GameForge condenada por el Tribunal Federal Supremo Aleman por publicidad engañosa en juegos dirigidos a niños.

 Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo Federal Alemán el 17 de julio de 2013 ( expediente: . I ZR 34/12 )

GameForge condenada por el Tribunal Federal Supremo Aleman por publicidad engañosa...en juegos dirigidos a niños para que compren productos anunciados o persuadan a sus padres...

En concreto la sentencia se refiere al Juego "Runes of Magic", pero yo misma desde mi Blog denuncié estos mismos hechos en ikariam.es ( VER AQUÍ ) Ya sabemos por qué Ikariam.es ha cambiado su métido de pago y sobre ese método versaba mi artículo.
Me alegra mucho que mi aportación haya servido de algo. Seguiré en la defensa de los derechos.

Decir que es una sentencia "en rebeldía", es decir, el denunciado no ha hecho presencia ni siquiera ha dado respuesta, es evidente que a este tipo de empresas les es más rentable acometer el "gasto" jurídico y demás que quitar el negocio que le genera dinero de forma, como indica la sentencia, fraudulenta. Realmente habrá pocas denuncias que desemboquen en la jurisdicción alemana.
El caso es que se está llevando a cabo reformas en cuanto al sistema de pagos en ikariam.es.

Que les aproveche, no será la última GameForge, prometido.
Recomendable un traductor de texto si no manejan bien el inglés o alemán

Aquí hay varios enlaces, pero ninguno en español, y es que el manejo de una empresa tan grande incluye el posicionamiento web y el esconder las noticias que no interesa se sepan

https://www.google.es/#q=+German+Federal+Supreme+Court+Releases+Long-Awaited+Decision+In+Gameforge+‘Runes+Of+Magic’+Case

http://www.mondaq.com/x/285154/advertising+marketing+branding/German+Federal+Supreme+Court+Releases+LongAwaited+Decision+in+Gameforge+Runes+of+Magic+Case

Germany: German Federal Supreme Court Releases Long-Awaited Decision In Gameforge ‘Runes Of Magic’ Case

Last week the German Federal Supreme Court (FSC) finally released its full decision, with reasons, in the Gameforge "Runes of Magic" litigation. The court had already made its decision on 17 July 2013 (file no.: I ZR 34/12). It held that advertising the "free to play" online game "Runes of Magic" with the sentence "seize the good opportunity and give your armour and weapons that certain 'something'" within a longer advertising text on the Internet, using language addressed to children, was an unfair commercial practice and therefore violated the German Act Against Unfair Competition (the "Act"). The Act (at no. 28 in the annex to section 3(3)) prohibits the direct request, addressed to children in advertising, to purchase the products advertised therein. This provision is part of the so-called black list, directly taken from European Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. No. 28 of the Directive's annex I (which lists commercial practices that are, in all circumstances, considered unfair) prohibits including in an advertisement a direct exhortation to children to buy advertised products or to persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them. This provision should, therefore, be part of unfair competition legislation in all EU member states because of the Directive.
The lower courts had been of the opinion that, in the case at issue, the invitation to buy the "in game objects" was not integrated "directly" into the advertisement, and that the play instinct of children had also not been taken unfair advantage of. When it became clear, by way of the press release of the German FSC on 18 July 2013, that the FSC came to the opposite conclusion, the FSC's reasoning was desperately awaited. One had to wonder whether the "free to play" business model, which relies on being able to sell so called "in game objects", was in danger in Germany altogether if elements which are intrinsic to the model are found to be unfair competition if children are involved as consumers of the games.
In its reasoning, the FSC points out that its decision is a default judgment because the defendant was not present at the oral hearing. At the same time, however, the FSC stresses the fact that it did not reach its decision because of the defendant's failure to appear at the oral hearing, but rather that the court examined the factual and legal situation carefully before reaching its decision. While the defendant can file an opposition (and has done so) against the default judgment and thus request another oral hearing before the FSC, it appears unlikely at this time that the FSC will change its position following a new oral hearing in the matter.
The FSC takes the view that the wording in question in the advertising by the defendant for "Runes of Magic" violates no. 28 in the annex to section 3(3) of the Act. The FSC does not take a final position on the question whether "children", for purposes of the Act, are only minors below the age of 14 or are minors below the age of 18. It is also irrelevant, according to the court, whether the game in question is played by adults as well. The court finds that the tone of the wording in the advertising as a whole is such that it is addressed mainly to minors, including minors under the age of 14. It is not, in the court's view, an advertisement directed to a general audience and by which minors may merely also feel they are addressed, neither is it an advertisement directed clearly to adolescents where only a few children under the age of 14 may feel addressed by the advertisement. According to the court, the constant use of the second person singular (as opposed to the formal and adult use of the second person plural in German language) together with terminology used that is predominantly typical for children as well as being customary English language terms, indicates that the advertisement as a whole directly targets minors, including minors under the age of 14. The court takes the view that the statement "seize the good opportunity" contains a direct request to purchase something in the sense of the Act. It is sufficient for a violation of the Act, according to the court, that this statement is made via the Internet. The court elaborates in great detail on why this request is a direct request to make a purchase addressed to children, contrary to the finding of the lower courts. The fact that a link needs to be clicked on to get to the actual goods to be purchased is not decisive, according to the FSC. One click on this link will lead the children to the products in question, which can then be purchased immediately. If an additional link was sufficient to negate a violation of the provision in no. 28, the provision which is intended to protect children could, in the court's opinion, be circumvented easily. According to the FSC, advertising on the Internet has a more significant suggestive effect for children as consumers compared with advertising in print media, because purchases can be made immediately and it is not necessary to go to a store or to place an order in writing or by telephone first.
This decision will require a very careful review of the language used in advertising, not just by games companies, but also by other companies, that enables children to make purchases online. Interestingly, the court does not consider isolated uses of the second person singular in German language advertising as sufficient to find illicit advertising directed at children, but the continued use of this form together with customary English language terms used by children, and adolescents in this specific case, was found to violate the provision in no. 28 of the Act. To mitigate or eliminate the risk of similar attacks by competitors or consumer protection associations in Germany, the use of the second person singular should be limited or reduced as much as possible, and the other terminology used should be reviewed to sound more characteristic of adults. The decision, which has now been published, does not define precisely the borderline between permitted and illicit wording used, but it does provide some guidance that should be used to reduce the respective risks.
In our view, the "free to play" model is therefore not quite defunct in Germany. However, wording used in advertising relating to this model needs to be addressed to a more educated and older audience to avoid negative outcomes in litigation, such as that suffered by Gameforge.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Edit Lunes 10 de Febrero de 2014

