Grand Theft Auto (GTA) is a video game series unlike any other - it has sold over 70 million copies worldwide to date, the most recent installment (GTA IV) grossed $500 million in its opening week alone, and apart from financial success, the series has set a new standard of artistic merit and interactivity for the video gaming industry. Not too shabby, right? However, the story of GTA cannot be separated from its legal troubles. Time and again, GTA’s developer Rockstar Games, and parent company Take Two Interactive, have tangoed with the law in both First Amendment and murder cases. Below is a run-down of highlights in GTA’s dramatic, and sometimes ridiculous, relationship with the law (accompanied by links to relevant docs).

October 20, 2003 (GTA III): The families of two victims shot by William and Josh Buckner, aged 16 and 14 years old, file a $246 million lawsuit against publishers Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive, retailer Wal-Mart, and PlayStation 2 manufacturer Sony Computer Entertainment America. The boys had fired at vehicles on the highway with a .22 rifle, supposedly acting out a scene from their favorite video game, GTA III. Rockstar and Take Two file for a dismissal of the lawsuit nine days later, claiming First Amendment protection, and within two days, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Jack Thompson, takes the suit off the table. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for easy money.

November 2003 (GTA: Vice City): Haitian and Cuban anti-defamation groups protest the game’s racial stereotypes in front of New York’s City Hall and Rockstar’s Manhattan offices. The Haitian American Grassroots Coalition takes particular offense to the line “Kill the Haitian d*ckheads,” which pops up during an altercation between the game’s first person player and a Haitian gang. After threatening legal action, Rockstar removes the word “Haitian” from this line in the subtitles.

February 15, 2005 (GTA III; GTA: Vice City): A lawsuit claims that GTA caused teenager Devin Moore to fatally shoot two police officers and a dispatcher after he was apprehended on suspicion of stealing an automobile. Upon capture, Moore famously commented “”Life is a video game. You’ve got to die sometime.” His attorney, Jack Thompson (from the 2003 GTA III suit), had lost Moore’s criminal trial (he was convicted of 1st degree murder), and the civil suit is still awaiting trial. Rockstar, Take Two, Sony Computer Entertainment, and both Wal-Mart and Gamestop (where Moore purchased his GTA games) are also named in the suit. Lots of money, once again, is sitting on the table.

July 27, 2005 (GTA: San Andreas): An 85 year old grandmother sues GTA’s Take Two after learning about the sex mini-games, or “hot coffee” content, hidden in the M (Mature) rated title’s code. The grandmother, Florence Cohen, had purchased the game for her 14 year old grandson. A class action lawsuit soon develops, supported by a formal complaint from the FTC, which isn’t finally settled until November of 2007. The settlement essentially gives away up to $35.00 to anyone who was officially “offended and upset” by the ability to unlock the game’s hidden, sexual content. To claim compensation, gamers can visit this somewhat amusing site, put up by Rockstar under court mandate. Let’s hope all the emotionally-scarred saved their receipts.

September 25, 2006 (GTA: Vice City): Jack Thompson files another suit against Take Two, Rockstar, and Sony Corp, this time alleging that 14 year old Cody Posey killed his father, stepmother, and stepsister due to his obsession with GTA: Vice City. Posey was already found guilty of murder in his criminal trial, in which his attorneys laid blame on depression and his father’s physical abuse. Thompson’s $600 million suit is first dismissed in December 2007 on the grounds that a) the state (New Mexico) has no jurisdiction since neither Take Two nor Sony hold offices there and b) the wrongful death claim holds no basis in state laws. It is later dismissed in May 2008 at a New Mexico appeals court because Thompson had exceeded the 30 day appeal deadline.

August 2007 (GTA: Bully): Pre-empting the release of Bully, attorney Jack Thompson sends Rockstar letters that demand a pre-release copy of the game for his own review - in order to “determine whether it still poses a threat of copycat violence in our schools.” Upon receiving no response, Thompson files a complaint with the Miami-Dade Circuit Court that uses Florida’s nuisance law (Florida Statute 823.01) as his basis. A Miami Judge rules against Thompson’s desire to block sales of Bully, and after a spree of angry comments that flirt with contempt of court, Thompson agrees with Take Two (Rockstar’s parent) to drop his case. He also agrees to make all future contract with Take Two through their attorneys. Um, yeah, by this point, he’s probably not their favorite customer.

As these highlights suggest, GTA’s relationship with the law is well, a bit ridiculous at times - fueled more by political and financial motivations than substantiated, legal claims. America is indeed a litigious and relatively politically-correct society. And so, it’s not surprising that a revolutionary video game, one that pushes envelopes of violence, race, and urban realism, is continually met with legal resistance.

