, and yes, skill games are generally legal under the laws of most states. Risking money on games of skill has always been popular – from Mesopotamia, to Ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire, to your local pool hall. Now, with the ubiquity of the smartphone and internet access, skill-based real-money gaming is a widely available form of entertainment. The setup is familiar – pay an entry fee for a chance to compete for a prize. Top score takes the prize. There is also no shortage to game variety, although skill-based solitaire, bingo, and a blackjack-solitaire hybrid called 21 Blitz account for the vast majority of players.

Designing, distributing, and marketing real-money skill gaming apps continues to be a lucrative business model. But what are the legal and regulatory hurdles to distributing and marketing your product in the United States? There are many nuances, and given that each of the 50 states has its own set of laws related to gaming and gambling, hiring experienced counsel is a must.

IMPORTANT – Real-money games of skill are still illegal in some U.S. states, even though they are not games of chance (such as traditional gambling like blackjack, roulette, or slots). A lot depends on the particulars of your app or game, but it is a mistake to assume that all skill games are automatically legal.

There are three main obstacles to distributing a real-money skill game in the U.S.:

  • Second, the app must comply with state and federal law. Geolocation technology can be used to meet specific location requirements or restrictions. Additionally, Apple requires that any real-money gaming app comply with local laws where the app is offered, have the required licenses (or the aforementioned legal opinion), and be geographically restricted to those locations. Also, offering an app in a jurisdiction where it is illegal risks attention of local authorities or private litigation, which can result in fines, penalties, and closure of your particular game.
  • Third, as skill-based real-money gaming is unlicensed and unregulated, it is important to have robust terms and conditions and a privacy policy in place. These terms function as a contract between the gaming company and its customers, offering important rules and regulations, as well as disclaimers and liability limitations. Further, dispute resolution provisions like an arbitration clause and a class action waiver are important, but must be carefully tailored to be enforceable.

Real-money games of skill vs. gambling

You may have heard that real-money games of skill – like darts, pool, puzzles – are not prohibited or regulated in the United States because they are not “gambling.” The reasoning goes that if the outcome depends on skill rather than chance, then it is not regulated under state gambling laws. This is false. Each of the 50 states have their own statutory definitions, laws, and regulations applicable to gambling. The states also differ on how much skill is required to exclude a particular game from the “gambling” category. Most states rely on the “predominance” test, where skill must predominate over the chance element. Other states use the “material element” test, where a game is considered gambling if chance is a “material” element in the outcome. A few states use the “any chance” test – where if there is any chance element present, the game is considered “gambling” and may not be offered without a license.

There is also a distinction between fantasy sports-type games and pure contest games on both the state and federal levels.

Payment Processors and Due Diligence

Payment processors – companies responsible for money-in and money-out of your app – also have their own set of due diligence requirement. Most reputable providers will require the legal opinion, copies of the terms and privacy policy, and even may require an internal anti-money laundering (“AML”) policy. Under federal law, financial institutions and certain high-risk businesses (such as casinos) must have AML policies in place. However, experienced counsel can also help with craft a policy that balances the payment processor’s standards with practical considerations and costs facing any starting-stage business.

Disclaimer: This guide is not intended to be and does not constitute legal advice. It is for informative and promotional purposes only. Do not take any action or refrain from taking any action based on this guide, and always consult with a qualified professional about the circumstances of your particular case. Each set of facts is unique and different circumstances apply to each individual business.

This article was originally published in 2020, but has since been updated to reflect current legal and regulatory developments in the skill-based gaming area.

© 2020 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

DePIN Networks and Utility Tokens: Legal Considerations for the Physical Applications of Blockchain Technology.

Imagine creating a product that sells data, such as a mapping or telecommunications service. These are capital-intensive businesses with immense startup costs. Barriers to entry may seem insurmountable – after all, if you wanted to compete with Verizon or AT&T, the cost and availability of cell phone towers alone would be cost-prohibitive. Same with competing against Google Maps or Apple. It is essentially impossible for a startup to compete with companies that are effectively public utilities.

How is DePIN useful and what are some examples?

Enter decentralization. While currently associated with largely speculative financial transactions and niche non-fungible token (NFT) projects, decentralized/permissionless networks have great potential to expand beyond the merely virtual and into the physical space. The Helium communications network and Hivemapper’s mapping data services are just two great examples. Helium crowdsources its network by leasing physical space to install its smaller, lower-powered antennae. Instead of 400-foot massive, high-watt cell towers, the network runs on hundreds or even thousands of densely distributed smaller transmitters. Helium’s own cryptocurrency (HNT) comes in as a rewards system – for installing an antenna, passing proof of service tests, and increased use of the particular location, the landlord earns Helium tokens (HNT) (or associated IOT or MOBILE tokens), which can then be sold or exchanged on the open market. Locations that are used more frequently earn more tokens, incentivizing the optimal location and operation through economics principles.

Hivemapper works in a similar manner, but with road mapping. Hivemapper sells its proprietary dashcams, which users can buy, install, and use to collect data from their vehicles, which is then uploaded in exchange for HONEY tokens. Like HNT, HONEY can be sold or traded on an exchange. The benefit to Hivemapper is that it essentially collects data in exchange for self-created tokens and sells dashcamps on top. Hivemapper does not invest in significant infrastructure, like Google’s mapping cars or their specialized cameras. Hivemapper instead recruits – and decentralizes – the process for collecting road data that would otherwise be cost prohibitive. As an additional efficiency, this results in more up-to-date road data, as it is collected from more sources than a single Google Maps car that drives through a particular route on an infrequent basis.

This application (and benefits) of decentralization and crowdsourcing to data collection and aggregation, as well as other physical applications are significant. For example, a company could use a decentralized token incentive structure to collect environmental or weather data, which then could be sold to private parties for development purposes, aid in agriculture, and otherwise create significant inexpensive, up-to-date data aggregation. Social science applications abound, as a company could incentivize information gathering and consensus-based verification with a properly-designed token system.

