U.S. district court hears Pokemon Go trespassing lawsuit

Last summer when Pokemon Go took off, so did the lawsuits from property owners who claimed Niantic was effectively encouraging players to illegally trespass on their land. We covered two such suits, one in Michigan and one in New Jersey, and there were more — and they’ve since been consolidated into a single suit seeking class-action status.

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco is now set to decide the case, The Wall Street Journal reports this week, in a move that will likely influence future augmented reality MMOs like PoGo.

“Residents of the Villas of Positano on the South Florida coast said hundreds of people began infiltrating the 62-unit complex, parking illegally and even relieving themselves in the landscaping during late-night visits to ‘catch’ virtual characters. Another plaintiff, a New Jersey lawyer, said at least five people knocked on his door asking for access to his backyard. In Michigan, a couple said a quiet nearby park became overrun once it was tagged as a location in the game, creating a nightmare for neighbors as players stormed the area, blocked driveways and peered in windows. […] The intrusions, the plaintiffs say, amount to negligence and trespassing by the game’s developer, Niantic Inc. They claim not only that Niantic is responsible for players who physically trespassed, but also that the placement of the virtual characters is itself a form of trespassing.”

Niantic has thus far argued that trespass laws do not cover virtual intrusions, that it is the trespassers who have broken laws, and that a decision against the company could also absurdly impact non-games like real estate apps. Legal experts, however, suggest that trespass laws vary from state to state and that neither side has a slam-dunk case. “The law here is very messy,” a Florida State University law professor told the Journal.

Meanwhile, Niantic CEO John Hanke spoke at this week’s London Games Festival on the subject of virtual reality — and his concerns about how it’s so good that it’s a problem.

“My thing about VR is I’m afraid it can be too good, in the sense of being an experience that people want to spend a huge amount of time in,” he told listeners. “I mean I already have concerns about my kids playing too much Minecraft, and that’s a wonderful game. We’re human beings, and there’s a lot of research out there that shows we’re actually a lot happier when we get exercise, when we go outside – and outside in nature in particular. I think it’s a problem for us as a society if we forgo that and spend all of time in a Ready Player One-style VR universe.”

Fortunately, he’s got this great game called Pokemon Go that takes place entirely outside!

Remember when TV was the great entertainment evil ruining our lives? Before that, it was radio. After that? Consoles. Sheesh, I used to be grounded for reading books hidden under the dinner table. Escapers gonna escape, dudes. It doesn’t really matter where they go. Unless it’s, you know, into somebody else’s yard.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

LEAVE A COMMENT

106 Comments on "U.S. district court hears Pokemon Go trespassing lawsuit"

Subscribe to:
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most liked
Reader
Kurt Shadle

Does anyone else think spawning a ton more PokeStops would actually be a step in the right direction to help the issue? That would spread users out more since all Go players in the area won’t be converging on the same few spots on town. Theroitcally it sounds good to me at least.

Reader
McGuffn

That is an interesting idea. But in addition to diffusing the playerbase it would also diffuse (not defuse) the lawsuits because then more people would be filing more lawsuits.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

All important lessons learned by this groundbreaking title. The entire world “can” be our game map, but maybe it shouldn’t be. ;)

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, anything where we would be committing a crime because of when we go, or how we behave, should be on us. Anything where it would be a crime regardless of hours or behavior is on the developers. At least, that’s my view on the idea.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

to put below’s arguments in context, and thanks for the opportunity to do so btw, i think pogo is a really cool game that the devs fucked up after the fact by not respecting teh negatively impacted residents and governments that have targets them with complaints and lawsuits.

i think this would’ve been avoided if they had just done the smart thing and removed hotspots and spawn points upon request instead of playing the internet badass and keeping them intact.

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, the public park one can’t be on them. It’s a public location, and they did not say ‘go here and break other laws.’

The private locations? I think there’s a point there for those filing suit. That’s just not cool. Part of making games like this should be ensuring that your locations are public and accessible. If that requires a little help from fans of a project, then get that help.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

need permits to use public spaces for things (more or less) like this.

last summer fam had to get a permit to have a wedding in a public park in their town. but they got the run of the park of the duration.

masses of people in a public park can affect the quality of life for normal users of the park in disaffective ways, and the law does reflect that.

Reader
Robert Mann

Okay, we could make that something game developers have to go do… but they didn’t plan an event. So it would have to blanket cover all game developers who might have fans gather at a place.

