Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the Pokémon-Go-Away! dept.

Niantic faces a class action lawsuit for encouraging trespassing on private property:

When Niantic released Pokemon Go, it randomly placed Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms all over the world. Players of the game wander the real world and use smartphones to capture Pokemon, buy items and fight Pokemon Gym leaders.

"To create that immersive world, Niantic made unauthorized use of Plaintiff's and other Class members' property by placing Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms thereupon or nearby," said Jennifer Pafiti in the lawsuit. "In so doing, Niantic has encouraged Pokémon Go's millions of players to make unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff, and other members of the class, a clear and ongoing invasion of their use and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited and continue to profit."

Due to the randomized placement of the Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms, they have turned up in some unwanted locations such as in houses, cemeteries and museums. According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokémon within the first week of the game's launch.

"Plaintiff and other Class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants' unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy," said Pafiti.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @02:44PM (#383605)

    And the obvious problem in that scenario is people obtuse or unaware of the signage, and not the conception of land rights.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam [wikipedia.org]

    To even think one has the right to threaten people with weapons for simply walking across your land is demented and ill.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:52PM (#383627)

    I thought I told you before - get off my lawn!

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Wierd0n3 on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:26PM

    by Wierd0n3 (1033) on Wednesday August 03 2016, @04:26PM (#383643)

    [quote]However, the right usually does not include any substantial economic exploitation, such as hunting or logging[/quote]
    so now the property owners just have to argue the pokemon are hunted, and we are back to start <sarcasm>seriously though, that is a European thing, i notice the article says nothing about Canada, Australia, Asia, and the only pro-wandering bit that's effective in USA is california's beaches easement.

    there are VERY good reasons not to let the general public on private land. Littering is a big one. around where i live, we have ATV/Snowmobile Trails, and the people who use these trails are PIGS. 25% of the trail budget is cleanup.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:21PM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:21PM (#383676) Journal

      There's also the legal angle.

      If you don't take some actions to prevent public use of your lands, say a No Trespassing sign on a snowmobile trail, after a certain period of years, that corridor becomes a public right of way under the law.

      I know a business that blockades a driveway across their property for two days out of each year on the advice of their lawyer. The driveway is not covered by any easement, does not constitute the only route and exists only because sometime in the distant past someone dozed a gravel road 50 yards rather than using the existing longer route.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @05:23PM (#383679)

      there are VERY good reasons not to let the general public on private land

      Littering? Really? As if that isn't a concern on public and can be addressed in much the same way (fines and civil suits in egregious cases).

      And for what benefit? I find it increasingly difficult to justify US style property laws that make the simple act of getting lost a crime.