Articles Posted in Virtual Currency

Posted

by

Target’s recent launch of a program to sell gift cards redeemable for Facebook Credits or in the virtual world Poptropica towards either membership fees or the purchase of virtual currency further blurs the line (to the extent there still was one) between in-worldfacebookx-large.jpgcurrency and real-world currency. Facebook and Zynga agreed earlier this year that players of Zynga games (such as Farmville) can use Facebook Credits to buy virtual goods, but there is no reason why real-world retailers looking to attract Facebook users and create online buzz couldn’t set up exclusive deals for Facebook Credits. Steve Richards has an interesting post at ecoconsultancy.com on just that topic – he even questions how long it will be before sites that enable you to buy, sell and trade virtual currencies become regulated exchanges.

As the line between virtual and real-world currencies disappears, there are a host of legal issues that virtual world operators will need to deal with. As we noted in this post, because of laws like the CARD Act and various state, local and even international laws and regulations related to the use of stored value cards and accounts, it is important to ensure that if you are offering virtual currency as part of your business model, you verify that you are in compliance with federal, state and international laws.

For more information on legal issues with virtual currencies see our

Overview of Legal Issues with Virtual Currencies.

Posted

by

gucci.jpgIn Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp., No. 09 Civ. 6925 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010), a New York court denied a motion to dismiss contributory trademark infringement claims brought against the defendant credit card processing companies by Gucci. The court held that credit card processing companies may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement under the relevant Supreme Court test. See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844 (1982).

The court held that defendants (and others) who provide service to websites that sell counterfeit goods can be liable if the plaintiff can show that they:

(1) intentionally induced the website to infringe through the sale of counterfeit goods; or (2) knowingly supplied services to websites and had sufficient control over infringing activity to merit liability.

The court’s decision relied on the “willful blindness” standard set forth in Tiffany v. eBay, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) and distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) due to the fact that in this case, unlike in Perfect 10, the infringement relied on credit card services because the infringement was based on the sale of tangible counterfeit products.

This and other recent cases highlights the need for credit card companies and other payment providers to carefully assess the steps they can and should take to limit liability for trademark infringement and other liabilities.

Posted

by

Often names can be misleading. So it is potentially the case with the federal CARD Act that will come into effect in August 2010. Although the name implies that it applies to cards such as stored value cards and gift cards, this Federal law will apply more broadly and has provisions that impact virtual currency models. In particular, this act mandates minimum levels of consumer protection for fees, forfeiture and other issues that can arise in connection with virtual currency accounts.

With regard to the minimum protection imposed by this federal law, states are free to adopt their own regulations to provide even greater protection. Now more than ever it is important to ensure that if you are offering virtual currency as part of your business model, that you ensure that you are in compliance with federal, state and international laws.

Posted

by

According to a report from Global Times, the Ministry of Culture (MOC) issued an explanation on new rules which prevent gaming-related virtual currencies such as Tencent’s Q-bucks from entering into circulation as real money. According to the report, the rules were released on June 3, 2010 and will go into effect in August. The regulations are intended to protect kids from fraud or other issues that might arise with virtual currencies. Additionally, anyone who issues or trades virtual currency must apply for a license.

This is not the first time China has been on the leading edge of virtual currency related issues. For example, in November 2008, we reported that China was one of the first countries issuing guidance on the taxation of virtual transactions.

The requirement to have a license to issue or trade virtual currencies is not unique to China. Similar laws apply in the US. But as the use and dollar volume of virtual currency transactions increases, so too will the regulation and the enforcement of existing regulations.

If you are issuing or trading virtual currencies, it is important to understand the legal ramifications and requirements.

Posted

by

In a recently filed complaint (Actus Complaint.pdf), a patent holding company has sued over a dozen major companies for alleged patent infringement. The suit alleges infringement of 4 patents that relate to virtual currency or “electronic tokens”. The patents include United States Patent No. 7,328,189; 7,249,099; 7,177,838; and 7,177,838.

The defendants in the case include Discover Financial Svcs.; Electronic Arts, Inc.; Home Depot, Inc.; Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; McDonald’s Corp.; Moneygram Int’l, Inc.; News Corp.; Recreational Equipment, Inc.; Sears Holding Corp.; Simon Property Group; Starbucks Corp.; Target Corp.; The Sports Authority, Inc.; The TJX Companies, Inc.; The Gap, Inc.; Yum! Brands, Inc.; Zynga Game Network, Inc.; ACE Cash Express, Inc.; Brinker Int’l, Inc.; and Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Given the rapidly increasing use of virtual currency and alternative forms of micropayments, it is not surprising to see more patent litigation. But patent infringement is but one legal concern when using virtual currency. A whole host of legal issues impact virtual currency. Pillsbury’s Virtual Worlds and Video Game team has prepared an advisory on legal issues with virtual currency. Virtual Currency.pdf

Posted

by

Linden Research Inc. and its CE Philip Rosedale have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit relating to the ownership status of virtual property in Second Life, the popular virtual world in which users can realize significant gains from buying and selling virtual real estate (land and buildings), virtual clothing, and other virtual goods. In Second Life, transactions are implemented using virtual currency provided by Linden called Linden Dollars. These dollars can be earned and bought and sold, including via the LindeX, the official Second Life Linden Dollar exchange.