The difference is that there was no actual organization involved. I’m not saying we can’t adjust rules here, but the idea that the two are equal is completely wrong.

Reader
McGuffn

These are normal users of the park

Reader
Robert Mann

Not really, but they aren’t organized. If we apply these rules to individuals or small groups going to the park because they want something there (the other side of this debate’s version) and there’s a crowd at times because of it… do we then need have lawsuits against all those reasons?

Nature, you are too beautiful, we are suing you! :P

*It is just not a good argument. Each person is responsible for their own behavior. Public places are public. Organized events are regulated because they are not simply people doing what they want on their own. There’s nothing that complex here!*

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

it’s pretty much indisputable that these were not local residents that would normally use the park.

Reader
McGuffn

based on what, you’re only explaining why these people are stupid. We wouldn’t have moved here if we knew people would use the park!

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

local residents did use their park. their reasonable expectations of usage were impacted negatively by crowds, as well as their personal property and privacy by people from outside the area.

what’s so hard to get, it’s not even crowds in teh park itself that they are saying here. it’s the blocking their driveways, peering in their windows and outright trespass.

how would you feel if for a few months you couldn’t park in your own drive way after yoir commute home and spent all night after work answering the door for people asking to catch a mewtwo in your backyard?

and then ask the company behind this activity and have them ignore your requests to remove the hotspots that are causing you so much grief?

Reader
Robert Mann

Well, to be honest I’d have had a blast calling the police and having them deal with people. A camera catching people trespassing, one for illegal parking, and a whole bunch of small claims court would make me feel just fine (not to mention the nice bank account bloat.) The city would have taken care of the problem of parking for me, whether they decided to make the request for removal at the park or not.

The thing is, it is the people doing things that are wrong here that are at fault. Punish that behavior, and move on. Then we can, maybe, have nice things. The other response being suggested is let the behavior pass and stop having nice things.

*Not talking about the private property cases, again, just ones where people were on public property and decided to go off and be jerks.*

Reader
McGuffn

So what? You’re still acting like the only people that matter are people who don’t play pokemon. But the pokemon players have every right to go to the park too. Perhaps the Pokemon players decide to be just as stupid as the people filing the lawsuit, and claim to be negatively impacted by the non players, whatever will you do then?

If you neighbor holds a garage sale do you file suit against your neighbor because there are more people than normal on your street? If a store a block away has a sale and someone going to the sale parks in front of your driveway or peers into your window do you file a lawsuit against the store?

Everything you’re describing here would get thrown out of court.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

you are severely underestmiating the negative effects of this game’s users on people.

especially if you;re comparing it to a garage sale ffs.

Reader
McGuffn

So you’re not agonizing over blocked driveways? I agree it is a problem. But If your neighbor has a garage sale, maybe it is not just your driveway that gets blocked, it is the guy’s across the street too!

And you know what that is. A class action lawsuit.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

i’ve been to alot of garage sales and no one blocked drive ways.

and garage sales don’t go on for months on end. and generally don’t involve people peaking in neighbors windows or wandering into backyards. or littering in public parks or any of this stuff that is complained about at all.

it’s a massive false equivelency. becuase even a big garage sale doesn’t go on for months or normally include any of the shit niantic is accused of being liable for.

Reader
Robert Mann

Agreed there, the two aren’t equal. The individual action is the same, but the overall scale is not. *I still hold the people involved as the responsible parties.*

Reader
McGuffn

Neighbors have held garage sales and people have blocked MY drive way.

But here’s the thing. catching pokemon doesn’t generally involve blocking peoples driveways or peeking into neighbors windows either.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

except when it does daily for months on end and stops only because the gaem loses popularity.

where as a garage sale lasts a few hours on a weekend afternoon and isn’t the result of a multimillionare dollar corporation you;re currently shilling for.

Reader
Robert Mann

No accusations or namecalling. Fix that please! Debate it all you want, but that’s unacceptable.

Reader
McGuffn

Why do you have more right to sue a multimillion dollar corporation than a mom and pop store or your neighbor’s garage sale.

The only thing you’re relying on is that you think it is more socially acceptable to sue some people than others.

Reader
Robert Mann

In the case of all those outside the park lawsuit, they filed a request to stop the use of their property (private property) for game purposes. Those cases are the ones with a look inside thing, and are completely justified (based on refusal to stop use of private property when requested by the owner.)