DePIN must still comply with existing physical and financial regulations.

While novel, DePINs must still fit into the existing physical and financial regulatory schemes. For example, Helium’s network must comport with FCC standards on communications devices, radio frequencies, transmission power, and other administrative matters. Further, the fact that companies like Hivemapper and Helium essentially create their own currency, must also fit into existing securities and money transmission laws, both on a federal and state-by-state level. Companies cannot simply raise funds through initial coin offerings and bypass normal securities regulations. If selling tokens, companies must engage in Security Token Offerings (or STOs), which are conducted similar to private placements and disclosed on Form D with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Otherwise, companies may structure their tokens as “utility” tokens, which means that consumption (and not investment or speculation) must be the primary motivation for the purchase. For instance, if users who earned the HONEY token could consume that token and use it to pay for a Hivemapper premium subscription (giving themselves access to premium map and road condition content for example), the HONEY token would likely be classified as a “utility” token and not fall into the “investment contract” designation under the Howey test.

How do utility tokens fit into the DePIN economy?

A “utility” token with non-investment or consumptive utility is essential to a DePIN ecosystem. However, this is also problematic, as essentially the company must not only pay out a token like HNT in exchange for data and bandwidth, but also accept HNT as payment for tangible services. From a company perspective, the tangible services cost fiat dollars – capital and labor cannot be purchased for a manufactured token. Further, the price of a token like HNT is hardly stable. HNT currently trades at about $6.60 to HNT. In November 2021, HNT traded for over $50 per HNT. Unstable token prices limit the consumptive use of cryptocurrencies and tokens, making them more suitable for long-term holding or short-term speculation. Further, it is tempting for a startup to simply issue tokens to raise capital – under the guise of a future consumptive use or simply the “this will go up in value as we expand” argument. This reality defeats the non-investment utility argument and renders tokens susceptible to classification as unregistered securities.

Companies have attempted to address these issues through use of associated tokens (IOT and MOBILE are directly earned by Helium network or hotspot hosts, the burn-and-mint protocol, use of “data credits” or “map credits,” and various fees. For example, Filecoin, a decentralized file handling platform, collects base fees for storage deals, batch fees for adding storage capacity, overestimation fees that related to optimized gas usage (gas being the cost of transacting the cryptocurrency), and penalty fees collected from those who do not provide storage as promised. Those who want to store data using Filecoin pay fees in FIL. FIL is also the reward paid out to those who provide storage or retrieval services on the Filecoin network.

What are specific legal challenges facing DePIN projects?

While innovative, DePIN businesses face an uncertain regulatory landscape, particularly in the United States. At a minimum, a business considering DePIN should consider the following:

  1. Physical regulatory considerations – are there zoning laws, telecommunications regulations, licensing requirements, or other physical considerations that affect my business?
  2. Legal liability – what are my obligations to the persons who contribute to my network or project? Are they contractors or employees? Are there any insurance or liability risks that I need to cover through contracts or terms of use?
  3. Financial legality – is my token really a “utility” token for consumptive non-investment use? How is my token created? How is it used? Is that use supportable under the current regulatory framework and the Howey test?

Some commentators predict that DePIN will be the next big thing in crypto and lead to mass adoption of decentralized blockchains in day-to-day business and life. The benefits are easy to see: lower costs, greater accessibility, crowdsourced reliability, security. However, there are also many complex legal regulatory considerations. Contact the experienced attorneys at Artaev at Law PLLC for a consultation about your next big project.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, investment, or tax advice. Every situation is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2024 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Skill-Based Gaming: What is a Legal Opinion? Why Do I Need One?

The rapid technological advancement (think blockchain and AI) that has occurred just over the past several years has shaken up many industries – and the gaming market is no exception. A sector once dominated by simple, coin-operated arcade machines has now evolved into a sprawling ecosystem of online platforms, mobile applications, and sophisticated consoles. One of the most exciting niche areas that have emerged within this landscape is skill-based real-money gaming. However, navigating this promising landscape requires a firm grasp of its legal complexities. Qualified legal opinions—official research memos penned and signed by an attorney—serve as an essential element in running a successful business operation.

Skill-Based Real-Money Gaming: The New(est) Frontier

In skill-based real-money gaming, players compete against each other, with the winner walking away with real money. It adds an enticing layer of competitiveness and reward to traditional gaming, elevating the stakes and making every play matter. However, the intersection of gaming and real-money transactions naturally introduces regulatory complexities. For instance, questions surrounding the legality of certain games under federal and state gambling laws, the liability of game developers, intellectual property rights, data protection, user agreements, and various other aspects of the law come into play. This is where qualified legal opinions become incredibly beneficial. Needless to say that a knowledgable and experienced gaming attorney can help with other aspects of your new venture – such as terms and conditions for your application.

The Power of Legal Opinions

A qualified legal opinion is an official research memo, thoroughly prepared and signed by a licensed attorney. These documents provide in-depth analysis and interpretation of legal matters, including regulatory compliance with various federal and state laws. They are effectively the attorney’s professional interpretation of the law regarding a particular matter. When dealing with vendors, suppliers, and potential investors in the skill-based real-money gaming industry, legal opinions are increasingly required. Additionally:

1. Risk Management: A legal opinion can help identify and mitigate potential legal risks before they turn into costly litigation. This proactive approach can save companies significant time, resources, and potential reputational damage.

2. Regulatory Compliance: Compliance with local, national, and international gaming regulations is critical. Qualified legal opinions can assist in deciphering these often complex rules and ensuring that your business is operating within legal bounds.

3. Contractual Relationships: Legal opinions offer assurances to potential partners and can also provide valuable insights into the contractual relationships with vendors and suppliers, offering clarity on obligations, rights, and potential areas of dispute.

4. Investor Confidence: For potential investors, a legal opinion represents an added layer of security. It assures them that the business they are considering investing in is legally sound and has taken steps to identify and mitigate potential legal risks.