A significant issue in this case is the status of ownership of virtual goods and virtual currency and the conditions, if any, upon which a user may be denied access to them for violations of the terms of service agreement.

The class members allege that Linden and Rosedale duped users into spending vast sums of money to acquire virtual real estate and other goods, by representing that they would own all rights in the virtual items that they acquired, alleging that users could make real money and that the virtual items would have real value. The complaint alleges that Linden has modified its statements over time and at some point terminated the class members accounts, taking virtual items and currency (both virtual and real) in their accounts without compensation to the members and denying them access thereto.

The complaint goes beyond just alleging property rights violations. It alleges the members were falsely induced into investing in virtual items by defendants. And it alleges that these actions were part of a “continuing and systematic plan and scheme using the national wires and mail intended to, and in fact causing to, defraud Plaintiffs… out of thousands of dollars…”

Of course, one significant issue here will be the Terms of Service (TOS) to which the complaint acknowledges users must click “I Agree” to use Second Life. The Complaint recognizes the TOS, which Defendants will likely fall back on, but alleges that it is “nothing more than a contract of adhesion” that is not read by consumers and that Linden can change the terms at will, even after a user has invested thousands of dollars.

A recent version of the Second Life TOS includes the following non-exhaustive list of provisions, at least some of which may come into play here:

You agree that Linden Lab has and may exercise the right in its sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or delete any Content or services from the Service or disable any user’s access to the Service without notice or liability to you or any other party, including upon our belief that such user’s conduct, Content, services, or use of the Service is potentially illegal, threatening, or otherwise harmful to any user or other person or in violation of our Terms of Service, Community Standards, or other policies.

The Service includes a component of virtual tokens (“Linden dollars” or “L$”), each of which constitutes a limited license permission to use features of our Service as set forth below.

When you acquire a Linden dollar, Linden Lab hereby grants you a limited license (“Linden Dollar License”) to use the Linden dollar as a virtual token to be held, bartered, traded and/or transferred in Second Life with other users (and/or Linden Lab), in exchange for permission to access and use Content, applications, services, and various user-created features, in accordance with these Terms of Service. The Linden Dollar License is transferable by the holder to any other user, provided that both users comply with these Terms of Service, maintain their Accounts in good standing, and are not delinquent on any Account payment requirements.

Linden Lab may revoke the Linden Dollar License at any time without notice, refund or compensation in the event that: (i) the Linden dollar program is suspended or discontinued; (ii) Linden Lab determines that fraud or other illegal conduct is associated with the holder’s Account; (iii) Linden Lab imposes an expiration date on usage of Linden dollars in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; (iv) the holder’s Account is terminated for violation of these Terms of Service; or (v) the holder becomes delinquent on any of that user’s Account payment requirements, ceases to maintain an active Account or terminates this Agreement.

You acknowledge that Linden dollars are not real currency or any type of financial instrument and are not redeemable for any sum of money from Linden Lab at any time. You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, and/or modify the license rights underlying such Linden dollars as it sees fit and that Linden Lab will have no liability to you based on its exercise of this right. Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars, or the availability or supply of Linden dollars.

The complaint makes numerous references to a prior suit by Marc Bragg against Linden, over termination of his account for allegedly using an exploit to acquire land more cheaply in violation of the TOS.

If this case does not settle, it could provide some legal guidance on numerous issues relating to the scope and enforceability of Terms and Service and ownership of virtual goods and property.

A copy of the complaint can be found here Evans v Linden Research.pdf

Posted

by

On April 8, 2010, Zynga sued Playerauctions.com for operating a website that provides an unauthorized “Secondary Market” for enabling Zynga game users to post and sell “Virtual Currency” and “Virtual Goods” allegedly in violation of Zynga’s Terms of Service. According to Zynga, its Terms of Service prohibits users from selling “Virtual Currency” or “Virtual Goods” for real-world money or anything of value outside of its games.

A recent version of the Zynga Terms of Service states:

The Service may include a virtual, in-game currency (“Virtual Currency”) including, but not limited to coins, cash, or points, that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money if you are a legal adult in your country of residence. The Service may also include virtual, in-game digital items (“Virtual Goods”) that may be purchased from Zynga for “real world” money or for Virtual Currency. Regardless of the terminology used, Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods may never be redeemed for “real world” money, goods or other items of monetary value from Zynga or any other party.

It further states:

Transfers of Virtual Currencies and Virtual Goods are strictly prohibited except where explicitly authorized within the Service. Outside of the game, you may not buy or sell any Virtual Currency or Virtual Goods for “real world” money or otherwise exchange items for value. Any attempt to do so is in violation of these Terms and may result in a lifetime ban from Zynga Service and possible legal action.

Zynga alleges that the Playerauctions.com has committed copyright and trademark infringement (along with false designation of origin, unfair competition and other claims) by displaying and/reproducing images and code from the games and using various Zynga trademarks with authorization.

The Complaint identifies unlawful sales in connection with Zynga’s Poker, Mafia Wars and FarmVille games. A recent review of the Playerauctions.com site showed over 750 Mafia Wars related items alone available for sale ranging in unit price from 25 cents to $900 and 84 entire “accounts” for sale ranging in asking price from $30 to $5,000 with one listed at a whopping $492,000!

Interestingly, Zynga does not specifically allege impropriety with or seek to prevent the outright sale of accounts.