Electronic Arts' Anti-Trust Settlement Delayed Over Legal Fees

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Electronic Arts' Anti-Trust Settlement Delayed Over Legal Fees


Electronic Arts' $27 million settlement in an antitrust lawsuit has been delayed over an objection to the lawyer's fees.

In July of last year, Electronic Arts agreed to settle [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118636-EA-Agrees-to-Settlement-in-Antitrust-Suit] an antitrust lawsuit, originally filed five years ago over its dominance of the football videogame market (that'd be American football), by giving up control of the NCAA and AFL licenses for a period of five years and paying out up to $27 million to eligible consumers. It sounds like a lot but it wasn't much of a payday for individuals: People who had purchased an eligible football game for the GameCube, PlayStation 2 or Xbox could claim up to $6.79 per game, while owners of current-gen titles were eligible for just $1.95 per game. That amount eventually tripled, which is still a pittance, but a deal's a deal and that, so it seemed, was that.

But now the whole thing has ground to a halt over an objection filed by one Aaron Miller, who believes that the attorney's fees in the case are out of line. Miller's objection was originally dismissed but he appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, where the matter now awaits adjudication. Miller is being represented by Steve A. Miller, who one person familiar with the situation described as a "professional objector."

Regardless of his lawyer's reputation or the merits of his objection, no payouts can be made until the matter is settled. Miller (the lawyer) must submit his brief to the court by October 7, after which opposing counsel will have a month to respond. Things will then presumably proceed at the court's discretion, and while the money on the table isn't going to save anyone from foreclosure, twenty bucks is twenty bucks - and if you're a claimant, you'll be lucky to get it by Christmas.

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/madden-s-27m-payout-held-up-while-someone-appeals-the-721352427]


Permalink
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,016
897
118
Yah! I'll be getting paaaaaaaaid (eventually and minimally)!

I remember filling the dealy out a while ago and I think my grand total was like...$40.

But hey, $40 is $40 and who am I to say no to free money?
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
Yah! I'll be getting paaaaaaaaid (eventually and minimally)!

I remember filling the dealy out a while ago and I think my grand total was like...$40.

But hey, $40 is $40 and who am I to say no to free money?
Subtract the money you originally spent on the games from the $40 and you get.. Oh shush me! Trying to spoil your fun..

Conspiracy theory time: One of them Millers is an EA shill planted to drag things out and delay payment for as long as possible. You mark my words. (C-)
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,016
897
118
Teoes said:
Subtract the money you originally spent on the games from the $40 and you get.. Oh shush me! Trying to spoil your fun.
That may be the case but that would be assuming that I didn't get $60 worth of fun every year (or few years pending if I liked the new edition or not), which would not be the case. I've probably had more game-time with each individual edition of Madden (and FIFA but that's not getting me some cash!) then the vast majority of my gaming collection.

Hell, I'm already in the 2019 season in Madden 13 with my friends and our online franchise. That's not including the "Create a Player mode" that I've got a few guys in...
 

Diablo1099_v1legacy

Doom needs Yoghurt, Badly
Dec 12, 2009
9,732
0
0
So they are paying Customers because they have a Monopoly on NFL games?
That's even a thing? They can do that?
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Diablo1099 said:
So they are paying Customers because they have a Monopoly on NFL games?
That's even a thing? They can do that?
An illegal monopoly created to demolish a competitor that was beating them. This monopoly was deemed to have reduced quality and did have a measurable effect on how much the games cost.

So yah.
 

Diablo1099_v1legacy

Doom needs Yoghurt, Badly
Dec 12, 2009
9,732
0
0
MCerberus said:
Diablo1099 said:
So they are paying Customers because they have a Monopoly on NFL games?
That's even a thing? They can do that?
An illegal monopoly created to demolish a competitor that was beating them. This monopoly was deemed to have reduced quality and did have a measurable effect on how much the games cost.

So yah.
Really? Huh...

I think that this will be referenced in "Worst Company of America 2014" :p
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Diablo1099 said:
MCerberus said:
Diablo1099 said:
So they are paying Customers because they have a Monopoly on NFL games?
That's even a thing? They can do that?
An illegal monopoly created to demolish a competitor that was beating them. This monopoly was deemed to have reduced quality and did have a measurable effect on how much the games cost.

So yah.
Really? Huh...

I think that this will be referenced in "Worst Company of America 2014" :p
And knowing is half the battle!
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
MCerberus said:
Diablo1099 said:
MCerberus said:
Diablo1099 said:
So they are paying Customers because they have a Monopoly on NFL games?
That's even a thing? They can do that?
An illegal monopoly created to demolish a competitor that was beating them. This monopoly was deemed to have reduced quality and did have a measurable effect on how much the games cost.

So yah.
Really? Huh...

I think that this will be referenced in "Worst Company of America 2014" :p
And knowing is half the battle!
Which side would be Cobra in this case?

If only Aaron Miller worked in a mill.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
"Miller and Miller" sounds like the perfect set-up for a generic, terribly schlocky courtroom dramedy or something.

Now, maybe my sleep-brain just isn't reading this right, but is the guy stalling these payouts because he thinks they should be paying even more, or even less? Because it sounds like the guy wants EA to pay less, and that... just seems a bit odd to me?