Moving Forward with Confidence

Navigating the complex landscape of skill-based real-money gaming requires not just a vision but also a deep understanding of the applicable legal landscape. As such, obtaining a qualified legal opinion can be an essential step in successfully steering your business in this dynamic industry. At Artaev at Law PLLC, we are gaming law experts. We are committed to providing our clients with comprehensive and clear legal opinions to guide their decisions in the gaming industry. Our experienced attorneys have extensive knowledge of the regulatory and legal aspects of the gaming industry, allowing us to provide tailored advice to help you succeed. Remember, a legal opinion does not simply outline the law—it provides a roadmap for success.

Contact Artaev at Law PLLC today to set up your initial consultation.

The qualified and specialized attorneys at Artaev at Law PLLC know gaming law – email or call us to set up your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, tax, or investment advice. Every situation is different and has its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2023 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Are NFT Collectible Card Games Legal in the United States?

NFT collectible card games are generally legal within the United States, provided that developers and players comply with several key laws. Specifically, these games implicate securities regulations, anti-gambling laws, and tax issues. NFT collectible card games are a natural Web 3.0 extension of over-the-board card games like Magic: The Gathering and have drawn a lot of attention, including from Reddit co-founder Alex Ohanian. These games leverage Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) to create scarce and valuable digital cards that players can collect, trade, and use in gameplay. The idea is similar to play-to-earn games that attach real-world value to in-game digital assets. While lucrative from a business standpoint and fun to play, these games create potential legal issues for both players and developers alike.

Gameplay

Before analyzing where NFT collectible card games fit within a legal framework, one must first understand the games themselves. The basic concept is that players purchase or otherwise acquire packs of random cards (with preset rarity distributions) that can be used to play a board/table-top game and also have collector and secondary market value. NFT or “digital” collectible card games are based on the same concept – players purchase or “mint” a pack of cards that they can use to play a game, collect for their own enjoyment, or trade or sell on the secondary market. Of course, the NFT cards do not have a physical component and exist only on the particular blockchain. Integrating NFTs ensures immutable value to these assets, same as physical cards in the old-school table-top games.

Here is a brief overview of a few of the most popular NFT collectible card games:

  1. Gods Unchained

Theme: Gods Unchained is a strategic card game set in a mythological universe. Players become powerful gods battling for supremacy.

Rules: Players start by choosing a god, each with its unique powers and abilities. Next, they build a deck of 30 cards consisting of creatures, spells, and weapons. The game proceeds in turn-based rounds. Each player uses their cards to attack the opponent’s god, defend their own god, or manipulate the game board. The objective is to reduce the opponent’s god’s life points to zero. Gods Unchained utilizes the Ethereum blockchain to mint its cards as NFTs. Players can then trade or sell in various marketplaces.

  1. Splinterlands

Theme: Splinterlands is a fantasy-themed card game. Players summon creatures and cast spells to outwit their opponents in fast-paced battles.

Rules: First, players build a deck by choosing a Summoner and selecting a set of monsters from their card collection. Each card has unique abilities, attack and health points, and mana cost. During a match, players have a limited amount of mana, which they use to summon monsters and cast spells. Players compete in automated combat rounds, trying to defeat the opponent’s team of monsters. As with other NFT collectible card games, players can trade, rent, or sell the various NFT cards to other players.

  1. Skyweaver

Theme: Skyweaver is set in a rich, cosmic universe. Players engage in strategic battles using cards representing creatures, spells, and enchantments.

Rules: In Skyweaver, players initially assemble a deck of 20 cards from a diverse pool of over 500 unique cards. The game categorizes cards into various prisms, each with its unique playstyle and strategy. Players take turns playing cards from their hand. They use their hero’s mana to cast spells, summon creatures, and attach enchantments to other cards. The objective is to reduce the opponent’s hero’s life points to zero. Skyweaver mints cards as NFTs on the Ethereum blockchain, and players can buy, sell, or trade the NFTs on various platforms.

Other popular NFT Collectible card games include:

  • CryptoSpells
  • Dark Country
  • ChainGuardians
  • Sorare
  • Axie Infinity (Card-Battler)
  • Relentless (formerly known as Zombie Battleground)
  • War Riders
  • CryptoAssault
  • Ether Legends
  • Force of Will (FoW) NFT

Legality of NFT Collectible Card Games

Are these games are legal? NFTs, cryptocurrency, and blockchain technology in general have all attracted significant legal scrutiny. So, are NFT collectible card games legal within the United States? Short answer: it depends.

  1. Are the NFTs used in these collectible card games unregistered securities? I have previously written on the topic of whether play-to-earn games really just sell unregistered securities and it is certainly possible depending on how the particular game is structured. The Securities and Exchange Commission applies the 4-prong Howey investment contract test to any novel NFT/cryptocurrency offering, which is a balancing analysis that asks whether a particular scheme is (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profit, and (4) with the profits derived from the efforts of others. Generally, NFTs that represent digital assets like art, collectible cards, or virtual real estate do not qualify as securities under U.S. law, but this very question is currently being decided in private litigation between the holders of NBA Top Shots digital trading cards and their creator, Dapper Labs. Recently, a federal court denied Dapper Labs’s motion to dismiss, setting the stage for an in-depth court battle to determine the status of the NFTs under federal securities laws.
  2. Is an NFT collectible card game gambling? The question of whether trading cards and collectible cards are “gambling for kids” has been litigated since at least the 1980s when baseball card manufacturers had to defend against allegations of their purported use of gambling mechanics to sell their products. Courts have consistently held that plaintiffs get what they paid for – baseball cards – and suffer no damages from their “disappointment” in failing to get an ultra-rare chase card. More recent cases involving video game loot boxes suggest that the answer may depend on whether the NFTs are considered “things of value” under state gambling laws. In general, gambling is defined as risking something of value on an uncertain outcome to win a prize. A game where players wager real money or valuable NFTs on game outcomes could be subject to state and federal gambling regulations. To avoid a gambling classification, game developers should ensure that their games focus on strategy and skill-based gaming, and that players earn value through skill, rather than chance.
  3. Additionally, what are the tax implications of purchasing and selling NFT collectible card game assets? The IRS has indicated that it will apply a “look-through analysis” in determining how an NFT will be treated for tax purposes. In essence, the IRS is looking beyond the non-fungible token itself and considering the nature of the digital asset it represents. Consequently, the IRS may classify NFT cards as collectibles, which are subject to a higher capital gains tax rate than other property types. Aside from these tax implications for the players themselves, investors and NFT creators must also consider other tax implications of minting and obtaining NFTs.

