AlexF wrote: »
I had remembered reading something about this before about a game developer being sued because of the content. Unfortunately, it appears precedent has been set already for this to not be a viable lawsuit;
"In dismissing the case, US district Judge Edward Johnstone said the video-game makers could not foresee what Michael, then 14, would do. He also said the games are media not subject to product-liability law."
You can look up his opinion, but most likely this would be the ruling that other judges would use in dismissing the case. You are correct; if something were to happen, it would be a tricky liability case, and would probably not look great in terms of media coverage.
I would hope parents are overseeing what children are doing on the internet, and if they come across this item.. that they take a moment to explain to their children how helium can be dangerous when inhaled.
DarkPassengers, you don't need to mock somebody for having an opinion of something. In fact, when you do - it makes you look very small and doesn't reinforce your opinions in the least.
Hyoretsu wrote: »
A man stole a truck and kidnapped a woman because he was reenacting GTA. Was GTA sued by this? No. Why whould they. Kids from the 60s used to watch The Woody Woodpecker Show. The Woody Woodpecker Show had guns. Did the kids grabbed a gun and started shooting people? No. Even if they did, it wouldn't the show's fault.
the thing is, it's not an opinion that nexon wouldnt be liable for a kid's action.
Thats what Im saying, reject null hypothesis. She or he has no evidence to support the claim that nexon would be held accountable, op mentioned speaking with a lawyer, but that doesnt prove anything, i can say the same thing and say the lawyer i spoke to says the opposite.