Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

March 4, 2009 -

Earlier today, GamePolitics spoke with Dave Davis of the Utah Retail Merchants Association.

Davis argued against the original, Jack Thompson-authored version of HB353 during a committee hearing last week. But amendments subsequently added by sponsor Rep. Mike Morley (left) persuaded Davis to drop his group's opposition:

We went from adamantly opposed to the bill to a position of neutrality. We still weren't supporting the bill but we had dropped our opposition based on the fact that [Rep. Morley] had made several favorable amendments for our retailers...

 

The bill was rolling forward and in its first form, it was completely unacceptable. Rep. Morley and the legislature could have very well - and probably would have - passed it in its original form. What we were able to do was secure some safe harbor exemptions for retailers.

Although Davis didn't suggest it, GP asked if the practice of age-gating M-rated game content on websites might offer a measure of protection from HB353's penalties for online retailers:

[Under the amended bill] if a buyer intentionally misrepresents their age, then the retailer wouldn't be subject to penalty. Keep in mind that this statute only applies to retailers who are advertising that they don't sell M-rated games or R-rated movies to underage people.

 

You would have to have a specific [advertisement] that you do not sell the age-restricted product to underage people... Just discussing the [existence of the] rating system would not bring [retailers] under the auspices of "advertising..."

 

If [a retailer] had an incident with one of their clerks, we've now provided a safe harbor where, if they've provided some training for that clerk on how to handle those age-restricted products, they would not be liable...

Davis expects the measure to pass its next hurdle, the Utah State Senate.


Comments

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

So stop advertising that you don't sell M-rated games to kids, and do whatever you want. Or make a self checkout lane and don't moderate it.

Why the HELL are these legislators wasting taxpayer dollars on this? If what they'd spent in money discussing this bill were put into meaningful education reform, they could be known as something other than a laughing stock.

For a law, it's worded horribly and has many loopholes that would make me, as a retailer, RFID games and take them out of glass shelves, and let whoever wanted to buy them. It'd be funny if they just flat out started advertising the games to kids as a middle finger to these assholes.

However, that-like this law-would not be good for the children either.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Unfortunately, I think this bill will pass.  It doesn't matter that it won't really do anything.  That's not the purpose.  The purpose of this bill is to "have it on the books" that video games has been legislated constitutionally.

Once that happens it opens the door to all kinds of other crazy laws.  It allows Utah and other states to try to pass further reaching laws and waste tax payer money.

It also allows lawyers like JT to attach ANY retailer who has any kind of prejudice to go after any retailer frivolously.  In fact, so much so that I would challenge the constitutionality of the law.

For instance, the reason legally enforced age restricting is unconstitutional is that if it were mandatory, it would be less likely that companies would release M rated games.  If that were to happen speech is restricted/censored.  If lawyers bring a multitude of frivolous lawsuits against retailers, retailers will likely just not stock M rated games to avoid being sued.  Just being sued can be a big pain in the ass (with injunctions and whatnot).  Since retailers decide not to stock M rated games, developers stop making them.  Thus we are in the same situation as if age restriction was mandatory.

 

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

I doubt it.  The bill as it is now will have little to no impact.  Somehow depsite all his crowing, I don't think Jack is very happy about having his bill watered down like this.  And Jack is really the only person who would really take advantage of such a law.  I don't know of any other lawyers like him who are so hellbent against video games and the entertainment industry and so desperate for attention.  Most sensible lawyers gave up on such efforts a long time ago.  The only reason it passed in Utah is because of its socially conservative politcal makeup and that Jack's allies in the Utah Eagle Forum had the political muscle to push it through.  I doubt Jack would have as much luck trying something similar anywhere else.  We all saw what happened in Louisiana.

And since Jack is no longer a lawyer (and despite his assertions, will never be again), there's nothing he can really do with this law.  It would also mean he'd have to pull up stakes and move to Utah, and somehow I doubt Pat would be willing to go along with that.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

I agree. And don't forget that this is a "Truth in Advertising" bill, not a video game bill. That's how most of the Utah legislators view it, and I'm sure that's how most other politicians will too. Heck, they seem to be more focused on the movie theater aspect than on games.

So aside from Jack yapping to people about his "substantial" video game bill, others won't likely take any notice of it.

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Once that happens it opens the door to all kinds of other crazy laws.

I agree. We all remember what happened in New York after their own particular law passed pertaining to parental settings on consoles and whatnot... yes, it was toothless, but sometime after that, we started hearing about some crazy laws coming from that state.

Need I remind everyone of that one fellow who tried to make it so M-Rated games would have to be locked in a safe?