I don’t think that it was so much about the size/money of the company in the above post, as an accusation of shilling (which deserves an apology, as that isn’t really what McGuffn is doing, is rude, and could be brought as slander before a court… not to mention something that has basically been prohibited on this site.)

Reader
McGuffn

I am a shill for ArenaNet and have a non-compete clause in my contract. I’m not John Carmack. I know what I’m doing!

Reader
Dane Ford

On a “I’m not a lawyer, but that is kinda crap” level I can kind of relate to these people. If Niantic put charizard in my backyard (whether they did it knowingly or not), and I had a bunch of people trespassing, I wouldn’t help but feel that they are responsible for that. Or that by putting a character there, they are in essence encouraging people to trespass.

I also recognize that this can be a slippery slope type of argument, and I also recognize that is on the players themselves not to be jerks. Again though, I can’t help but feel that by putting a character there, Niantic is encouraging the people who are jerks, to be jerks. /shrug

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, the private property ones, and the refusal to remove, is definitely wrong… and Niantic should lose those lawsuits.

The public park one, well, that’s on the people who went off public property and were jerks. They should be the ones to pay. *Some of them did, apparently, with fines and tickets for being at the park after hours.*

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

i mainly take issue with the fact niantic failed to remove these hotspots after complaints to the point thse people filed suit.

it’s pretty much the same same story in every case

local residents/gov’s complain to niantic > niantic ignores requests to remove the hotpsots > suit gets filed.

Nathaniel Downes
Reader
Nathaniel Downes

So, a lawsuit for the public using a public park? What the hell?

Reader
steve

Typically you need a permit to do business in a public park. I can’t park my food truck there and serve customers. I can’t sell trinkets or panhandle.

The game is planting their business all over public parks and making money from it. Should require a permit.

Reader
Robert Mann

There’s no physical stand for this. They aren’t occupying space themselves, or organizing an event which crowds the area.

I could see an argument for a small fee for a permit yearly for something like this, and that would be fine to me. However, I don’t think the two are equal here.

In fact, the complaints are about people breaking other laws, not just that they were there. Those other laws should simply be enforced. People won’t go and trash the park, go after hours, or otherwise make a stupid nuisance of themselves en masse if it costs $500 a pop… at least not for long. Bonus on that, the park can get some nice funding to make it better!

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

yeah most of the time the riot police move in and tear gas everything! what the hell indeed!

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, not the same thing…

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

ultimately while trespass laws vary from state to state, i’m not sure how much that matters to niantec’s liability for players intruding on private property. ultimately seems like anything else where a company assumes liability for users to a certain extent, which there’s often outs for those companies (see the DMCA) but failing to act to repair those things will result in liability being assumed by the service provider (again see DMCA).

the argument for real estate sites is silly in itself, as consent is given by the property owner.

Reader
McGuffn

They’re more liable for the people that fell into an open manhole or off a cliff. If some drunk watching the Saint Patricks Day parade pisses on your doorway you don’t sue the parade.

Reader
Kay

If the parade had a sign with your house’s address (Or GPS cords) and then gave them points for going there, I think you would have a right to be mad at the parade, even if the sign was randomly generated.

Reader
McGuffn

Parades routinely have the parade route posted or otherwise publicly available so they know where it is and where traffic will be redirected. Plus who cares about “points” when there is a parade! That’s its own reward.

People are routinely mad at parades. Usually business owners because customers have difficulty getting to the shop.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

st paddy’s day parade has filled out the proper paperwork and paid for permits.

niantic hasn’t.

massive difference.

Reader
McGuffn

Yeah, and the parade actually has floats and people marching down the streets. What does this game have on the streets? Nothing.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

distracted drivers, unusual foot traffic, non local park users en masse.

Reader
Robert Mann

Distracted drivers breaking the law (on those drivers,) unusual foot traffic (oh noes, how dare somebody walk where they normally don’t!,) and non-local park users (again, oh noes!)

I’m more than willing to see a small fee for something like this, and to condemn the bad behavior… but saying that people who don’t normally go to a park shouldn’t pretty much defeats the entire point and purpose of public parks.

Reader
McGuffn

it always comes down to the dirty foreigners.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

who said anything about foreigners? :S

Reader
McGuffn

The Michigan one looked like the most suspicious and it is, the park they’re complaining about is public. They also complain that players parked on their street. Not the company’s problem.