Securities laws, anti-gambling regulations, and tax issues are all implicated in the rapidly evolving market of NFT collectible card games and digital gaming in general. Legal compliance is critical to not only avoid regulatory actions or tax penalties, but to also secure credible investors, banking, payment, and other technological partnerships.

The qualified and specialized attorneys at Artaev at Law PLLC know gaming and blockchain law – email or call us to set up your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, tax, or investment advice. Every situation is different and has its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2023 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Are Play-to-Earn Video Games Legal in the United States?

Are play-to-earn games legal? The answer depends on the specifics of the game. For many gaming developers, play-to-earn is a lucrative business model in 2023 and beyond. These games let players compete against other players (PvP) or against the the game itself (PvE) to earn rewards that have real-world value. For example, players may pay real money to buy in-game currency to purchase virtual gear or real estate, but players also have the option to redeem the in-game currency for real-world money. Players can trade resources or earn the in-game currency through gathering, completing tasks or quests, or other gameplay. However, any company looking at play-to-earn should retain an experienced gaming attorney to consult on their game. It may be an attractive business model, but any real-money gaming implicates multiple legal areas, including taxes, securities law, and both state and federal-level anti-gambling prohibitions.

Earning real-world cash for virtual goods or gameplay is not a new concept. In fact, the first generation of massively-multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMOs or MMORPGs) like Ultima Online, Runescape, and Everquest had robust real-money economies for in-game items. Resource “farming” – where one would gather virtual resources and then transfer them to another player for a real-world money payment – became even more popular with World of Warcraft and the next generation of the MMOs like EVE Online. However, the developers did not officially sanction these in-game economies. Anti-RMT (real-money trading) provisions are prevalent in most end-user license agreements. Real money components in video games may be too close to gambling, which is obviously problematic. Developers are generally reluctant to assume additional liability and risk associated with any real-money economic component.

Play-to-Earn is Hot, But Rife With Legal Pitfalls.

However, it is the end of 2022, and making money playing video games is a real and viable career choice. Esports and video game tournaments are mainstream events, with their own ESPN page, multi-million dollar teams, and celebrity-status professionals. Many colleges offer esports scholarships. Casual video game tournaments (Call of Duty, FIFA, Gran Tursimo) are also a thing. For the more casual gamer, there are also real-money skill-based games (timed solitaire, bingo, etc.) available on the web or from the App Store. Daily Fantasy Sports giants like DraftKings and FanDuel also offer skilled players an opportunity to win real money by drafting the best fantasy sports teams.

There are also a number of NFT-based collectible card games, horse racing simulators (like Zed.Run), and countless other permutations of games where players are able to own in-game assets that they can sell and trade like their real-world counterparts. This sector of the gaming economy continues to grow, as the relatively low cost of cryptocurrency makes entry a lot more accessible. Many players also see the current “bear” market as a prime opportunity to enter some of these projects at low cost and potentially see significant growth in their in-game assets as the economy rebounds.

Modern play-to-earn games are simply another variation of the real-money gaming business model. Developers in this space fully embrace the concept of a virtual economy and the ability to earn real-world compensation for game play. The most prominent example is Axie Infinity (a Pokemon-type trading, collecting, and battling game), which has integrated blockchain technology (crypto and NFTs). Investors around the world, including Mark Cuban, quickly embraced the play-to-earn gaming model. Even in the times of the “crypto winter,” Axie is still worth many millions of dollars.

Advertising and Onboarding May Require a Legal Opinion.

Any real-money gaming business (including play-to-earn) needs experienced gaming counsel to guide them through various compliance issues. Advertising a real-money game on social media and getting through Apple’s approval process on the App Store requires a legal opinion that the game is truly skill-based and not illegal gambling. Is your game structured so that they are providing a service to you in exchange for compensation? Depending on the nature of your game, you may have unintended labor law obligations and even tax filing (W-2 or 1099) obligations to the IRS and state tax authorities.

Make Sure Your Game is Not Selling Securities.

Another potential pitfall is with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). When designing your game and reward system, you must make sure that you are not inadvertently marketing a security and violating federal law. Securities are not just traditional stocks and bonds. An “investment contract” is also a regulated security and broadly includes any scheme where individuals pay money with the expectation that their money will be invested and they will earn a return. In the cryptocurrency world, initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) face heavy SEC scrutiny, especially after several high-profile cryptocurrencies turned out to be pyramid schemes.

The “investment contract” analysis is highly specialized and requires a thorough legal opinion. Each game is different, the laws are quickly changing in this area, and regulatory agencies are especially sensitive to crypto-related businesses in light of the numerous 2022 failings, bankruptcies, and rug pulls – with FTX being only the most recent example.

Beware Tax and Other Regulations If Your Game Uses Cryptocurrency or Other Blockchain Tech.

Speaking of crypto, if you are utilizing cryptocurrencies, tokens, NFTs, or other blockchain technologies as part of your game, there are more legal issues in play. Tax reporting and tracking are essential because the IRS considers cryptocurrencies to be property subject to capital gains tax. Does the game involve any crypto staking? If so, is your company now considered a bank subject to the FDIC’s jurisdiction? Are you involved in the business of money transmission and required to be licensed in each state where you do business?

