“There are two possibilities,” Mr. Frank said of the settlement. “Possibility one is they have a meritorious lawsuit and they’re selling out the class for attorneys’ fees. The other possibility is that, and frankly I think this is the more likely possibility, they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all.”And from the plaintiffs' lawyers, a statement that causes me to question who let this lawyer speak in public. Ever. About anything:
In documents filed on Friday, Mr. Lesser and other lawyers who brought the case argued that Mr. Frank was barred from attacking the settlement. They wrote that because Mr. Frank had said he was not offended by the scenes, he could not have a stake in the lawsuit.Um, no. It makes you a jackass who makes the rest of us look bad.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers said that Take-Two would make a charitable donation to the video game industry’s ratings board under the settlement and argued that there was no way to know beforehand that so few people would apply for compensation under the settlement.
Besides, the lawyers argue, if the lawsuit had no merit, should that not make the settlement that much more impressive?
Of course, all this leaves aside the substance of the litigation: delicate people offended by a game called GRAND THEFT AUTO. And, of course, parents who bought the game for their children because video games are for kids the way that animation is for kids, right. After all, you couldn't, like, animate something not-child appropriate, right? That's crazy talk!
As Amber pointed out, too, there's a certain jaw-dropping brilliance to the mother who, during deposition, said that she was aware there was killing in the game, but she wasn't aware of the stealing.
T H E F T
Ugh. Just UGH. Ugh.