It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I'm very surprised the judge has allowed this trial to go ahead, how much personal responsibility is taken into account if a game is viewed as addictive is puzzling, it's not like videogames have been around for thousands of years & humans have a built up physical vulnerability to what they provide.
I mean chemically there's no addiction, "it's all in your head" if you are addicted to gamesplaying & you'd be just as likely or susceptible to be addicted to any other numerous activities, gambling etc.......would this open the doors to gambling addicts sueing gambling providers like casinos or bookmakers or the millions of online poker providers? (who I'd argue have a much stronger case due to there being potential monetary gain to serve as a higher motivational factor for the addiction).
If it is not seen as a test case for any kind of commercial activity being liable for damages through psychological addiction then what does this reduce this case to?
And the hatred of videogaming or it's use as another easy target scapegoat for society's ills.
Ultimately I think this case will be interesting to follow, as a barometer test of the legal profession & how politically motivated it really is, and how up to date the legal profession has become with the pace of technology.