--- I do more than just play games. I draw, too: http://www.silvermelee.deviantart.com

--- I do more than just play games. I draw, too: http://www.silvermelee.deviantart.com

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

So do these legislators consider a poster explaining the ESRB system an advertizement of actually enforcing this system with carding? And would a judge do that?

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Eh, I seem to be a bit lost on this one. From the previous article everyone was mentioning that the retailers could be liable if they followed the ESRB since it be considered "advertising" that they don't sell to underage buyers; but this statement says they won't be held liable unless it is a specific advertisement.

This bill is not even fit for toilet paper is it...

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

 Nope you have the jist... the original bill was going to punish retailers for mentioning the MPAA and ERSB now it just punishes those who have an advertisment from their company offical and what not saying they don't sale to underage kids and even then they can claim the kid misrepersented their age and therefore they are not held accountable.

This is what we call a waste of tax payers money and if elected president I would push for a law saying you make a law that has no purpose or a law found unconsitutional with in 2 years of signing then who ever drafted that law and supported it gets to pay the cost of it becoming a law, the cost of enforcing it and the court cost to have it removed.  Personally I think my way would take care of the many BS laws that people like JT push for.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Wow.  It's hard to imagine even bothering to try and pass the bill in its current form, it is completely worthless.  The only value of supporting the bill at this point is to look good in front of conservative voters.

Still, I think the game industry ought to fight the bill, just out of principle.  Why give the anti-gaming movement a victory, even if it's a hollow one?

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

I think this bill would appeal to lots of liberal voters as well. I don't think it's target is either liberal or conservative voters, but rather stupid voters who don't understand that this bill doesn't even do anything. And it would be a waste of resources to fight the bill. We can let the anti-gaming douchebags think they won something just this once.

---------------------------------

Internet troll > internet paladin

-------------------------------------------------------- Believe in something! Even if it's wrong, believe in it! GET OFF MY PHONE! -Glenn Beck

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

I'm not sure that you'd need to spend much in the way of resources.  You could probably have a judge overturn it, just by hearing the testimony of an ESA intern on his lunch break.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Sounds like JT's victory isn't a victory after all. Even if this bill did pass, it isn't going to change anything.

JT fails. Again.

Amy Levandoski

Amy Levandoski

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Amy, why have you stopped with the playing-his-parent thing? That's always good for a few 1u1z when Jackie-poo gets his thing going again. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

It only works when he's flaming gamepolitics.com otherwise it has no effect xD

Amy Levandoski

Amy Levandoski

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

To JT:

http://bestpicsaround.com/pics/pic_11993019759072.jpg

Sortableturnip's Law: As an online discussion of video game violence grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Jack Thompson approaches 1

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

LOL,

This picture of Bush holding the phone in a weird way makes me laugh.

 

@Alevan,

 

Well you might want to tell that to JT. Oh wait a minute, he doesn't listen to anyone who opposed him.  Even if he did, he wouldn't give a rat's ass about it anyway.  He think evrything a conspiracy theory.  That's why he not only fail, but this guy should STFU and just let video gamers have it their way.

 

I also like to reach out to gamers to stop making flame war on which console is better. Well a true gamer like me would never insult a console no matter how it is, you can make opinion but not bash or something like that.  I keep seeing that flame war a lot.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

[Under the amended bill] if a buyer intentionally misrepresents their age, then the retailer wouldn't be subject to penalty. Keep in mind that this statute only applies to retailers who are advertising that they don't sell M-rated games or R-rated movies to underage people.

Whoa, wait a minute. First the bill said that if a retailer sells a mature game to an underaged buyer and advertised that they don't, they'd be subject to fraud. Now it says that if the underaged buyer fools the retailer/cashier into giving them the game, the cashier and retailer are exempt (but the cashier might have to be retrained).

So did this bill go from counterproductive to just plain toothless?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game on, brothers and sisters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin Game on, brothers and sisters.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Yeah,

 

That bill is just crazy and doesn't make any goddamn sense.  Would anybody like to revise the bill to make it more understandable, if they can't Just shoot it down.  This bill is just gibberish to me.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

So all retailers need to do is to just not say "We don't sell M rated games to underage kids" and they are of the hook...? 

