Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 28, 2014, 01:31:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just got this email in my Inbox....  (Read 726 times)
Nails
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25846


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVI2DmLI2Q


View Profile
« on: April 06, 2011, 04:26:02 PM »

Incase any getbigger wanna get a couple cents





Legal Notice from U.S. District Court: EA Sports Class Action



From:
"EA Sports Litigation" <ClassActionNotice@EASportslitigation.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
 

To view this email as a web page, click here.
GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.
U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.)
Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW

If You Purchased Certain Electronic Arts Brand Football Video Games
Between January 1, 2005 to the Present
You May Be a Class Member.

Membership as a class member in the Electronic Arts Litigation is the result of a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division (Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW).

What Is This Class Action About?
The class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's antitrust and consumer protection laws in connection with the sale of certain football video games. Plaintiffs, purchasers of Electronic Arts' football video games, claim that Defendant Electronic Arts entered into a series of exclusive licenses with the National Football League (NFL), National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA), National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), and Arena Football League (AFL), which Plaintiffs claim foreclosed competition in an alleged football video game market. Plaintiffs allege that this series of exclusive licenses caused customers who purchased certain football video games to be overcharged.
Defendant Electronic Arts has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct. The Court has not decided whether the Defendants did anything wrong, and this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party to this litigation.

Who Are Class Members?
The Class includes all persons who, during the period January 1, 2005 to the present, purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football League brand video games published by Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005 to the present. Excluded from the class are purchasers of software for mobile devices, persons purchasing directly from Electronic Arts, persons purchasing used copies of the relevant football video games, and Electronic Arts' employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

What Should I Do? (Getting Further Information)
If you believe that you may be a class member (see above "Who Are Class Members"), you should get more detailed information about the class action and its potential effect on you and your rights. Further information can be obtained by going to the following website: www.easportslitigation.c om. Additional information about the lawsuit may be obtained from Plaintiffs' Counsel website at www.hbsslaw.com, or by calling Plaintiffs' Counsel at 1-206-623-7292.

To Remain a Class Member
If you are a class member and you do nothing, you will be bound by the court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final Settlement or Judgment.

To Exclude Yourself from the Class
(Deadline to Request Exclusion: June 25, 2011)
If you are a class member and you want to exclude yourself from the class and keep your right to sue Defendant, you must take further action before June 25, 2011. By that date, you must request exclusion in writing to this address:
Electronic Arts Litigation Exclusion
P.O. Box 8090
San Rafael CA 94912-8090

Or submit a request for exclusion electronically at the following website: www.easportslitigation.c om

For further information about excluding yourself from the class go to the following website:
www.easportslitigation.c om

Please do not telephone or address inquiries to the Court.
April 6, 2011. By Order of the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.).
Report to moderator   Logged
Jadeveon Clowney
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5959


The life is like a case of chocolate bonbon.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2011, 04:28:07 PM »

I'll be sending you e-mails from time to time too now.  Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Nails
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25846


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVI2DmLI2Q


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2011, 04:29:58 PM »

I'll be sending you e-mails from time to time too now.  Smiley


hahah thanks Clowney  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
HTexan
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13297


NEVER trust a soapy stud lover!!!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2011, 05:09:54 PM »

i got that too. So if they lose, i get like 3 cents?
Report to moderator   Logged

Allegedly.
Doug_Steele
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10641


I'm totally Brolic, bro!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2011, 05:25:06 PM »

I believe the allegations described in the complaint would constitute a "restraint on trade."  The Sherman Act, however, prohibits only agreements which result in an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Some restraints on trade are tolerated:  non-compete clauses (agreements not to work for any competitor for a specified period), for example, are routinely enforced despite being clear restraints on trade--provided that they are subject to reasonable time and distance limitations.

The question will likely be not whether the agreement between EA and the licensors constituted a restraint on trade but whether such restraint was unreasonable.  As I am not an anti-trust attorney, I cannot say whether EA engaged in any prohibited conduct but there is at least a vague case there.
Report to moderator   Logged

D
Jadeveon Clowney
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5959


The life is like a case of chocolate bonbon.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2011, 08:43:04 AM »

I believe the allegations described in the complaint would constitute a "restraint on trade."  The Sherman Act, however, prohibits only agreements which result in an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Some restraints on trade are tolerated:  non-compete clauses (agreements not to work for any competitor for a specified period), for example, are routinely enforced despite being clear restraints on trade--provided that they are subject to reasonable time and distance limitations.

The question will likely be not whether the agreement between EA and the licensors constituted a restraint on trade but whether such restraint was unreasonable.  As I am not an anti-trust attorney, I cannot say whether EA engaged in any prohibited conduct but there is at least a vague case there.

Uh, okay, clarence darrow.
Report to moderator   Logged
Doug_Steele
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10641


I'm totally Brolic, bro!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2011, 09:10:53 AM »

Uh, okay, clarence darrow.



 Cool
Report to moderator   Logged

D
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!