Money is also a critical factor - as attorney Jack Thompson made a name for himself as an anti-violence activist, it’s noteworthy that he never attacked those gun manufacturers which put weapons in the underage assailants’ hands. Not only is the gun lobby somewhat sacred in our society, but their pockets are nowhere as deep as those belonging to the video gaming and entertainment industries. Thompson, in short, is not as righteous as he’d like the public to believe. Here’s an amusing quote directly from his website: “Jack is one of the foremost proponents of the ‘Video Games Made Me Do It’ defense, which has so far failed to convince any judges.”

Of course, despite all the legal headaches along the way, GTA has reaped tremendous success, both critical and financial. And what’s more - their legal controversies have played nicely into their hardcore brand image, which undoubtedly bolsters sales.

At this point, my time is consumed by playing GTA IV, and I’m tremendously excited for any future GTA installments. But I’m equally curious about their inevitable, upcoming legal hurdles… Should be interesting.

Popularity: 100% [?]

052 3158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS:
Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman Pamela Jones Harbour Jon Leibowitz William E. Kovacic J. Thomas Rosch

In the Matter of
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Docket No. C-4162 and ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., corporations.

COMPLAINT
The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and Rockstar Games, Inc., corporations (”respondents”), have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (”Take-Two”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business at 622 Broadway, New York, New York 10012.

2. Respondent Rockstar Games, Inc. (”Rockstar”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business at 622 Broadway, New York, New York 10012. Rockstar is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Take-Two.

3. Respondents design, manufacture, advertise, offer to sell, sell, and distribute interactive entertainment software, commonly known as video games, to the public. Respondents’ software offerings include titles for the leading video gaming platforms - such as Sony PlayStation 2 and Microsoft Xbox systems, as well as for personal computers (”PCs”) - and include the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Page 1 of 6

1. The acts and practices of respondents in the advertising and selling of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to consumers as alleged in this complaint are acts or practices in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

2. Virtually all video games sold by retailers in the United States are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (”ESRB”). The ESRB is an industry self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (”ESA”). Most major retailers in the United States will not sell video games unless they have been rated by the ESRB.

3. An important purpose of the ESRB rating system is to provide information to consumers, including parents, about the content of a game to help consumers determine if the game is suitable for themselves, another person, or their family.

4. The ESRB ratings have two parts: 1) rating symbols that suggest age appropriateness; and 2) content descriptors that indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern. The ESRB system consists of the following rating symbols: EC (Early Childhood), E (Everyone), E10+ (Everyone 10 and older), T (Teen), M (Mature 17+), and AO (Adults Only 18+). There are over thirty different content descriptors for game elements, including Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Lyrics, Mature Humor, Mild Violence, Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs, and Violence.

5. Many consumers use and rely on the ESRB ratings when deciding whether to purchase a video game. In addition, many retailers use and rely on the system. Certain major retailers will not sell games that have been rated AO (Adults Only 18+) by the ESRB.

6. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the fifth in a series of popular video games developed and marketed with the Grand Theft Auto name. Each of the previous four games in the Grand Theft Auto series, Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto II, Grand Theft Auto III, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, were rated M (Mature 17+) by the ESRB for one or more video game platforms. According to the ESRB rating system, games rated M (Mature 17+) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Games in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language. Games rated AO (Adults Only 18+), according to the ESRB rating system, have content that should only be played by persons 18 and older. Games in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

10. The ESRB rates games prior to release based on information supplied to it by game companies. The ESRB requires game companies to answer a questionnaire about the type and frequency of content relevant to the ESRB’s rating criteria, such as violent action, sexual content, gambling, language, and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs (hereafter, “relevant content”). The ESRB also requires game companies to submit video footage showing the most extreme relevant content in the game. Prior to July 2005, the ESRB’s published requirements mandated that game companies disclose relevant content resulting from the use of “cheat codes” or the

Page 2 of 6

unlocking of virtual “Easter eggs” (i.e., messages, graphics, sound effects, features, or actions that are enabled when the user inputs a set of commands on a game console or keyboard). The ESRB’s published requirements did not state that relevant content included unused textures (”skins”) in the game software or content in the game code that was inaccessible and unplayable without modifying the code.

2. On or about September 12 or 13, 2004, respondents submitted materials to the ESRB for the purpose of obtaining a rating for the PlayStation 2 version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Respondents did not inform the ESRB about the existence of unused nude female skins on the game disc or an unfinished “sex mini-game” that had been edited out of game play but was embedded in wrapped form in the game’s computer code. If the game code for the sex mini-game were to be unwrapped, the mini-game could be enabled, permitting the player to control the game’s principal male character, who was clothed, during simulated sexual acts with different clothed female characters. As described in paragraph 10, the ESRB’s published requirements at that time did not state that game companies were required to disclose unused skins in the game software or content in the game code that was inaccessible and unplayable without modifying the code.

