Subscribe to

Hernandez v. IGE CaptionThe US branch of Internet Gaming Entertainment (IGE U.S. LLC) recently answered plaintiff Hernandez’s complaint. The answer is available here (.pdf). I usually run excerpts from filings, but there’s really not much point in running excerpts from an answer (this is true of all answers, not just this one). An “answer” is a formal legal document where if you don’t say that you “deny” an allegation, you admit it, so it is typically just a big string of denials. That’s true here too. IGE denies everything… yawn. Worth posting for posterity, but not worth your click.

The real news here is that filing an answer means the case keeps moving forward. An answer opens the gates for discovery requests (and responses) and those can be interesting. Though discovery request are not always available publicly, VB very much hopes that requests and responses will be made available on the Hernandez v. IGE class action website.

For the full background of this case, see VB’s complete coverage. In brief, plaintiff is suing IGE U.S. (IGE’s Hong Kong branch was dropped from the suit earlier this month) on behalf of essentially all World of Warcraft players on the grounds that IGE, by farming gold, spamming chat, camping spawns, and generally diminishing the World of Warcraft experience, allegedly prevented players from receiving the full benefits Blizzard intended them to receive as third party beneficiaries of Blizzard’s Terms of Use and EULA.

Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting) Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting)

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

3 Responses to “Hernandez v. IGE Class Action Update: Internet Gaming Entertainment U.S. Answers Complaint”

  1. on 11 Jan 2008 at 7:15 pmAshcroft Burnham

    Hmm, interesting, so US civil procedure does not require a positive denial (as opposed to a statement that the defendant cannot be expected to know whether the assertion is true or not, and expects the plaintiff to prove it) to have reasons in support? That would make for rather pointless and long-winded pleadings.

    If one is permitted to deny without giving reasons, can the response not simply be “each assertion made by the plaintiff is denied save for those enumerated below, which are admitted” (and then go onto list the bits in the pleadings about the defendant’s name and business and little else), or do the rules require one to enumerate all the denials individually, even though it does not require any reasoning or counter-contentions?

  2. on 11 Jan 2008 at 9:08 pmBenjamin Duranske

    Yes, enumerated responses are required by most courts, and are so standardized as to be essentially required everywhere, if by tradition if not rule. The example above is fairly typical of how these look, and how little content they usually have.

  3. on 22 Jan 2008 at 2:45 pm^^

    If Hernandez succeeds in his lawsuit, I hope this will inspire lawsuits against other botting/gold-farming companies like SharpGold. Their activities do diminish the experience for regular players: but more importantly their effect on the virtual economy can have real money financial effects on the players. For instance, virtual inflation might make it more tempting to buy gold with real money. The game publishers might exploit desperation by selling “cash shop” items to make up for what can no longer be acquired through in-game activities.

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.