Despite the slow regulatory change in this area and continued lack of centralized regulation, this area remains in the public eye and something of continued interest to regulators.

The bottom line is whatever your game and whether you are a veteran or just starting out, an experienced gaming attorney is a necessary asset to your business team.

Contact Artaev at Law PLLC to set up your initial consultation. We are Michigan’s gaming law firm and we specialize in the unique concerns that you may encounter as a game developer.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, tax, or investment advice. Every situation is different and has its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2021 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Do Play-To-Earn Games Sell Unregistered Securities?

Play-to-earn game developers that sell in-game currency tokens or NFTs to their players may be inadvertently selling unregistered securities. Offering unregistered securities is illegal and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may prosecute developers and obtain injunctions, civil penalties, and orders to refund all investor funds (disgorgement). Further, the investors themselves can sue developers (including as a class action) for securities laws violations, all of which can be financially devastating. Securities laws are a major factor to consider, but there are other applicable laws and regulations that determine whether a play-to-earn game is legal. Accordingly, it is absolutely critical to consult with an attorney specializing in play-to-earn and obtain a legal opinion regarding legal compliance before offering and selling any fungible or non-fungible tokens.

What do securities laws have to do with gaming?

Securities are traditionally associated with stocks and bonds traded on various exchanges. However, “securities” is actually a much broader term and includes virtually anything that a company sells to raise funds, whether to the general public or to a select group of high net worth individuals in a private placement. In the play-to-earn context, either the in-game currency token or the game asset NFT can be considered securities. Crypto/blockchain/NFT regulation is still at the early stages, but the SEC has taken an active enforcement role in pursuing fraud and illegal token offerings in the digital assets market.

Not all tokens or digital assets are securities. The uses a four-prong analysis called the Howey test to determine whether an offering is a security. More precisely, courts apply the Howey test and examine whether something is an “investment contract,” which is a type of security. The United States Supreme Court created the test in SEC v. WJ Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946), when it determined that a company selling shares in an orange grove farming operation was actually selling unregistered securities. If a token does not qualify as a security under the Howey test, it is generally considered a “utility token” and may be sold without the constraints of securities laws (but may still be subject to other regulations).

How do securities laws apply to gaming tokens or NFTs?

An “investment contract” has four elements: (1) an investment of money; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with the expectation of profit; (4) derived from the efforts of others. With digital assets, the SEC generally assumes the first two prongs are met. Most, if not all, play-to-earn tokens involve an investment of money (either fiat currency or cryptocurrency with value) in a common enterprise (i.e. the game project). Thus, whether an offering is an exempt “utility token” or an unregistered security depends on whether the purchasers are led to expect profit derived from the efforts of others. In other words, does the purchased token function as a passive investment that pays dividends?

Of course, this is a very fact-specific inquiry. The SEC’s Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology (“FinHub”) has a rather complex set of guidelines and guideposts for the analysis, called the “Framework for Investment Contract Analysis of Digital Assets.” The SEC also relies on the DAO Report, which was a 2017 investigation of the Swiss-based DAO Project that explains the SEC’s application of Howey to digital assets.

In general, the determining factor is how the tokens are used. Do players actively use the NFTs they acquire to play the game and earn rewards? For example, an owner must manually enter the racehorse NFTs in Zed.Run (a hugely popular play-to-earn horse racing game) into various races, deciding on the best course type and distance suited to that particular “racehorse.” If the NFTs “wins,” the owner wins a prize, just like in real-life horse racing. Axie Infinity is another example of where players must actively manage their NFTs and “battle” them before earning rewards. Active in-game management likely negates both the third and forth prongs of Howey, as players purchase the tokens for in-game use and any rewards are not from the efforts of others – they come directly from the efforts of the player/owner. The same logic applies to in-game currencies that can be used to acquire in-game assets, pay entry fees, upgrade NFTs, and for other purposes. Simply put, while the in-game currency may certainly fluctuate in value on the secondary market, it is not a passive investment vehicle. It is an active “utility” component of a play-to-earn game.

Do staking and lending features affect the securities analysis under Howey?

As play-to-earn games become more sophisticated, so does the analysis. Many games now offer “staking” – which rewards players with in-game currency for parking their tokens or removing them from circulation for a set period of time. Additionally, NFT renting and lending are becoming more common, where owners let third parties to borrow their NFTs, actively use them within a game, and in return, receive a share of any winnings. The staking and lending mechanisms effectively enable passive income for token owners. Passive income is a hallmark of a security under the Howey test.

Play-to-earn games are a rapidly growing sector of the overall crypto and NFT market. It is critical for developers to ensure legal compliance, not only to protect themselves and their companies from crippling lawsuits, but to also make their product attractive to potential investors. In 2022, a comprehensive legal analysis of the play-to-earn project is a must-have for any pitch deck. Note that even if the token or NFT is not a security under federal law, state level “Blue Sky laws” may apply. Additionally, a token or NFT may be regulated as a commodity or under money transmission laws. In other words, the securities analysis is only part of a full legal evaluation.

Contact Dan Artaev by email or call or text to set up your initial consultation.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal, investment, or tax advice. Every situation is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2022 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

In-App Purchases No Longer Mandatory for Developers: Federal Court Issues Injunction As Part of Epic v. Apple Ruling.

There is no question about Apple’s dominance in the smartphone market. The iPhone accounts for approximately 50% of all smartphones in the United States and there are an estimated 1 billion iPhones across the globe. For developers looking to distribute their apps or games to as many customers as possible, the Apple App Store is a must. Of course, Apple tightly controls access and requires developers to comply with Apple’s terms and policies, including with respect to customer payments. For real-money skill-game developers, the App Store is even more important because it is essentially the only way to get their product onto mobile phones. In May 2021, Google banned real-money skill games from its Play store. Setting aside sideloading (risky) and progressive web apps (not familiar to all), if you want real-money skill games on a smartphone, Apple is your only option.

