Excerpt
Nintendo faces a class action lawsuit over allegedly compelling players to make in-game purchases by creating hurdles for non-buyers and employing fake limited-time offers.
Our analysis
-Nintendo is facing a class action lawsuit filed by a minor gamer, with claims that their mobile game, Mario Kart Tour, employed "dark patterns" to encourage players to engage in "immoral" microtransactions. Players could spend real money on "Spotlight Pipes," which contained undisclosed odds for in-game rewards.
-The lawsuit asserts that Nintendo intentionally designed the game to make it challenging for players who didn't spend money, employing tactics like "dark patterns." These dark patterns included mechanisms such as "Grinding," where players had to engage in repetitive tasks to achieve in-game benefits. To make the game more enticing, they also implemented the "Pay to Skip" mechanism, allowing players to pay real-world currency to bypass grind-related activities. This often involved using premium in-game currency like Rubies. The game employed the dark pattern of artificial scarcity, creating a sense of urgency through limited-time deals. This pressured users into making impulsive choices and prevented them from considering the relative value of different in-game options.
The lawsuit claims that these practices violated Washington State's Consumer Protection Act and California business law. Moreover, it alleges that Nintendo's use of a "loot box mechanism" in the game "capitalized on and encouraged addictive behaviors," which is particularly concerning for younger players who may be more vulnerable to such systems.
Outcome
Pending. Last Update - Removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa; Case Currently Placed on Federal Docket for Legal Action
Parties
N.A., by and through his Guardian Bruce Alls and Nintendo of America
Case number
4:23-cv-02424-DMR
Decision
Related deceptive patterns
Forced action involves a provider offering users something they want - but requiring them to do something in return. It may be combined with other deceptive patterns like sneaking (so users don't notice it happening) or trick wording (to make the action seem more desirable than it is). Sometimes an optional action is presented as a forced action, through the use of visual interference or trick wording. In cookie consent interfaces, forced action is sometimes carried out through "bundled consent". This involves combining multiple agreements into a single action, and making it hard or impossible for a user to selectively grant consent.
When a user is placed under time pressure, they are less able to critically evaluate the information shown to them because they have less time and may experience anxiety or stress. Providers can use this to their advantage, to push them into completing an action that may not entirely be in the user's interest.
Related laws
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
Prohibits unfair and unlawful business practices that deceive or mislead consumers in California.