And if local trespassing laws are an issue, why consolidate them in the first place unless you’re probably going to toss them all.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

public nuisance laws basically. that’s part of why you need to a permit to hold a protest or other otherwise legal acts of assembly that are regulated by the state.

and blocked driveways is a moving violation i believe, possibly other things.

it’s a civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit. which is why it’s in district civil court instead of local state criminal courts. so the local laws are relevant in each count on the suit, but overall it’s federal jurisdiction.

Reader
McGuffn

moving violations that the company isn’t liable for. The only other plausible reason for having a lawsuit involving NJ and MI and other disparate states is that is where the company is. Otherwise these jurisdictions have civil courts of their own.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

i think you misunderstand the range of stuff that a third party can be found liable for if they are found to be inciting the behaviour. if loads of people of this app were commiting moving violations in an area pegged by this company, then not out of the question they would be found liabile for something like that.

Reader
McGuffn

If a pet store opened down the street do you think these people should sue it because more people take their pets to the park?

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

there are regulations on pets in parks. and if a local pet store was encouraging shoppers to break those rules like niantec has effectively done to these complainants then yes people would sue or the city/state would take other actions.

Reader
McGuffn

What are the regulations on pokemon in parks. Show me where the company is encouraging people to break the rules. Show me the rules where non locals are barred from the park, and show me where the users weren’t local.

Show me where it is encouraging people to park not just where they aren’t supposed to but park in places that other people might not like for whatever reason. Show me the screens where it is telling people that if a pokemon leaves and you have to go to the bathroom you should drop your pants and poop on the spot because you don’t want to miss out on the pokemon.

If Pokemon Go was an app about going to the bathroom in a public spaces, and there were designated places in the app where people could go to do their business, the company would lose and lose terribly.

As it is if there is any justice in the world these people should be Streisand’d and the park will have lots of people in it from now on.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

basically the business of video games don’t have to follow real world rules because vadayo gaemz? rly?

Reader
McGuffn

No they do have to follow the rules. Your argument is these people don’t like something so they have a lawsuit. That is nonsensical.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

your argument is niantic doesn’t have to regard the law, therefore these people don’t have a lawsuit. that’s rather nonsensical in itself.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

my logic is the game devs were maybe ignorant of the rules/didn’t expect rules to be broken, got notfied people were having issues due to users, and instead of due dilegence failed to heed these people’s lawful complaints and became non compliant with the law, resulting in lawsuits.

there are international instances of lawsuits by local residents and governments alike about pogo users infringing on local laws of all kinds.

but surely all of them are in the wrong and not niantic for not complying with requests to remove the hotspots and encouragement to convene in those places en masse right? right?

go go government by corporations! yay!

Reader
McGuffn

Show me how “people are going to the park and I don’t like it” is a lawful complaint. Show me where the company is breaking the rules. You just assume they are, just like you assume the pet store is telling people to let their pets poop whereever without picking it up, or to let their pets bite people.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

you do know that if a bunch of people are having a get together in a public park near your house, and are causing a disturbance, you can call the polce and have the crowd cleared out right?

the fact that niantic was actively encouraging these people in these ways doesn’t help their case. and is why they are being considered liable.

just like if mtv held a party ina public park without permits or some rock band had a show in a public park without permits or w/e the case may be.

the difference is most of those cases they would disband the gathering without much adieu and would only last a few hours.

in the case of pogo they lasted months and the company being sued refused to stop encouraging the law infringing behaviour despite awareness it was happening due to the their game.

it’s not rocket science here bro. and gatherings in public parks have been broken up for far less than some video game within hours of beginning for decades now.

Reader
McGuffn

Have the park cleared out! Ticket the drivers! That is what normal people would do. These people aren’t normal.

Should the rules of the park be changed so that you have to sign up to catch pokemon there? Then for weeks or months the schedule could conceivably be such that it dominates the time at the park and the people who filed the lawsuit could be kicked out. Maybe people should be required to sign up if they want to take their child to the park, and nobody else could be allowed to go there during that time. Surely that sounds great.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

when something gets to this degree usually there’s more at play than a good ol police clear out.

come on don’t act new to shit. this is a multi milliondollar corproation here. ofc people are going to sue them in so far as it can be argued they are liable for encourging this behaviour in their userbase.

it wouldn’t have been such a god damned issue if they had simply complied with removal requests in the first place. so after that point it’s their own fuck up and they deserve to be served a day in court.