3. Based on respondents’ submissions, on September 23, 2004, the ESRB issued a rating certificate for the PlayStation 2 version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The ESRB assigned the game the rating symbol M (Mature 17+) and the following content descriptors: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Use of Drugs. Respondents formally accepted this rating on the same day.

4. In October 2004, respondents began selling the PlayStation 2 version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to the public. The PlayStation 2 game discs offered for sale to the public contained the unused nude female skins and the wrapped code for the unfinished sex mini-game described in paragraph 11.

5. On or about January 7, 2005, respondents asked the ESRB to rate the PC and Xbox versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas by requesting the ESRB to reissue the M (Mature 17+) rating symbol and associated content descriptors previously assigned to the PlayStation 2 version. On or about January 10, 2005, the ESRB reissued the M (Mature 17+) rating and content descriptors rating for the PC and Xbox versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

6. In June 2005, respondents began selling the PC and Xbox versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to the public. The PC and Xbox game discs offered for sale to the public contained the unused nude female skins and the wrapped code for the unfinished sex mini-game described in paragraph 11.

7. From approximately October 2004 through July 2005, respondents disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, including the attached Exhibits A through D. Respondents advertised the game through product packaging

Page 3 of 6

and through numerous magazine advertisements, including ads in Electronic Gaming Monthly, Entertainment Weekly, The Onion, Maxim, Spin, PlayStation Magazine, and PC Gamer. Respondents also advertised the game through thirty- and sixty-second television commercials run on numerous networks and cable television channels, including UPN, MTV, TNT, USA Network, Spike TV, BET, and MTV. They also advertised the game on billboards, posters, point-of-purchase materials, and video displays at major game retailers, through respondents’ websites, online banner ads, and in game trailers available for download from www.rockstargames.com/sanandreas. These advertisements contained the following statements and depictions, among others:

A. PlayStation 2, Xbox, and PC product packaging (Exhibit A):Front: “grand theft auto San AndreasTM… MATURE 17+… M… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB”
ii. Rear: “ROCKSTAR GAMES PRESENTS A ROCKSTAR NORTH GAME… grand theft auto San AndreasTM Mature 17+… M… Blood and Gore… Intense Violence… Strong Language… Strong Sexual Content… Use of Drugs… ESRB CONTENT RATING… www.esrb.org”
iii. Game Discs: “grand theft auto San AndreasTM… MATURE 17+… M… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB”

B. Print advertisements (Exhibit B): “ROCKSTAR GAMES PRESENTS… grand theft auto San AndreasTM… A ROCKSTAR NORTH PRODUCTION… IN STORES NOW… WWW.ROCKSTARGAMES.COM/SANANDREAS… MATURE 17+… M… Blood and Gore… Intense Violence… Strong Language… Strong Sexual Content… Use of Drugs… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB”

C. Retailer advertising (Exhibit C):
i. Pre-sell gift card for Wal-Mart: “Reserve your copy today…. Playstation2… GIFT CARD… grand theft auto San AndreasTM… MATURE 17+… M… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB… Available 10.19.04… PlayStation®2… WALMART®”
ii. Window cling for Kmart: “grand theft auto San Andreas… NOW AVAILABLE ON XBOX®… MATURE 17+… M… Blood and Gore… Intense Violence… Strong Language… Strong Sexual Content… Use of Drugs… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB”

D. Online banner advertisement (Exhibit D): “grand theft auto San Andreas… IN STORES NOW… MATURE 17+… M… Blood and Gore… Intense Violence…

Page 4 of 6

Strong Language… Strong Sexual Content… Use of Drugs… CONTENT RATED BY ESRB”

1. Respondents did not disclose the existence of the unused nude female skins and the wrapped code for the unfinished sex mini-game described in paragraph 11 either in their advertising for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, or on the product packaging.

2. On or about June 9, 2005, two days after the release of the PC version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, a third-party computer programmer posted a software program on the Internet entitled “Hot Coffee.” When downloaded and installed, the Hot Coffee program enables users of the originally released PC version of the game to access the unfinished sex mini-game described in paragraph 11. An updated version of the program was posted on the Internet on June 11, 2005 that further modifies the sex mini-game described in paragraph 11 by rendering the female characters unclothed through use of the nude skins on the game disc.

