Two More Former College Quarterbacks Sue EA
Two More Former College Quarterbacks Sue EA
June 30, 2009
Today's news brings more legal headaches for Electronic Arts.
Last month, GamePolitics reported on a federal class-action lawsuit filed by former University of Nebraska football player Sam Keller. The one-time college quarterback charged that EA used his likeness in its popular NCAA Football game franchise without his permission. Keller's suit also names the NCAA as a defendant.
One-time Rutgers QB Ryan Hart (left) and former University of California QB Troy Taylor filed a similar lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court, according to MyCentralJersey.com. EA Sports spokesman Rob Semsey told the website:
EA, the NCAA and CLC (Collegiate Licensing Company) have reviewed the complaint, and do not believe that the claims have merit. EA, the NCAA and CLC regularly conduct reviews of EA's NCAA-branded games, and we do not believe that any violations of student-athlete rights or NCAA by-laws have occurred.
GP: It's unclear why Hart and Taylor filed a state suit against EA and did not simply join Keller's federal class-action. Perhaps some of our attorney readers can suggest a reason?
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Perhaps because the attorneys for Hart and Taylor are more interested in getting their own payday than in seeing their clients get a payday? Which wouldn't happen for them if their clients merely joined an existing class rather than filing their own class action suit because only the attorneys of the lead plaintiffs in a class action are allowed to collect attorney fees. After all, class actions usually benefit the attorneys who bring them 10,000 time more than they benefit any individual class member.
Rutgers huh? Wasn't that the home of those "nappy-headed hos" as Don Imus referred to them as, causing him to lose his job for a brief time due to that asshole Al Sharpton?
When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?
Former NCAA football players? They must not have been that great, since they aren't referred to as "and current NFL football players."
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Oh great, more lawsuit for EA. Will this ever end what's next Michael Vicks sueing EA because he'll say "EA made me do the dogfight".
What are you talking about? This is about using someone's likeness without their permission, not "video games made me do it".
"De minimus non curat lex"
Ol' Doc Kefka was called away to attend to a patient. Arrangements have been made for mdo7 to post for him in his absence.
Have you ever heard of sarcasm and joke. I'm aware of that, I'm joking about Michael Vicks. You need to learn how to tell which is a joke and which is not.
Have you ever considered the possibility that if you learned how to tell a joke, there'd be less confusion?
It's like that, huh? I just asked a simple question. Okay, then...
First of all, it's Vick, not Vicks. Vick is the football player. Vicks are what you take for colds.
Second, jokes are usually humorous. Your comment was about as funny as those 3 2 1 countdowns you abuse so often. (See? I know what sarcasm is, I used it right there!)
Third, you look like an imbecile when you try to clown people while using crappy grammar and spelling.
"De minimus non curat lex"
I saw that coming from a mile away. Now, I ain't saying deservedly or undeservedly so. Just simply that I saw that coming from a mile away.