Reader
McGuffn

Don’t be absurd. You’re the one that mentioned MTV, If the police can clear out an organized concert they can clear out a bunch of random people that are there to look at their phones.

If Pokemon Go was instead called QualityTime GO and it was about people taking their kids to the park and you “earned” “rewards” or “high scores” for taking your kids to the park, and the people down the street didn’t like it you think it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

mtv doesn;t play gigs in the same place every night for months on end.

if there was an app about taking kids to their local park it’d probably be about taking them to a local park, which wasn;t exactly happening in with pogo.

Reader
McGuffn

Kids went to the park before Pokemon Go.

Reader
Robert Mann

True, but that one in particular Niantic did not place their virtual stuff on their private property… which should get that one tossed out. A suit against individuals who parked illegally would be another matter entirely.

Of note, the gatherings were likely not organized, thus invalidating any public nuisance laws with regard to planned gatherings.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Of note, the gatherings were likely not organized, thus invalidating any public nuisance laws with regard to planned gatherings.

Actually, Niantic was literally giving in-game rewards for people that went to those places and did game-related activities there; thanks to that, I believe a strong argument can be made that those gatherings were, for all practical purposes, organized by Niantic.

Reader
Robert Mann

By that same idea, anything where people benefit in any way, real or perceived, and gather is now an organized event. Which means that we are all holding illegal gatherings in our towns and cities as we are playing on the same games. Worse, families can’t even go have a picnic in the park… because that’s an organized gathering that needs a permit. Attractive people can also no longer visit public places, as they might draw a crowd. *Yes, I’m taking this a step further to show just how ridiculous that is to me.*

There’s reasonable expectations, of course, for large events planned for specific times. That’s not what I’m arguing against here. I’m simply saying that, in the case of something which is not organized as a large event for a specific time those rules are not applicable.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

By that same idea, anything where people benefit in any way, real or perceived, and gather is now an organized event.

Where people benefit in any way, no.

Where someone offers benefits or rewards to those that attend, yes, even if the reward has no monetary value. If I offer people a facebook like for everyone that takes a selfie at your lawn then, for all intents and purposes, I’m organizing a gathering there and should be held responsible.

Which means that we are all holding illegal gatherings in our towns and cities as we are playing on the same games. Worse, families can’t even go have a picnic in the park… because that’s an organized gathering that needs a permit.

Depends on local ordinances and the scale of the gathering. I mean, the barbecue we had for my grandmother’s last birthday, despite being strictly a family event, would have needed a permit if it was held at a public park since about 250 people attended. On the other hand, if I organize a meeting with about half a dozen friends then we wouldn’t need a permit.

Also, there’s the issue of how long this has been going. The first time I schedule a Facebook event expecting half a dozen people and about half a thousand show up authorities are likely to let me go with just a warning; the tenth time, not so much. Niantic has been receiving complaints about issues caused by their game for months, and refused to do anything about it.

Attractive people can also no longer visit public places, as they might draw a crowd.

If it can be proved that they intentionally drew a crowd then, yeah, said “attractive people” might need a permit and be held responsible for what the crowd did. It isn’t just empty musings, either; celebrities actually face that issue in real life.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

maybe if niantic had removed the virtual locations from the irl locations in a timely manner and without resistance. but in pretty much all cases they resisted as a rule.

that’s why i cited the DMCA as a possible relevant precedent they could’ve use to disavow liability. except they were asses about people asking them to remove the spawns from their backyards and what not in pretty much every case.

Reader
McGuffn

It is a public park. If this was private property I’d agree with you. Maybe all reference to this park should be hidden so that people don’t go there. Or maybe the couple should file suit to have the park’s facebook page taken down. https://www.facebook.com/Wahby-Park-439920112758575/ because as it is people might see it and go there.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

tell that to #occupy which had a lot more justifcation to camp in public spaces and parks than this game and it’s users and developers’ behaviour.

i have sympathy up until the point niantic repeatedly failed to remove the locations that were complained about by both residents and and governments alike.

while in the US the right to assembly is a right, it’s also a very regulated right in many ways.

niantic failed to comply with those regulations and will maybe be there fore found liable for their role in lack of compliance with those regulations.

just like with the wedding i mentioned you can’t just have dozens of people go into a park and peer into nearby residents windows or cause a public disturbance and claim ” OH IT”S A PUBLIC PARK IT”S OK” because that’s not how this works, that not how any of this works at all.

