Take Two Sues Chicago Transit For Taking Down Grand Theft Auto IV Ads
from the now-the-ads-inspire-crime? dept
Take Two Interactive, the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV, have now sued the Chicago Transit Authority for taking down a series of ads for the video game that had appeared on the transit system. The Transit Authority took down the ads in response to a local news broadcast questioning the ads since there has supposedly been a wave of violent crime lately. So... now people think that just advertising GTA IV leads to crime? Considering there's no evidence that even playing the game leads to violence, what's wrong with the ads? It's hard to see why the CTA pulled the ads based on a silly, sensationalist news piece, though suing in response does seem a bit extreme as well. Of course, either way, now that it gets GTA IV back into the news cycle, Take Two may just be leveraging the Streisand Effect for all it's worth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, chicago, grand theft auto, lawsuit, streisand effect
Companies: chicago transit authority, take two interactive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The CTA needs the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm....
I don't mean as a frivilous lawsuit either, of course I would back off on the damages if there wasn't a legal leg to stand on, but getting my advertising budget back would be the first step. You can't ignore the economic costs though. By dropping 300k on the CTA ads they could have put them up in other areas/regions instead. I don't know of course how much sales momentum can cost (their analystis probably couldn't tell you either), but I'm sure they can put a few nice $$$ on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to sue for your money back
Typically if your ad is taken down without your consent you can ask for your money back, if the CTA was denying them that right the CTA would be in breach of contract and then it would be an open and closed case.
Regardless the CTA is screwed but my guess is that Take Two has jumped on the lawyer bandwagon to get free PR. Not that it isn't smart but all they need to do is talk to the vendor ask why the ads were pulled and then A) get a refund, or B) get their ads replaced free of charge (production/man hours to put them up) and get an extra X amount of time added to the campaign free of charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No need to sue for your money back
1. Breach of contract. Unless there was a clause in the original contract that specified that the CTA could take down the ads at any time, the contract would have been to have the billboards posted for X amount of time. Since they were taken down early, the contract was breached, which is a reasonable cause for a lawsuit.
2. Sale losses. Now, you can argue that GTA4 didn't need the billboards in order to sell the game in that area. However, Take Two didn't get the billboards for their health, it was advertising. The purpose of advertising is to increase sales. Since part of the advertising was removed, they can argue that sales were lost - requiring compensation.
3. Free speech and hypocrisy. Now, this is a little more nebulous, but hear me out. The ads were drawings of people in various poses. That's it. There was nothing suggestive of sex or violence in the pictures, and certainly nothing unsuitable for minors. The "problem" was simply that the product ultimately being advertised is not suitable for minors.
That's the can of worms that's opened here. You can probably walk around Chicago (I don't know as I've never been there, but I assume) and see advertisements for tampons, condoms, alcohol, R-rated movies, adult TV shows, bars/nightclubs, etc. None of these things are suitable for minors but their advertisements will usually be tolerated if they are not themselves unsuitable. By taking down advertisements because of some moral issue with the product rather than the advertisement, the CTA have placed themselves in the role of a de facto censor, which is unacceptable under free speech.
Given all of the above, your suggestions won't work. Since it's the product and not the advertisement that was the problem, no amount of free work will be OK - the ad could just be the game's logo and there would still be complaints. A refund is not acceptable due to the losses incurred by Take Two and the breach of contract. The CTA overstepped its bounds, and they are entitled to punishment for this even if just as a deterrent for future actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are they taking this down at?
I probably saw about 8 ad's on my 4 mile trip home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justified
It would be a different issue if there was anything unacceptable about the ads themselves, but since they were totally innocuous, Take Two deserve to win and take every penny back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They must be getting tired of it
Personally, if I were them, I'd jump on any lawsuit with even a hint of credibility simply out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Streisand Effect
Its ironic, but its the publicity from all those who want the game banned that make it worthwhile for Take2 to keep making new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell - that was fast - game out like three days and there's a "Wave of Crime" - in Chicago - what a surprise!!
It's not like parts of Chicago have been infamous for crime since the 20's or anything - or it's not like they ever had gang problems there before, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Target and contract law...
And Yes, even if the CTA is struggling for money, and what Transit Authority run by government bureacuracy is not, it still a government bureaucracy. Elected and government appointed officials never think in terms of business, they think in terms of job security. I hate to use the word pander but that is exactly what CTA officials are doing, pandering to newscast pressure (not public pressure).
Finally Take-Two is an easy target.
It is easier for CTA officials and Chicago City Government to blame a few billboards of GTA-IV for the violence as opposed to the real culprit. Whatever it is it is _NOT_ GTA advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they really though this was the problem
GTA-IV billboards cause crime wave;
Bilboards of kittens, puppies and happy children should counter-act; makes sense if you believe the crime wave cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local police fired in favor of a private company producing billboards of puppies and flowers to be placed all around the city...sounds like a news piece from GTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMMM I LIKE THE GRAND THEFT AUTO SERIES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I speed - Ban all racing video games
After the racing games have been bannned, we can begin to work on banning all cars, as they are obviously the secondary source of speeding.
By eliminating all possible causes of speeding, we can then lock ourselves inside our homes and be banned from leaving, so any errant leftover cars that may be speeding cannot harm us,l whether they exist or not.
Isn't this getting ludicrous? Wasn't this country founded on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? What happened to us?
No child left behind - must actually mean: everyone is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]