Subscribe To Pokemon Go Is Being Sued, Again Updates
Pokemon Go has become the most popular game of any type throughout most of the world. When something gets that popular, lawsuits are sure to pop up, but now they're getting a little out of hand. We can understand people who are upset if the game leads people to trespass on their private property, but now somebody is suing to keep people from gathering on public land that happens to be near their house.
A couple who lives in a suburb of Detroit has reportedly filed suit against both Nintendo, and Pokemon Go developer Niantic Labs, because the game is making them miserable. According to the Detroit Free Press, Scott and Jayme Dodich are upset because Wahby Park, which is across the street from their house is a PokeStop, and as such, it's getting a lot more traffic than it usually does. The suit seeks to prevent the game from designating PokeStops at or near private property without the owners' permission. It also wants to force Niantic to share the profits from the game with homeowners whose yards and streets have, allegedly, contributed to the game's success.
We completely understand the frustration of the people whose front lawns were randomly made PokeStops, however, there needs to be a line drawn at some point. Public property is just that, public. The park is there for public use, regardless of whether the people in it are playing a cell phone game, or baseball. As far as we can tell, the park was there when these folks bought their house, so the fact that people might use it was always a possibility.
The plaintiffs in this case, whose class action lawsuit has been filed in federal court in California, where Niantic Labs is based, claim that they do not feel safe sitting on their front porch anymore because of all the people. Although, the story does not mention any specific problem that has occurred to make them feel this way. It really just sounds like people are using a park, and the neighbors don't like it. We hope somebody doesn't start a kids soccer league in that park, the neighbors will apparently lose their minds.
The other aspect of the suit, that the Dodiches think they should make money off of Pokemon Go, seems antithetical to the other part of their lawsuit. If there was an argument to be made, that citizens should make money from the game for letting their homes be used as PokeStops, surely that would only be if they were in favor of their home being used. You don't get it both ways. Either you can argue that you should be paid for your property being used, or you can argue that your property should not be used.
Is there anything resembling a valid argument here? Let us know what you think.