One of the more controversial App Store rules is the 30% commission on all transactions. In essence, whether a developer sells their app for a one-time fee, offers a reoccurring subscription, or provides an option for in-app purchases, 30% of the payment goes to Apple. In the gaming market, this model is especially profitable in so-called “freemium” games, which are free to download and play, but offer players the option to unlock additional content, levels, and other upgrades for an additional fee. The insanely popular game Fortnite is a great example of a game that’s free to download and play, but brought an estimated $5.1 billion in revenue from cosmetic and other optional items in 2020 alone. In response to increased media and regulatory pressure (including outside the United States), Apple modified its rules to allow for a reduced commission of 15% for “small” businesses that make less than $1 million in annual revenue. Recently, Apple further amended its polices to allow certain “reader” apps like Netflix or Spotify to redirect their users to outside the app for additional payment and subscription options. The out-of-app payment option was added in direct response to laws passed in South Korea and Japan.

In the United States, the recent court decision in the Epic v. Apple antitrust lawsuit unlocked the out-of-app payment options for all. In early 2020, Epic (the owner and developer behind Fortnite) decided to deliberately circumvent Apple’s rules against out-of-app payment options and offer mobile players a discounted option to purchase in-game currency directly through Epic’s website. Apple predictably responded by pulling Fortnite from the App Store, and Epic sued, alleging anti-competitive behavior and violations of various federal and state antitrust laws. Apple countersued for breach of contract, accusing Epic of deliberately breaching the terms of the App Store agreement and diverting Apple’s share of app revenue.

After a 16-day trial, the United States Court for the Northern District of California issued a 185 page decision largely in Apple’s favor and ordered Epic to pay Apple $6 million in breach of contract damages. However, the Court also found that Apple’s “steering” provisions that prohibited developers from offering alternative out-of-app payment options violated California’s antitrust laws. The Court issued a permanent injunction that precludes Apple from implementing these “steering” provisions, leaving developers free to include buttons, external links, and “other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing.” The injunction will take effect on November 10, 2021.

What does this ruling mean for real-money skill-based game developers? It certainly opens up more options to direct customers to your external website, advertise promotional pricing, and innovate your business and pricing model without direct involvement from Apple. Additionally, the Epic v. Apple ruling also frees developers to communicate directly with customers through information obtained via the in-app registration process. At the same time, developer guideline 5.3.3 already prohibits in-app purchases from being used to “purchase credit or currency for use in conjunction with real money gaming of any kind.” In other words, real money skill games were treated like casino gambling apps and excluded from the in-app purchase mechanism. The Epic ruling simply means that all app developers will have access to a flexible business model and be able to determine how to best monetize their game without Apple dictating the business terms and imposing a mandatory 15-30% commission on revenue.

Nevertheless, real-money skill-based games remain subject to heightened review and scrutiny from Apple. Advertising through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., also requires a specialized (and sometimes lengthy) approval process. Skill-based real-money gaming operates in an unregulated area, and applicable laws and regulations change frequently. For example, the IRS recently signaled that it intends to tax daily fantasy sports wagers the same as sportsbook bets. Although DraftKings and FanDuel will likely fight the IRS’s interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code, any resulting ruling may impact the skill-gaming industry as well. Stay vigilant and retain an experienced gaming attorney to guide and consult your business the right way.


Have more questions? Do you need help getting your app through the review process? Contact Dan Artaev today by emailing dan@artaevatlaw.com or by phone or text at (269) 930-0254.

Disclaimer: This guide is not intended to be and does not constitute legal advice. It is for informative and promotional purposes only. Do not take any action or refrain from taking any action based on this guide, and always consult with a qualified professional about the circumstances of your particular case. Each set of facts is unique and different circumstances apply to each individual business.

© 2021 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Business Law Essentials for the Modern Video Game Company.

As a game developer, unless you are working on the new Ace Attorney game, law and lawyers are the last thing on your mind. But no matter how high-tech, innovative, and cutting-edge your product, video games and mobile apps are still a business and there are industry-specific legal areas to consider. Doing it right will protect your investment and ensure that your business grows in the right direction with minimum risk and liability. Artaev at Law specializes in legal issues facing video game and mobile app developers and also has extensive general business experience to help you run your company the right way.

The Fundamentals.

1. Form Your Corporation or LLC.

When starting your business, the first thing to do is to form a business entity. It is important to choose the right type of entity depending on your future goals and needs in mind. For example, if you are planning to solicit investors and venture capital, a Delaware corporation is likely your best option. In other situations, a limited liability company (“LLC”) may be a simpler approach, but at the same time may create unintended tax consequences in the future if you decided to merge, reorganize, or consolidate your company with others. Whatever form you choose, incorporation is critical for all business owners because it creates a separate business entity with its assets and liabilities independent of its owners. A formal business organization also helps address important governance, financial, and succession issues right at the outset.

To officially form your company, you file articles of incorporation (or organization) in the state where you want to be registered. An experienced business attorney can advise you on the right type of entity, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating in various states (i.e. should you form a Delaware corporation?) Every state requires an initial registration fee, an in-state registered agent to serve as your official point of contact, as well as an annual filing and renewal fee to keep your company current and in good standing.

2. Have an Attorney Draft Your Bylaws or Operating Agreement.

The next step is to have an attorney draft the bylaws or operating agreement. This internal governance document is absolutely critical. It spells out who owns the company, how decisions are made, how money is distributed, how shares are transferred, what happens if an owner dies, and many other important considerations. Even if you are a one-person business, the bylaws or articles of organization are still necessary when you want to open a bank account, obtain a business loan, sell all or part of your business, and otherwise ensure that you are running your business the right way. Having formal documents and procedures, as well as keeping written records of corporate meetings are also critical to maintaining the corporate form for liability protection purposes. Aggressive creditors have successfully argued that a business that does not observe such formalities is a “sham” and that a court should “pierce the corporate veil” to allow them access to an owner’s personal assets.