Pueden utilizar el traductor que está en la columna del márgen derecho de la pantalla

El artículo que muestro a continuación está en alemán y viene a indicar que la STC del Tribunal Federal ha levantado gran revuelo entre la industria del juego y que GameFoge presentará un recurso contra ella.

Gameforge había hecho campaña de Runes of Magic para la compra de artículos virtuales. Está más que claro que va dirigido a los niños según estiman los jueces (y también se puede mirar en los pantallazos de otros juegos como ikariam que aporto en otro post)

Alude a que no sólo Gameforge no está deacuerdo con el veredicto sino tamibién otros que tienen su medio de vida en este sector (lógico) como el abogado sindical y a la vez abogado de la Federación de Juegos de la industria de juegos de ordenador.

Por último indica que alrededor del 85 por ciento de los jugadores tienen una edad media de 32, argumento a mi juicio torpe, porque ello no indica que en el juego haya numeroso público infantil y juvenil y que haya jugadores hasta de más de 50 años y otros de 10 años.

Bundesgerichtshof Gameforge legt Einspruch gegen Duz-Urteil ein

Bei der Urteilsverkündung war Gameforge nicht anwesend, jetzt legt der Browser-Games-Publisher Einspruch ein: Der Bundesgerichtshof muss nun erneut prüfen, ob sich Werbung mit "Du" in Spielen generell an Kinder richtet.

Google-Anzeige

Bußgeldbescheid Einspruch

Einfach online Einspruch erheben. Erfahrener Fachanwalt hilft sofort!

blitzerkanzlei.de/Bussgeldbescheid

Als der Bundesgerichtshof am 17. Juli 2013 bestimmte Arten von Werbung für virtuelle Gegenstände in Onlinespielen untersagte, war der Hauptbetroffene nicht anwesend - und das, obwohl das Gericht weniger als fünf Kilometer vom Gameforge-Firmensitz in Karlsruhe entfernt liegt. Seitdem hat das Urteil Aufsehen erregt und viel Kritik aus der Spielebranche erhalten. Gameforge hat inzwischen Einspruch dagegen eingelegt.

Gameforge hatte in Runes of Magic für den Kauf virtueller Gegenstände unter anderem mit der Aussage geworben: "Schnapp dir die günstige Gelegenheit und verpasse deiner Rüstung & Waffen das gewisse 'Etwas'", darunter waren die unterstrichenen Wörter "deinen Charakter aufzuwerten" angegeben, die mit einer Internetseite verlinkt waren, auf der Gameforge die Gegenstände zu herabgesetzten Preisen anbot. Der Text sei eindeutig auch an Kinder gerichtet, so die Richter, was unter anderem an der Wortwahl erkennbar sei.

Der BGH folgte der Argumentation des Klägers, der Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (Vzvb), und erklärte derartige Werbung für unzulässig. Falls Gameforge sie erneut schaltet, droht ein Ordnungsgeld von bis zu 250.000 Euro oder Haft von bis zu sechs Monaten für den Vorstand des Unternehmens.

Nicht nur Gameforge ist mit dem Urteil nicht einverstanden. So schreibt Dr. Konstantin Bertram, Verbandsjustiziar und Rechtsanwalt des Game Bundesverband der Computerspielindustrie, in einer Stellungnahme, das Urteil des BGH zeige, wie wenig "Bezug Richter, die über diese Materie in letzter Instanz zu entscheiden haben, mitunter zu Computerspielen haben".

Es sei offensichtlich, "dass der beschriebene Sprachstil für dieses Medium generell kennzeichnend" sei. Man müsse "schon recht unbedarft an das Thema herangehen", um anzunehmen, dass Computerspiele ihre Kernzielgruppe bei Kindern unter 14 Jahren fänden. "Studien belegen nämlich etwas vollkommen anderes: Rund 85 Prozent aller Spieler von Computerspielen sind keine Kinder, und das Durchschnittsalter liegt bei circa 32 Jahren", so der Verband.

http://www.golem.de/news/bundesgerichtshof-gameforge-legt-einspruch-gegen-duz-urteil-ein-1401-103811.html