Help support TMP

"GW being sued..." Topic

88 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Warhammer Message Board

Back to the Mordheim Message Board

Back to the 28mm Fantasy Message Board

Back to the 28mm Sci-Fi Message Board

Back to the Hobby Industry Message Board

Areas of Interest

Science Fiction

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

GF9 Fire and Explosion Markers

Looking for a way to mark explosions or fire?

8,830 hits since 7 Aug 2017
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Dave Jackson07 Aug 2017 9:44 a.m. PST

Learned this today via Henry Hyde on Twitter:


Pictors Studio07 Aug 2017 10:03 a.m. PST

I saw that earlier on r/Warhammer40K.

His arguments seem almost retarded in most cases. The one about the plastic figure cost/sales is particularly remarkable. Imagine what they would say about electronically distributed video games where the material cost is actually nothing or close to it and they try to sell them for $50 USD or more.

Winston Smith07 Aug 2017 10:06 a.m. PST

"Tortious Interference".
I learned a new word today. It's not as sexy as I thought it would be.
As for the price of a Grey Wolves Librarian… Well, that's why I play American Revolution. grin

One can be obnoxious without being illegal.

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 10:08 a.m. PST

Those claims are a little tenuous. It takes very, very little to file a lawsuit like this. I guess we'll see where it goes.

Puddinhead Johnson07 Aug 2017 10:12 a.m. PST

Those claims are a little tenuous.

They're not just a little tenuous. They're ridiculous. It's just a bunch of legal terms mashed together.

Most if not all of the claims will be dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion that GW's attorneys will almost certainly file.

dsfrank07 Aug 2017 10:18 a.m. PST

I suspect that the GW legal team will put a quick end to these accusations

YogiBearMinis07 Aug 2017 11:15 a.m. PST

These sorts of suits, by people who have no idea what they are doing, are sometimes harder to get rid of than you think because courts feel the need to bend over backwards so as to make sure they understand what the heck the lawsuits are saying before dismissing them. A well-written and argued lousy argument is easier to defeat than a poorly-phrased and organized mish-mash of legal and factual nonsense.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 11:50 a.m. PST

This guy doesn't have to do business with GW, does he ?

Cacique Caribe07 Aug 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

$62.5 USD million? I love it when people give such specific monetary figures on their outrageous demands.

Is that really how much they claim they lost because of GW's practices?


Martian Root Canal07 Aug 2017 12:32 p.m. PST

This is the actual complaint:

PDF link

After reading it, in my opinion, much of it is 'speculative' on the part of the plaintiff. He does his case little good with the writing (e.g., 110% rip-off), but some of his claims have merit in light of FTC rules. You can read it and judge for yourself. Whenever I see these types of post, it's always best to go to the actual suit itself.

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 12:45 p.m. PST

Then again sounds like he may have copied tactics from GW trying to protect their supposed unique Space Marine name. Along with all the other lawsuits over the years – it will be interesting to see how this turns out



While I totally abhor frivolous law suits – maybe GW has earned this one

Psycho Rabbit07 Aug 2017 1:27 p.m. PST

GW's practices were a big reason I closed my doors. I still feel back-stabbed after all these years.


Oberlindes Sol LIC Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 2:44 p.m. PST

On style: Plaintiff in propria persona has an "LLM in law", but apparently has never done any serious legal writing.

No comment on substance: I'm not being paid for it!

JMcCarroll Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 2:58 p.m. PST

Well do to GW pricing we pay more for all miniatures!
How many companies now use GW business models?
Hoping they get hit for one or two of the smaller lawsuits.
No one likes a bully.

Pictors Studio07 Aug 2017 3:19 p.m. PST

"How many companies now use GW business models?"

The ones that come to lead the industry and stay in business generally.

Cacique Caribe07 Aug 2017 4:24 p.m. PST

Lol. So is GW going to get tons of money when the world's national space agencies start calling their troops on spacecraft "space marines"?


Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 6:18 p.m. PST

I also wonder how many FLGS really turn over $62.5 USD million.

YogiBearMinis07 Aug 2017 6:33 p.m. PST

There are at least two distinct issues here: (1) whether GW engages in some business practices which are illegal; and (2) whether this looney and his "manifesto" of a legal pleading will get anywhere. The answer to the first is perhaps "Maybe," but the answer to the second is almost assuredly, "No."

DesertScrb07 Aug 2017 6:57 p.m. PST

This petition is wrong on so many levels--legally, factually, grammatically ….

