Indeed, they are the master of recolors, but I think given their super-awesome relationship with their home state of California and the optics that more lawsuits of any kind would have - I highly doubt it’ll happen. And that’s why I’m saving my breath for other efforts that aren’t tied up in legalese. I had hopes of the Deathwheel coming back since no specifics were ever cited, but those hopes are gone and over with now.
Oh yeah. I am under no illusions that it will happen. But if it were to happen. 
Edit: Also I don’t think it’s a waste of effort to remind Blizzard people still want that mount, or maybe something close but legally distinct to it.
1 Like
This issue you present is if this is a “Sweepstakes” under CA code. Further down in the code you can find the definition of it:
“For the purposes of this section, “sweepstakes” means a procedure, activity, or event, for the distribution, donation, or sale of anything of value by lot, chance, predetermined selection, or random selection that is not unlawful under other provisions of law”
The crux here is the term “value” and the way said value is distributed by chance in a limited fashion. Deeper in the Code you find Section 17537.1 which governs “incentives” and “advertising plans” and is specificly ruled as exempt from the “sweepstakes” code:
“(c) This section does not apply to an advertising plan or program that is regulated by, and complies with, the requirements of Section 17537.1.”
That code allows for a limited time offer so long as it is advertised:
“(i) Any deadline by which the recipient must visit the location, attend the sales presentation, or contact the sales agent in order to receive an incentive.”
I would say the Chopper in question appeared to be more of an incentive or advertising plan as the digital item had no value but incentivized people to log into their account to get it. The item was not distributed in a limited fashion by chance and has no value in and of itself. The value was incentivizing people to pay to log in before a deadline that clearly stated.
Just dont think its a sweepstakes.
5 Likes
Because you don’t have the contract, you don’t know what laws supersede it and you don’t know which state’s laws are being used and how.
One random internet link to one law in one state tells us nothing.
I can’t wait for people to stop saying “FOMO.”
5 Likes
California has some of the weirdest laws on the books. That law basically enables FOMO while trying to keep businesses from committing false advertising. And the thing is, I wouldn’t really count that as a sweepstakes. It was something everyone voted on and got. The losers got to buy their’s in game. It doesn’t even say sweepstakes on the page.
1 Like
17537.1 heavily reads as something that targets things like timeshare presentations and such - things that are physical in nature at a physical location. That code requires full disclosure of things such as the address of the location to be visited, etc. That doesn’t seem to fit the bill here.
Shortening the sweepstakes portion to where it seems applicable:
" “sweepstakes” means a …event, for the distribution…of anything of value by…predetermined selection…"
Circling back to the “value” argument…with the WoW token in the game, there is a very powerful argument that could be made that the mount would have value if they were to put it on a vendor.
The combination of voting/entering a “contest” of some sort without skill, yada yada, along with the urgency of the language used, seems to be what did this in.
I’m pretty sure that law was intended for physical properties. Not digital. But California is like some weird otherworld.
You are using predetermined selection in the wrong context. The item was voted on yes, but under the code predetermined selection means who receives said item.
It is clear how the langauge is written that predetermined selection is how said item is distributed:
““For the purposes of this section, “sweepstakes” means a procedure, activity, or event, for the distribution, donation, or sale of anything of value by lot, chance, predetermined selection, or random selection that is not unlawful under other provisions of law””
Also you must never “shorten” or paraphrase a laws code section, its how you lose a case and misrepresent the law under oath. You shortened that paragraph to make an arguement fit.
In regards to the token… The value is in the subscription for game time. This item was offered for a limited time to incentivize customers to pay for game time, thus it was a limited time offer or sales incentive clearly governed by 17537.1.
3 Likes
The best way around it is create a slightly different bike and release that.
Eh, I removed the “or” clauses that weren’t necessary. If I removed an “and” then I could see your point.
But yes, having a sub is another way to argue for value.
I can find no evidence of disclosures being made in accordance with all paragraphs of 17537.1, and therefore don’t see how it can apply here. Right off the bat, “The name and street address of the owner of the real or personal property or the provider of the services which are the subject of the visit, sales presentation, or contact with a sales agent.”
And this really isn’t a visit, sales presentation or contact with a sales agent to begin with. That law screams physical contact with an advertiser. I don’t understand how you’re equating the two.
You linked to it in your inital post.
" Anyone who logs in to the game between now and September 30, 2014 will automatically have their account flagged to receive the Horde chopper upon the release of the upcoming Warlords of Draenor expansion. Everyone can (and should!) claim their chopper by logging in now"
Showing that there is a clear deadline in the incentive and that there is no chance or odds i who can get said item if they meet the deadline.
2 Likes
And how does this apply to 17537.1 whatsoever?
Again, they’re very specific about what that section covers - visit to a location, a sales presentation, or contact with a sales agent, and they also require disclosure of numerous bits of information as they lay out in the code, which so far I have found no evidence of.
I don’t see how you’re saying this falls under 17537.1 at all.
Possibly. The problem then becomes that the Horde technically has two bikes while the Alliance only got one.
Then if Blizz gives the Alliance a recolor, the problem bounces back: the Alliance has two readily-available bikes while the Horde only has one with one unobtainable.
And not all California laws apply to this game. Which he’s ignoring, as well. Along with the fact that contracts can supersede these laws and may go by different state laws, as well.
Thus, going back to: we know nothing.
That’s why I’m ignoring your posts on this subject.
Because you’d rather armchair lawyer, instead of reading the EULA and understanding that we know absolutely nothing? Gotcha.
3 Likes
Says the person who thinks that contracts can supersede laws.
Yeah if anything, they could always make a new chopper.
1 Like
It may not apply. Yes it appears to be associated with incentivizing people to go somewhere. Then if thats the case the offer of an items like this may not even be covered by CA law. Meaning the practice is allowed.
I stand by my arguement that the way the Chooper was distributed was not a sweepstakes.
I’m not the authority on civil law, criminal law is much easier, however in any case it lies with the prosecution to provide the facts of the case. I don’t see this as a sweepstakes and believe that would get dismissed in court.
However if there is another law here you may want to check with the CA Attorney Generals Office. At least in my state the AG has a website with other FAQs regarding business practices.