2004 Web and Downloadable Games White Paper 

IGDA Online Games SIG 

regulate Games   many U.S. locales and companies are also attempting to pass ordinances regulating 

gaming. 

b) 

Defense Costs 

Many in the legal system are very creative in their approach of defending their clients. As the gaming 

industry has expanded; some attorneys have argued that,  the game made my client do it.  As of this 

date, no court has accepted this defense. It is conceivable that this will change at some point in the 

future, and the consequences will either be increased product liability insurance, or the requirement 

by publishers as well as distributors for the developer to have such insurance. An additional 

contingent expense would be a legal fund to defend the company against such litigation. 

On October 20, 2003 a suit was filed in US District Court against Rockstar Games, Take Two 

Interactive, Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. (for distributing it) and Wal Mart (for selling 

it), by parents of a motorist who was shot and killed on June 25 while driving his car. The two teenage 

assailants (age 16 and 14) admitted that they had randomly shot and killed the man because they 

were emulating behavior in 

Grand Theft Auto III

. The boys are now serving an indefinite sentence 

after pleading guilty to reckless homicide in juvenile court. On November 16, 2003 Rockstar and 

Take Two had asked the Judge to dismiss the 246 million dollar lawsuit.

11

c) 

Personal Jurisdiction by Website 

In the US, there is a question as to whether or not an operator of a website located in one 

country/state can be subject to litigation in another country/state. For a Court to assert personal 

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, two conditions must be satisfied: the exercise of jurisdiction 

must be authorized under the states long arm statute; and the exercise of jurisdiction must comport 

with the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment.  

Had Jurisdiction   The U.S. Court of Appeals (DC circuit) issued an opinion on June 14 2002 in the 

case of 

Gorman v. Ameritrade

 which found that personal jurisdiction over an Ameritrade account 

could exist. However, the Court did not actually hold that jurisdiction existed because the District 

Court had not yet established the factual record and because it affirmed the District Court 

s dismissal 

on other grounds. The court mocked the legal arguments of counsel for the brokerage company 

(Ameritrade is a Nebraska based online brokerage firm) in regards to jurisdiction. The court wrote that 

cyberspace "is not some mystical incantation capable of warding off the jurisdiction of courts built 

from bricks and mortar." Judge Merrick Garland also wrote that "Ameritrade is quite wrong in treating 

cyberspace as if it were a kingdom floating in the mysterious ether, immune from the jurisdiction of 

earthly courts."  

On October 7, 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) issued its opinion in 

Healthgrades.com v. 

Northwest Healthcare Alliance

, another case in which jurisdiction was based upon Internet activity. 

The court held that the U.S. District Court had personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant in a 

defamation case, based solely upon publication of its allegedly inflammatory statements on its 

internet web site, which published ratings of health care providers.  

On January 9, 2003 U.S. District Court denied Sharman Network's motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction in the Kazaa copyright infringement litigation. In that case, Sharman 

s free 

software, the Kazaa Media Desktop, had been downloaded millions of times in the forum state, and 

Sharman had been organized offshore largely for the purpose of attempting to avoid personal 

jurisdiction.  

On September 2nd, 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) issued its opinion in 

Gator.com v. 

L.L. Bean

, holding that personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant may be based upon its 

operation of a Web site that engages in electronic commerce. 

Did not have Jurisdiction   In the U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.) 

Carefirst Maryland v. CPC

 was a 

case involving whether the operation of a website by a local nonprofit group can serve as a basis for 

personal jurisdiction over it by an out of state court in a trademark infringement case. The District 

Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, the appellate court affirmed. The reasoning was 

previously cited in 

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants

, (293 F.3d 707) a case where the 

11

 www.gamemarketwatch.com/news/item/asp?nid=2806 

Page 35 of 93