3. Separate Your Business Money and Assets.

Maintaining a separate bank account and finances for your business is another vital step. Virtually all business problems are linked to money. A separate business finance setup (including a bank account) avoids commingling personal and business funds, which is another circumstance that could expose you to liability. Further, failing to separate business and personal expenses and properly account for distributions creates a very difficult and unpredictable tax situation at the end of the year. For example, if you use personal credit cards for business expenses, make sure to keep records and promptly and accurately reimburse yourself. Also, if you apply for an SBA or other loan, make sure that the loan is disbursed to your business account and not to your own personal account (yes, this actually happened with one of my clients). Otherwise, you are creating an accounting, tax, and legal nightmare – and risking an IRS audit.

Make sure to reserve adequate money for income taxes from any operational income. Also, state and federal taxes must be paid on a quarterly estimated basis, since as a business owner there is no employer automatically withholding taxes from your paycheck. If you have employees, you will need to make sure to pay the appropriate payroll, worker’s compensation, and unemployment taxes. If you do not have employees, self-employment tax is still something that must be calculated and paid periodically.

Finally, on cryptocurrency or “crypto.” If you are planning on using crypto as part of your business, there is a whole separate set of considerations. The IRS considers crypto taxable property, including stablecoins. Taking payment in crypto may be innovative and position your business as “high-tech,” but there are obstacles to using crypto instead of fiat currency in running your business. For example, even if a vendor allows you to pay them for goods or services in crypto, each transaction is a taxable event. The IRS considers you to have sold crypto and incurred capital gains tax liability each and every time. There are also state and federal laws that preclude you from paying wages in crypto, but bonuses and other discretionary pay are another story. Crypto may have promising implications for the future, but there are many practical obstacles for business owners interested in integrating crypto into their day-to-day business.

Intellectual Property.

Intellectual property or IP law is of paramount importance to game developers and designers. On one hand, you want to protect your own creations and inventions against unscrupulous competitors seeking to copy your product. On the other hand, you have to be able to protect yourself from others’ IP claims, including DMCA copyright takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters.

Intellectual property generally consists of three main categories: (1) patent; (2) copyright; and (3) trademarks.

1. Patents.

Patents are most often associated with scientific discoveries and mechanical devices. In the video game context, a so-called utility patent may be available to protect a game’s unique mechanics or a specific gameplay methodology. The protected design must be unique and non-obvious. But patents do not protect the code itself, the game concept, or idea. For example, Skillz.com, a leader in the real-money skill-game market, has over 50 patents, including a patent for technology that ensures fair and level asynchronous play. Skillz does not have a patent for any specific game played on their platform and in fact, there are a lot of copycat apps on the Apple App Store that are essentially the same games as those available through Skillz. The downside of patents is that patent protection is fairly expensive to obtain and to police, involves publication and public disclosure of the technology, and may even be waived by playtesting certain concepts.

2. Copyright.

Copyright law protects creative works like books, movies, music, and yes, video games. The underlying code for a game is also protected by copyright and pirates who illegally copy the code and sell copies of the game are violating federal copyright law. Most recently, copyright claims have come up in the context of streaming and whether streamers are allowed to use certain music and other creative elements during their broadcasts.The creative concepts – or the “theme” of the game – are also protected. This means the storyline, the characters, art, music, box design, and other distinct creative and thematic elements. But not everything is protected by copyright.

Distinct from the “theme” of the game are the game mechanics, which cannot be copyrighted. “Game mechanics” is the actual gameplay – this can be as simple as moving the joystick to move an avatar around in a virtual environment. The United States Copyright Act codifies this concept and expressly states that copyright protection does not extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 USC 102(b). The distinction between the copyrightable theme and the non-copyrightable game mechanics is not always clear and there may be some overlap. Additionally, the concept of “fair use” protects certain commentary, criticism, and parody from an infringement claim.

3. Trademarks.

Trademark protection exists chiefly to prevent customer confusion and to protect the integrity of a brand. In the video game context, trademark will primarily protect the name of the game, but can also protect unique “trade dress” elements that constitute unique menu or box designs, or user interface elements. A trademark can also protect a slogan or recognizable phrase associated with a game.

Trademarks are relatively easy to obtain and the USPTO website allows you to search for existing trademarks to ensure that your branding does not infringe on existing products. Trademarks also vary in strength depending on whether they are more generic and descriptive, or unique and arbitrary. For example, the game name “Grand Theft Auto” is also the term for a certain felony associated with vehicular theft. The name literally describes a core game concept (stealing cars), so it would be considered either a “suggestive” or “descriptive” mark. On the other side of the spectrum, an entirely unique “fanciful” or “coined” mark enjoys the strongest protection – for example the terms “Skyrim” or “Warcraft” (at least arguably) do not have any other meaning outside the game context.

4. Other Intellectual Property Issues.

The most two common questions facing game developers are: (1) How can I prevent someone from copying my game? and (2) How do I avoid getting in trouble for copying someone else’s game? While you may have taken steps to protect your intellectual property, the fact is that games are especially vulnerable to knockoffs and plagiarism. International law may even become an issue if an overseas company takes and repurposes your idea. By hiring an attorney as part of your team, you can ensure that you have taken the right steps to obtain copyright protection for your user interface, graphics, art, etc., and that you have properly registered your trademarks. An attorney can also ensure that any contractors – such as artists, coders, or composers – properly assign all rights back to the game developer through “work for hire” agreements. Licensing agreements with any publisher must also delineate the rights and responsibilities of all parties. Royalties and assignments must be fair, clear, and definite. If you have a co-designer or a business partner, you must absolutely have a business agreement before your idea starts making money, so there are no surprises or hard feelings. If there are copyright concerns or knockoffs, a DMCA takedown notice or demand letter is often an effective tool to dissuade would-be thieves. Conversely, if you are receive a takedown notice or demand from another designer, you need to have an effective and prepared attorney ready to respond.

Regulatory Concerns.

