 So I was all set to start work on a video about why Nintendo made Ganondorf so attractive in Tears of the Kingdom when suddenly a child sued Nintendo for loot boxes in the mobile game Mario Kart Tour. And just like that, I knew what I had to do. Dig through court documents to find out more delicious details of this fascinating case. I'm glad I did, because on the surface this sounds like a fairly common case of a child making some silly in-game purchases on their daddy's credit card. But dig a little deeper, and this is part of an ongoing war to try and force legislators to prevent predatory and unscrupulous games industry practices involving gambling mechanics in games aimed at miners. So the version of the story you may have already heard. The plaintiff in this case, who has not been named for legal reasons as they're under age, was allowed by their father to play Mario Kart Tour on a smart device between 2021 and 2022. Without really knowing what they were doing, the plaintiff then managed to spend $170 buying rubies so they could use the game's spotlight pipes to try and win additional in-game items. Spotlight pipes were, at the time, fairly typical loot boxes. You got one random prize of varying quality every time you used one, but the odds on the rarity of these prizes weren't disclosed, and you had to buy the rubies for real-world cash. Now, I hope I'm explaining this right, because I haven't personally played Mario Kart Tour. I don't really do Nintendo mobile games for fear of this exact scenario, so apologies if I'm bundling the specifics of how spotlight pipes used to work. Now Nintendo has since removed spotlight pipes from the game following public backlash. You simply buy the items you want from a store with rubies without all that messy gambling, although you still pay real-world money for the rubies. A lot of parents have ended up in the situation where their kid has managed to spend money on a mobile game by accident. It's fairly common, and you hear plenty of stories of families fighting for refunds to varying success. By US law, children have the right to reaffirm or cancel any of these purchases, which is a fact that Nintendo and other games companies don't exactly go out of their way to publicise. I certainly didn't know when I started researching this video, but then I, A, don't live in the US, and B, don't let my kids play mobile games with microtransactions. In this case, according to court documents, the parent, Bruce Owls, also didn't know that he could ask for reaffirmment. So instead of begging Nintendo for a refund, he has supported his child in taking Nintendo to court. And oh wow, does the prosecution not mince words when calling out Nintendo's shady practices. Here are a few of my favourite excerpts from Exhibit A. The pipe loot boxes offered in Mario Kart meet the definition of gambling, as set forth by a multitude of gambling statutes and regulations and rely on the same predatory practices designed to induce consumers to spend money on games of chance. Miners are especially susceptible to these addiction enhancing elements of game design. The FTC has given some examples of dark patterns deemed deceptive. This includes grinding, or making the free version of a game so cumbersome and labour-intensive that the player is induced to unlock new features with in-app purchases, which the FTC deems as coercive action. These intentionally designed omission-based dark patterns of grinding and pay-to-skip, spotlight pipes limited offers, etc., in the Mario Kart tour game have been deemed by the FTC to create coercive action and consist of unlawful, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices, especially when aimed at minor children. Defendant, Nintendo, knew or should have known that its omissions regarding the in-game purchases were false, unfair, deceptive, or misleading acts or practices. Especially after the dark pattern design of the Mario Kart tour game removing the loot box pipes from its Mario Kart tour game. But Defendant has nonetheless failed to offer to provide plaintiff and the other members of the class and subclass refunds. Defendant's conduct described herein constitutes an unfair business practice because it violates public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and or substantially injurious to consumers. Wow. See, that is why you hire a good lawyer for a case like this. And that, that is the hidden secret in all this. The lawyers involved. The plaintiff in this case is represented by the Chicago-based McGuire Law, a legal firm which is also representing a child who is suing Take-2 Interactive for their loot box practices. A quote from that case reads, Defendants, Take-2s, unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practices, including illegal gambling practices, deceive, mislead, and harm consumers. Plaintiff and other consumers have been injured as a result of Defendant's practices, including but not limited to having suffered out-of-pocket loss. Now, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a legal expert, but I do see a pattern here. McGuire Law has a pair of court cases taking place in different US states involving an underage child suing a major game developer for loot box gambling mechanics in their games. Both cases make reference not just to the specific children involved, but to a wider class of consumers who have suffered as a result of game developers' actions. To quote the Take-2 case, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated throughout the United States, Plaintiff seeks to redress for damages and other relief arising from Defendants' deceptive and unlawful conduct. Essentially, these two cases are part of a wider effort to create legal precedent banning the use of gambling mechanics in games played by children. This being the case, while you might dismiss these kinds of reports, why not just watch what your kid is doing on your tablet, etc etc, the lawsuit against Nintendo is an attempt to make gaming more fair for all of us. But that said, yeah, definitely watch what your kid is doing while playing any video games. Personally, I find it's not just helpful for credit card security and online safety, but it also means that I can be more involved in my daughter's hobbies, and that's a good enough reason by itself. That is the moral of the story for today. Thanks for watching.