Good ruling, I don't think a lot of people are getting what this actually did.
As the article points out, this has nothing to do with the case itself, but basically castrates the EULA a bit more by making it clear that software producers can't absolve themselves of all responsibility by including an in-game disclaimer.
Right or wrong, the guy is basically accusing them of criminal negligence. The specific case might be ridiculous, but other cases down the road might not be, this will ensure that those cases go to court like they should.
I notice a lot of people here on The Escapist tend to not see the big picture. A lot of people reading this will probably remember numerous, heated EULA arguements, which tie into various DRM, Piracy, and Intellectual Property discussions. Questions like "wait, can the company say I don't own my game but am leasing it despite having paid them for it?". A paticularly valid one because you don't "agree" to the EULA until after you've paid for something you cannot easily return, and you can't use the game or software without agreeing to it. What's more the very long, and confusing EULAs basically amount to shotgun "we are bulletproof, and can come after you for sneezing in a way we don't like with this product". A lot of people argue that it's a legally binding contract, however cases like this make it abundantly clear that this is not the case because those EULA agreements include things that are not legally possible. As much as businessmen hate it, there are rights a person cannot be made to sign away, and the laws were created specifically to prevent things like EULAs from forcing people to give up legal protection whenever they wanted to do anything. Trust me, if it wasn't that way the issue would be bigger than software and video games, since everyone would make you sign a contract before doing anything.
I'll be honest, I don't believe in dismissing cases "because they are too expensive" principles exist for a reason. It remains to be seen if this guy will actually win the case (I doubt it) but I do feel going to court is one of his rights.
This is not 'facepalm' worthy because this arguement is no more absurd than some of the battles waged against Tobacco over the years, there was a time when people thought the idea of addiction and damage was just as ridiculous with that.
I hope he loses though because if he wins this case, it will open the door for the goverment to make rulings on what reasonable precautions for these kinds of games should be. Developers will have to program around those requirements, and the games themselves will suffer. Perhaps leading to crazy things like goverment mandated play limits where say a game has to shut someone out after three or four hours of play, or auto-shuts down for 15 minutes out of every hours to comply with something I believe one of our Surgeon Generals mentioned was a good rule of thumb. This would mean no more long quests, grinding, raids, dungeons, or other things that people want to do with these games.
Understand that when it comes to health issues the goverment can do a lot of things it can't when it comes to free speech. Especially on the state level. In some states it's apparently illegal to sell unfiltered cigarettes for example. Requiring a game to enforce time limits would be the equivilent of a filter, however the nature of the MMORPG product means that they aren't going to be able to succeed by cutting out entire states full of customers, that means that due to the US being the primary market all games will come with those features.
I also believe some Asian countries have instituted internet curfews (or tried) and made playing online games beyond a certain time illegal. How it worked out is beyond me, but again in the US precedent from something like this can have a truely massive effect.
He should get his day in court, but from our perspective he NEEDS to lose, though anything that weakens the game industry and it's EULA attempts along the way is good.
At the same time, consider that with all the politics involving video games right now, this is a case where you have to keep an eye on the possibility of political interferance. Politicians pressuring the judge(s) with money, threats, promises, etc... and/or doing the same to Jury members and the like.
If you were Barack Obama for example and were making a position out of video games being responsible for a lot of our health issues, especially for children, here is a place to apply some pressure covertly and then spin the results in your re-election bid (I
m not kidding, he's made a position on this). That's bigger than this is likely to get, even behind the scenes, but all obstacles to prevent this kind of thing from happening, only a fool believes courts are not influanced by politics and politicians. If Barak Obama called up the Judge on his lunch break, or had some of his people stop by to have a "word" with some of the lawyers involved, or wanted to stack the Jury or whatever, three guesses what would happen... and it doesn't even take a President to make a mess like that, a Governor, state selectman, Senator, Congressman, or others can be just as bad and all have played roles in big issues before when they shouldn't have.
As I said, keep an eye on it. Ridiculous case, but the very fact that he should lose, and arguably gamers need him to lose to maintain the status quo, is also why this is a battle that might see interferance.