Most game developers are not going to encounter regulatory issues or attract the attention of state or local prosecutors. However, if you are considering real-money play (such as skill games) you will need a legal opinion as to where your game may be offered. Payment processors, advertisement platforms, and distributors may all require additional information and assurances as part of their internal review and approval process.

Finally, if you are distributing internationally, you need to be aware of the region-specific laws and regulations. Some regions are more friendly to gaming than others – for example, real-money skill-games are popular and abundant in India, but there is no uniform national-level law. Hong Kong is a haven for real-money gaming, yet at the same time, China does not allow them. Plus, there are international tax treaties and financial regulations to navigate.

Whatever your game and whether you are a veteran or just starting out, an experienced gaming attorney can be a great asset to your business.

Contact Artaev at Law PLLC to set up your initial consultation. We are Michigan’s gaming law firm and we specialize in the unique concerns that you may encounter as a game developer.

Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice. Every situation is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action or sign any contract until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.


© 2021 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
Uncategorized

Beer, the Lions, and Intellectual Property: An Updated Cautionary Thanksgiving Tale.

Update: Since I originally published this article, Eastern Market Brewing has resolved its issues with Barry Sanders and no longer uses his likeness on the beer can. Same Old Lager is available again, and instead of a Lions player wearing the number 20, the brewery’s mascot graces the can against a pixilated, video-game style football field. The marketing and slogans still stand and continue to play on the Lions’ reputation for mediocrity – and perhaps Eastern Market can capitalize on the Lions’ recent coaching and GM change to push their cleverly branded lager.

Still, many lessons here for any enterprising business owner. Intellectual property law has many hidden pitfalls, and falling into one not only will cost legal fees to defend against a cease-and-desist, but also disrupt your marketing and sales.

Detroit’s own Eastern Market Brewing Company came up with a genius marketing idea: a beer called “Same Old Lager,” a clever play on the “same old Lions” saying that has become familiar to Detroit football fans after years of mediocre results. The slogan for the crisp 4.5% ABV lager is “don’t set your expectations too high” and the beer itself was announced the same day the Lions suffered a crushing 20-0 defeat to the Panthers, and just about a week out from the Lions’ annual Thanksgiving game. Clever marketing, impeccable timing, free media attention. Hit product, right?

Wrong. Apparently someone forgot to run the new product by their lawyer or if they did, their lawyer missed a big problem. The day after the new lager was announced, it was removed from sales in response to Barry Sanders’ cease-and-desist for unauthorized use of his likeness on the cans. The retro-video-game-style logo featured a pixelated football player in a Lions uniform with the number 20 (Barry Sanders’ famous number) carrying a football against a gridiron backdrop. Mr. Sanders quickly took to social media to disclaim any affiliation with the product and announced that his image was being used without his permission. As quickly as the new beer was announced, production and sales were halted. Opportunity lost and a genius marketing plan derailed.

I have previously written about Peloton and how the billion-dollar publicly-traded behemoth was facing millions dollars in liability for unlicensed use of music in their workout videos. In today’s digital world, intellectual property rights are more critical than ever, and the Eastern Market snafu is just the latest example of how (presumably inadvertent) infringement can happen. So what did the company do wrong? And how could they have done it right?

What did they do wrong?

The brewery’s marketing ploy was actually very clever. Nothing in the slogan or description expressly referred to the Lions. The Detroit Lions is a valuable trademark, along with the logo, so Eastern Market obviously did not want to pay for its use or licensing. A marketing campaign that riffs on the Lions’ reputation for consistent mediocrity, but does not expressly reference the Lions does not violate the trademark itself. In a nutshell, trademark law prohibits unauthorized use of a mark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion about the source of the goods or services. When something is clearly parody, let alone does not use the actual mark, there is no trademark violation. In other words, no one can reasonably claim that they think a beer called “Same Old Lager” is somehow actually endorsed by the Detroit Lions.

The problem was not trademark law – rather, it was the “right to publicity.” A pixelated video-game likeness of a Lions player wearing Barry Sanders’ famous number 20 jersey graces the front of the can. Generally, a celebrity like Mr. Sanders owns the rights to his own image and has the right to control its distribution. Here, the brewery used Mr. Sanders’ likeness on the beer, implying his endorsement. Accordingly, his legal team took action, which lead Eastern Market to take down its new product, likely pending a new can design. Even if Eastern Market decided to make the case in court and fight back, the campaign momentum has been disrupted, and even so, Mr. Sanders’ case appears to be fairly strong and supported by decades of caselaw. The “right to publicity” is a concept dating back to the 1950s and is related to copyright law, although they two are not the same. There are cases that have protected everything from Vanna White’s likeness that Samsung tried to replicate as a robot, to Bette Midler’s voice, to Johnny Carson’s catchphrase “Here’s Johnny,” to a human cannonball circus act. And, of course, there is a number of exceptions, including when a likeness is used for educational purposes, news items, public issues, and even “entertainment and amusement concerning interesting aspects of an individual’s identity.”

How could they have done it right?

The brewery should have requested a legal opinion from an attorney approving the marketing as well as the packaging. Once the attorney flagged the right to publicity issue and the possible misuse of Barry Sanders’ likeness, a minor redesign would have likely taken care of the issue. Changing the number of the player, removing the number, changing the uniform colors, or any other number of tweaks are possible options. Another potential issue is the design’s likeness to the beloved retro football game “Tecmo Bowl” – and an attorney should have researched and cleared that issue (potential copyright infringement) as well before the design went to print.

The bottom line is that the marketing team can get ahead of the legal team. Copyright, trademarks, patents, licensing, and the “right to publicity” are all important concepts that all business owners should be aware of. Doing it right may cost a little bit more in the short run, but can avoid significant costs down the line.

Need a legal opinion about your marketing campaign? New logo? Design? Product? Contact Dan Artaev by email or by text or call today to set up your free consultation.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and is the author’s individual opinion. Every business is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action with respect to your business until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2020 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Exit mobile version