3. Within weeks of the release of the Hot Coffee program for the PC version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, PlayStation 2 and Xbox users were able to access the same content by taking certain steps, such as modifying or adding a hardware accessory to their game console, installing special software, and inputting codes developed by third parties.

4. On July 20, 2005, as a result of, among other things, viewing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as modified by the Hot Coffee program and the widespread availability of that program, the ESRB revoked the existing rating for the game. Respondents entered into an agreement with the ESRB that provided, among other things, that they would not contest a change in rating for the game from M (Mature 17+) to AO (Adults Only 18+) with an additional content descriptor for nudity.

5. Through the means described in paragraph 16, respondents represented, expressly or by implication, that the ESRB had rated the content of the original versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas M (Mature 17+) and that the ESRB had assigned the following content descriptors as part of the ESRB rating: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Use of Drugs. Respondents did not disclose to consumers that the game discs contained unused, but potentially viewable, nude female skins and disabled, but potentially playable, software code for a sexually explicit mini-game that the ESRB had not rated. The presence on the game discs of this unrated content that might change, and, in fact, did change, the rating of the game to AO (Adults Only 18+) with an additional content descriptor for nudity, would have been material to many consumers, particularly parents, in their purchase, rental, or use of the product. The failure to disclose these facts, in light of the representation made, was and is a deceptive practice.

Page 5 of 6

1. The acts and practices of respondents as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this seventeenth day of July, 2006, has issued this complaint against respondents.
By the Commission.
Donald S. Clark Secretary
SEAL:

Popularity: 7% [?]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN B. THOMPSON ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE
SOFTWARE, INC.,
Respondents.
VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE ACTION
COMES NOW petitioner, an attorney, on his own behalf and on behalf of the
State of Florida as authorized by Florida Statute 60.05, and files this Verified Petition to
Take Deposition before Action, and states as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner has been a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, continuously
since 1976. He is a citizen of the United States, more than eighteen years of age, and he
is otherwise sui juris.
2. Respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Wal-Mart), is a foreign
corporation registered to do and doing business in the State of Florida, at various retail
stores located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Wal-Mart is one of the largest, and
possibly the largest in volume of sales, retailer of video games in the United States.
3. Respondent Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (hereinafter Take-Two), is a
foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida by virtue of a) its distribution
and sale of millions of units of its video games in the State of Florida, most notably the
hyperviolent Grand Theft Auto franchise of video games linked to numerous killings
2
around the country, and b) the direct marketing of its products in the State of Florida
through magazine, retail store, and television advertisements.
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNDERLYING ACTION
4. Petitioner plans to bring an action against the respondents herein based upon
their distribution and sale of a violent, interactive video “game” entitled Bully (discussed
more fully infra), which distribution and sale will constitute a public nuisance under
Florida law. The statutory basis for the underlying action is as follows:
5. Florida Statute 823.01 states:
823.01 Nuisances; penalty.–All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the
health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the
second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except that a violation of s. 823.10 is
a felony of the third degree.
6. Florida Statute 823.05 states, verbatim, as follows:
823.05 Places declared a nuisance; may be abated and enjoined.–Whoever shall
erect, establish, continue, or maintain, own or lease any building, booth, tent or place
which tends to annoy the community or injure the health of the community, or become
manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people as described in s. 823.01, or
shall be frequented by the class of persons mentioned in 1s. 856.02, or any house or place
of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or place or building where games of chance are
engaged in violation of law or any place where any law of the state is violated, shall be
deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the building, erection, place, tent or booth
3
and the furniture, fixtures and contents are declared a nuisance. All such places or
persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in ss. 60.05 and 60.06.
7. Florida Statute 60.05 states, verbatim, as follows:
60.05 Abatement of nuisances.-
(1) When any nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 exists, the Attorney General, state
attorney, city attorney, county attorney, or any citizen of the county may sue in the name
of the state on his or her relation to enjoin the nuisance, the person or persons
maintaining it, and the owner or agent of the building or ground on which the nuisance
exists.
(2) The court may allow a temporary injunction without bond on proper proof being
made. If it appears by evidence or affidavit that a temporary injunction should issue, the
court, pending the determination on final hearing, may enjoin:
(a) The maintaining of a nuisance;
(b) The operating and maintaining of the place or premises where the nuisance is
maintained;
(c) The owner or agent of the building or ground upon which the nuisance exists;
(d) The conduct, operation, or maintenance of any business or activity operated or
maintained in the building or on the premises in connection with or incident to the
maintenance of the nuisance.
The injunction shall specify the activities enjoined and shall not preclude the operation of

Popularity: 6% [?]