Oh, it's Florida Man. That explains it.

Lion in the Stars07 Aug 2017 7:08 p.m. PST

RICO is a big stick to beat a company with, the Feds love it. Especially since the RICO statute says 'three legal violations in the last 10 years' and anyone who has been through an OSHA inspection has at least that many. But it allows for triple damages.

DesertScrb07 Aug 2017 7:16 p.m. PST

It's not RICO: link

Mitochondria07 Aug 2017 8:48 p.m. PST

A GW thread and Pictors is in here white knighting as usual.

May they lose and lose big.

YogiBearMinis07 Aug 2017 8:52 p.m. PST

Guys, before you start analogizing too closely to the results in the Chapterhouse case, be aware that Chapterhouse was able to get a huge corporate law firm, Winston & Strawn, to represent it pro bono--a firm as good or better than the firm representing GW. Our friend du jour has no such corporate allies helping him against GW, and unless a white knight appears, don't hold your breath waiting for his victory.

Crazyivanov07 Aug 2017 9:36 p.m. PST

Honestly, having had long and illuminating conversations with FLGS owners in my homeland (Midwest USA), this actually makes sense. I mean sure, the lawsuit is a bit mental, but honestly, this is a good thing! It's going to force GW to defend their IP and make changes.

Personally I hope they are forced to admit every time they lost a license and just re-released the same minis in a new line (Morcock and Runequest literally creating Warhammer Fantasy for one).

cherrypicker08 Aug 2017 1:28 a.m. PST

Can I say one thing, I am not surprised this has come from America, people seem to sue for anything, (my coffee was hot, I was not expecting that).


Patrick R08 Aug 2017 2:09 a.m. PST

This whole thing sounds like a disillusioned fanboy who thinks he can take revenge on GW and is going to have his ass handed him on a platter.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 6:09 a.m. PST

I suppose if they lost GW could just withdraw from the market place completely in the USA and supply everything by mail order from Canada. Or Mexico.

TheDesertBox08 Aug 2017 6:56 a.m. PST

Let's look at the facts of the strongest charge (i.e. most likely to succeed) in the suit: price-fixing.

GW is absolutely engaged in vertical price fixing. The current "15% off MSRP" policy is all the proof necessary. However, in State Oil Co vs. Khan, the Supreme Court basically said vertical price fixing is sorta-kinda-illegal. It all comes down to the judge and the respective legal teams proving whether the scheme affects competition in the industry or not. As previously stated, unless the plaintiff gets some better legal counsel, I do not think this is going far.

Pictors Studio08 Aug 2017 7:12 a.m. PST

"Hmm, I only know of Battlefront and their Flames of War that uses the same Business model."

That isn't surprising. It seems that you know frightfully little about the gaming industry.

"This whole thing sounds like a disillusioned fanboy who thinks he can take revenge on GW and is going to have his ass handed him on a platter."

Yes, that seems to happen a lot, especially online.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 4:57 p.m. PST

Okay so which other gaming companies are changing up their rules every 2-4 years.

Seems like the car companies bring out a new model every year….

Ivan DBA08 Aug 2017 5:00 p.m. PST

If any of you knows a lawyer who could use a good laugh, email them a copy of the Complaint for their amusement. From a legal standpoint, it's a joke. Which is not to say that GW has always been a saint, but the law requires more than just showing that a company has been a jerk.

Personal logo Frank Wang Sponsoring Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 6:03 p.m. PST

Honestly, i don't like GW. Warhammer is a very good game and it could be better, but see what GW has done since 2011, he ruined it.

Pictors Studio08 Aug 2017 6:31 p.m. PST

"But for GW rules if you want to stay up to date and be able to play games with others you are forced to buy the latest Edition."

I play 3rd edition still and find others to play with.

"Oh and in Civil Court you actually have to prove that you did not do the things you are said to have done."

Wow, you know the law less well than you know gaming.

"The Burdened will be on GW not the individual bringing the lawsuit."

The burden is a balance, it isn't like criminal law where the defendant is assumed to be innocent and the prosecution has to prove its case. In civil suits it is based on preponderance of evidence.

So the "Burdened" will not be on GW. The "Burdened" will be on both sides to show their case has more merit than the other side.

Pictors Studio08 Aug 2017 6:41 p.m. PST

"Okay so which other gaming companies are changing up their rules every 2-4 years."

Warmachine 1: 2003, 1.5: 2007, 2: 2010. 3: 2016

Bolt Action 1: 2012 2: 2016

Infinity 1:2005, 2: 2012, 3: 2014, 3.5: 2016

X-Wing: 1: 2012, 2: 2015

Looks like even Fantasy Flight is following the GW model.

"GW makes a large chunk of it money by releasing new Editions – thus forcing their customers to spend around $150 USD USD – $200 USD USD every 3-4 years."

I'm one of their customers. I don't spend that much on rules every 3-4 years. I haven't bought a space marine codex, for example, since 1998, although I might buy the new one.

You aren't forced to buy anything.

Only people who have been brain washed by GW like you feel forced to buy stuff.

DesertScrb08 Aug 2017 6:50 p.m. PST

The burden of proof will not be on Games Workshop (if by a longshot this case actually made it to trial). In civil suits the burden is on the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did wrong. This plaintiff can't even string coherent sentences together, much less put forth a winning legal argument.

Lion in the Stars08 Aug 2017 8:16 p.m. PST

Can I say one thing, I am not surprised this has come from America, people seem to sue for anything, (my coffee was hot, I was not expecting that).

No, the damages were 3rd Degree Burns (as in, total loss of skin) to a grandmother's crotch because the styrofoam cup literally melted under the heat of 200degF coffee. Ok, a contributing factor was the lack of cupholders in the (IIRC, brand new) car, which lead to the injured grandmother holding the cup between her legs while she needed both hands to pull the top off the cup to add cream and sugar.

The temperature the coffee was served at was dangerously high AND the cup was inadequate to hold any liquid at that temperature. Also, that was at least the 5th case of emergency-room trips for burned skin from spilled McDonald's coffee *that year*.

Which is why that granny won a really big lawsuit.

Tortious Interference with Business is a pretty simple case to make, though. It can be done by something as simple as changing contract terms, though the usual method is to offer someone more money to do their thing at a different location when they already had a contract to do their thing at your place.

Pictors Studio09 Aug 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

So the real story finally comes out:


Bob Runnicles09 Aug 2017 12:02 p.m. PST

"Games Workshop has rejected the suit as frivolous, insisting that their products are perfectly affordable for even relatively small countries."

"Obviously Greece has had some small trouble meeting the payments on the Warhound Titan miniature that they bought in 2007, but we're confident that only a few more years of crippling austerity will see that cleared."


Thomas Thomas09 Aug 2017 1:30 p.m. PST

Sorry for the side track: re McDonalds, the coffee was shown to be served at very high temperatures (quite dangerous to consume). McDonalds had paid off several similar (though less severe injury cases – cheaper to pay off injured folks than fix the problem). The very high original verdict (much reduced on appeal) did have the positive effect of getting McDonalds to fix the problem rather than pay off the injured.

Jury sent a message – it go received. Its one of the reasons consumer products are generally quite safe – in the US.


Personal logo EccentricTodd Sponsoring Member of TMP09 Aug 2017 1:52 p.m. PST

From "Pictors Studio" link

"A Florida man is suing Games Workshop for US$62.5m or one starting Ultramarines army, ‘whichever is more'"

GW just needs to make and ultra rare single copy only space marine army for a hundred million.

Give it to him, and let him pay the 6.0% taxes on the gift.

Borathan09 Aug 2017 4:00 p.m. PST

Oddly enough a little over a decade ago, I would have been more supportive of this kind of lawsuit because GW was operating with a lure and burn method that still has aftershocks going from.

The ever increasing amount of required floor space followed by then burning the local stores by opening their own up in the area and refusing to sell to the local stores…

However, GW seems to be getting less short sighted on that end.

On another topic the "LLM in Law" is, from what I've been told, still a major legal degree, just one that points towards being qualified to teach law rather than just practice…

StarCruiser09 Aug 2017 6:53 p.m. PST

I didn't look at every comment here so, take this as it's offered.

This issue isn't just about the gaming market. The internet has changed just about every type of industry in one way or another. Those that adapt to those changes will thrive and those who choose to fight, will always loose.

I'm into models, in addition to gaming, and I don't know how many times I've heard this "The Internet is unfair competition because they don't have to collect sales taxes." or some other sillyness.

The basic issue is this – with the internet, you can reach more potential customers. That's it…

Because of that, you MUST be competitive to survive. Those old Hobby and Game shops that refused to adapt are mostly gone now.

That's also happening to the companies that make products for those markets. There's literally nothing that anyone can do to stop that change, it's done. Get it gear or go out of business…

The H Man Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2017 2:01 a.m. PST

I have felt my beloved Escher were a knock off of my other fav female gangers the kangs. Also necromunda a knock off of paradise towers, in part. Both doctor who by the way.

Poniatowski Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2017 4:43 a.m. PST

Wow….. well… the actual law suit is not BS…. everything he cites is actually true.. and the burden of proof, well.. much of that is cited in the argument/case….

I have always said.. they don't own a lot of the terms they claimed are their IP….. even into their other games…. Like Uli & Marquand….. for Mordheim.. they are clearly "imitation" Fafnihr and the Gray Mouser (sp)….

I doubt this case will go anywhere…. but he does have some legitimate arguments…. but it comes down to this.. did GW BUY said copy rights and at what point does something become your OWN creation even though it is "inspired" by something that already exists….

This is a HUGE catch 22 for GW though….. because IF they prove their innocents…. when very clearly they have taken ideas from other IP's and made them their own… then they basically shoot themselves in the foot for all of their "cease and desist" letters they have slapped on folks, like the bunker lady, etc…. folks who imitate THEIR IP's….. and make them their own….

This is bigger than it appears and I think lot of folks are missing the point here…. it isn't to make a case against GW as it is a case where GW will have to confront that they cannot bully others who "imitate" THEIR products….because in proving their innocents here…. they will be opening the door for others to LEGALLY imitate them and their terms….

I could be wrong though….

Poniatowski Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2017 4:49 a.m. PST

@ Pictor… that is laughable… GW actually said their stuff is AFFORDABLE.. even in smaller countries???? OK, now that is a flat out lie, unless the US is just being charged more….. affordable is all relative though… in a world where folks don't bat an eye at a $5 USD coffee….. there is some merit in this….. I guess gaming is just for the wealthy or those that are NOT so fiscally minded.

I still say the wording of the actual linked lawsuit makes a LOT of sense…. sorry, GW has been ripping off others IP and getting away with it and then going after anyone who remotely creates something that resembles their own.. they need a kick in the crotch and a wake up call….

Jerrod10 Aug 2017 9:21 a.m. PST

""everything he cites is actually true"""

even the bit where he says "110% rip-off"… ?

YogiBearMinis10 Aug 2017 2:31 p.m. PST

Guys, to sue someone you have to have what is called "standing" which means that you actually suffered an injury. No FLGS owner has standing to assert issues about GW's intellectual property or lack thereof--GW is not "stealing" the FLGS owner's IP, nor is GW suing the FLGS owner over their alleged infringement of GW's IP.

For example, assume the McDonald's Big Mac was a ripoff of a Dairy Queen hamburger. If I am a McDonald's franchisee, upset about how much McDonald's makes me pay for buns, ovens, and how much to charge customers, I have no standing to also sue McDonald's over whether or not the Big Mac is an illegal ripoff of Dairy Queen's burger. I have no dog in that fight, so to speak.

So all of you excited about GW's ripoff of various characters, names, ideas, etc., relax. This lawsuit will not get to those issues.

Personal logo EccentricTodd Sponsoring Member of TMP10 Aug 2017 5:35 p.m. PST

I saw a post on you tube about it, he lost me at the cost of plastics and markup justification…

Yes, the plastic sprue may only have 3 cents of plastic (I guess more like 5-10 cents myself). But that doesn't add up. There are other costs, like paying someone to sculpt the mini, paying another person to cut it up and make is into the mold.

I hope he wins, I will then apply this legal precedent to fancy restaurant car dealerships and theme parks.

Syrinx010 Aug 2017 7:20 p.m. PST

Scott, that link was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

alpha3six10 Aug 2017 7:55 p.m. PST

I saw a post on you tube about it, he lost me at the cost of plastics and markup justification…

Yes, the plastic sprue may only have 3 cents of plastic (I guess more like 5-10 cents myself). But that doesn't add up. There are other costs, like paying someone to sculpt the mini, paying another person to cut it up and make is into the mold.

Yes I hate the "material cost" pricing argument. Books should only be worth the paper they're printed on, and intangible goods should be free. Incidentally, lawyers don't make anything so their services should be free.

Incidentally does anyone else find it ridiculous when someone levels accusations of intellectual property infringement while insisting a miniature is only worth the plastic it's cast from?

Pages: 1 2