Reader
Robert Mann

Apples and Oranges again. Occupy camped out. These are people visiting and going on with life.

Reader
McGuffn

They should remove the ones on private property. They shouldn’t remove open air public parks just because some idiot living down the street doesn’t like it.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

they didn’t remove any of them. to the point the lawsuits began as a result. hence the lawsuits being a thing in the first place.

there wouldn’t be lawsuits at all if they weren’t dicks about the whole thing to all these negatively affected people.

Reader
BDJ

McGuffn is just arguing to argue at this point.

Here where I live (Victoria, TX), we have an amazing park. Its huge. Walking trails for miles. There are always people out there, walking, running, playing soccer… feeding ducks, golfing, whatever the case may be. It sees daily use.

Nothing compares to the amount of use it saw when pogo came out. It was awful. This “public” place had literally 4 accidents in 3 days due to idiots, mainly young 18-22ish so called “young adults” driving around staring at their phones searching for pokemon. A couple of these shit heads ruined parts of the rose garden that is in the park. The amount of litter was unreal as well.

One guy tripped over my dog’s leash and fell over, while not even 10 minutes later, a dude ran into my wife… which led to me slinging him 5 feet.

This is not every day , normal use of a public area. There were out of town license plates. There were 100s of people. I really thought there was some concert or festival going on. Instead of doing the right thing and listening to complaints, niantic did the exact opposite of what they should have and gave a big ole fuck you to those people.

Personally I really hope the hammer gets dropped on them.

Reader
McGuffn

Other people use the park. You had it all to yourself and you would have gotten away with it too if not for the meddling kids.

The park was great and then they added a water fountain and now there are all these awful thirsty people milling about.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

like i pointed out it’s not merely lawful assembly, but the masses of related incidents tied to the extra traffic. it’s obvious in the text of the lawsuit but mcguffin would rather argue the corporation did nothing wrong by failing to comply with removal requests by residents and governments alike.

Reader
McGuffn

An individual couple can’t get property they don’t own delisted from the App. It is doubtful the local government can.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

there was a case of a gov filing a lawsuit against niantic for having a hotspot in the Uk on a protexted beach last year. niantic later removed the hotspot.

still yoru argument isn’t a valid defense for niantic. i’m not sure where your aiming at here? that niantic doesn’t have legitimate and reasonable control over it’s own property? that just begs damages for negligence.

Reader
McGuffn

get = compelled in this instance. If your neighbor has something on their property (even a pokemon stop) you don’t like how are you going to get them to take it down.

Reader
BDJ

Its really tough for companies to get past the $$$ signs. There are a ton of places in almost every town, city, whatever, that you could put these. How about put 2-3 pokemon in a museum for example. The people have to pay to get in. They walk around and actually might get some benefit out of it. Or maybe outside of sporting arenas where the extra traffic isn’t really noticeable and is meant to have heavy traffic. Put them behind charity paywalls. Want this extra rare pokemon at the YMCA? Donate $10 to breast cancer research or children with cancer.

Instead they want to put them in the worst possible places where it leads to people getting hurt.

deekay_plus
Reader
deekay_plus

and that’s an argument in favour of your position somehow?

it ook pulling teeth and epic qq for them to reluctantly remove that hotspot. and they did it in the crassest manner possible.

most of these lawsuits are a result of them not pulling out after being asked politely (or idk maybe not so politely but still within reason) to pull out.

Reader
McGuffn

BDJ was saying how it was bad that people went to the same place he and his wife went and suggested alternatives. It was NIMBYism. He even said it was a huge park with room for all and it was still a problem, which cuts into the disproportional argument Bree was discussing above. The point was that if only the players went somewhere else everything would be fine. Or better than it is now. Because the people would be somewhere else.

I provided a counterexample where some of the places BDJ suggested weren’t exactly appropriate.

Beyond that I see it as evidence that this suit is relying on the age old stigma against awful teenagers and how they are congregating and ruining it for the rest of us.

Someone somewhere will always be upset that somebody is playing Pokemon Go and doing something they don’t like.

wpDiscuz