It's like the signs that say 'We Card' for tobacco... if they didn't have these signs, could retailers get off the hook for selling cigarettes to youngins? This is the basic concept of the bill, right? Do I understand this correctly? Why would retailers advertise that they don't sell rated games/movies to underage kids if it could get them in trouble?  

www.katamaridemocracy.com http://twitter.com/PushDustIn

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Retailers have to take corrective measures if they do fail, but the corrective measures are so easy, they will never be taken to court for it.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Actually, that's not the case. I can think of 3 different situations right now where a company would have no easy way to get around things. Unless I am misunderstanding things. To quote from the amendments:

 (A) at the time a good or service labeled with an age restriction or recommendation was provided to a buyer subject to the age restriction or recommendation:
   (I) the person has a documented program to train an employee on the person's policies against providing the good or service labeled with an age restriction or recommendation to a buyer subject to the age restriction or recommendation;
    (II) the employee who provided the good or service attended the training program described in Subsection (2)(g)(i)(A)(I) within 30 days of commencing duties of selling the good or service; and
    (III) the person took appropriate remedial action, including retraining the employee;

 

Let's say it's a new employee. What if they decide to simply fire the guy? Maybe even though he's new, he's already messed up like this before, or perhaps he's caused other issues. Except, he's new, and thus they can't fire him, not until after they send him to the training program. For that matter, what if the employee simply refuses to attend the program? Oh, they can always decide to fire him... oh wait.

Second situation, it's not a new employee, so he's already attended the training program. But... regarding "appropriate remedial action", they say "including retraining the employee." No "possibly" or "maybe" there. But what if they CAN'T retrain the employee because he quit, or because they don't want to since they intend to fire him due to poor performance by him?

Also, the law doesn't account for parental consent, which could lead to some pretty absurd situations. Kid is in store about to buy Halo 3, store employee says sorry, parent says it's ok, he's fine with his kid playing Halo 3 and he's having the kid buy it because it's the kid's own money and the parent wants to give him some experience making transactions in public. Store employee says ok and sells the game. Oops, big mistake. Parent sues store later on. (And if you believe that isn't likely to happen, just look up some of the stupid lawsuits that have actually occured.)

This sitatuation at least can be avoided at least, by the stores simply refusing to sell to kids and young teens under ANY circumstances, even if the parent is right there saying it's ok. Of course, this could lead to complains and customer annoyance, so it's not exactly a good solution.

EDIT: Fixed some errors and made things clearer.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Let's start with your third scenario. That would be the least likely as most stores' policies are that they do not sell to kids without parent's permission. If the Bill actually nulls that and any sale to kids even if their parents are right there can result in a lawsuit, then yeah this needs to be killed.

AS for one and two, I don't think that any reasonable judge would allow that as part of the prosicution. "Your honor, this store fired the employee that sold the M ratd game to the 7 year old before retraining him. Since the employee did not get that retraining before getting fired, the store is 100% liable under this law."

So another reason this bill should be shot down.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

couldnt the act of firing the employee actually be classes as 'appropriate remedial action' itself?

I mean, the employee doesnt work there any longer, so theproblem of him / her selling when not supposed to has been technically solved.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Thanks for the people who explained it in the comments.

However, I don't think this will affect large chain retailers. When I bought MGS4 (PS3 Combo) / GTA4 at Wal-Mart, a message came up on the computer that reminded the employee to card me. I think the smaller stores are more likely to 'mess up' and sell to an underage person (And get in trouble if they advertise that they don't sell to underage kids).

On a side note: someone needs to make a sign like the 'We Card' signs! 

I have a question though: what happens if a kid misrepresents his parents; it’s like kids who asked homeless people to buy them rated R movie tickets. That would mean theoretically the homeless person is at fault, since the kid is too young to prosecute, right?

www.katamaridemocracy.com

http://twitter.com/PushDustIn

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

The EMA has a Pledge to Parents program:

http://www.entmerch.org/pledge_to_parents_program.html

That is pretty similar to what you describe.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

"I don't think that any reasonable judge"...

I agree, the problem is there are some pretty unreasonable judges out there. I don't know how likely any of these cases really are, but it seems to me that a literal reading of the law would make the retailers culpable in all 3 cases. And thus, I get nervous, as "well, the law may technically do that, but no reasonable person would ever try and use it that way" has been proven to be faulty in the past.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

yes, but your tobacco analogy is off base.

If a tobacco law was written like this law was though, then you'd be exactly right.

Re: Lobbyist: Amendments Reduced Impact of Utah Legislation

Would be nice if they saw it our way before they said it was the right thing to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: Lobbyist Explains How Amendments Reduced the Impact of ...

It would have been nice if Mr. Davis' discussion of the legislation went beyond merely justifiying the Association's membership dues by pointing to the results of his lobbying efforts. It's cool to toot your own horn and all, but . . . .  

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
MaskedPixelanteDid Capcom ever give us a timeline for when they planned on putting the Megaman stuff on Wii U?07/27/2014 - 2:23pm
MaskedPixelanteIf by "distance themselves from Google Plus" you mean "forcing Google Plus integration in everything", then yes, they are distancing themselves from Google Plus.07/26/2014 - 12:20pm
MechaTama31I wish they would distance G+ from the Play Store, so I could leave reviews and comments again.07/26/2014 - 11:03am
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician