[ad_1]
A draft regulation tabled last week could allow homeowners to control whether Pokemon GoAugmented reality attractions are present in and around their property.
Shortly after its launch in the summer of 2016, Pokemon Go The Niantic developer has begun to respond to numerous complaints about the intrusion of players on private property to access location-dependent gyms and Pokéstops in the Augmented Reality game. These complaints eventually resulted in numerous lawsuits, alleging that Niantic was essentially encouraging the intrusion by placing its digital attractions on their property.
These lawsuits were consolidated in a class action in August and, after years of being reviewed by the courts (and surviving a motion to dismiss), this class action now appears to be on the verge of settlement. A proposal filed by the complainants in the District Court last week (as noted by the The Hollywood journalist) describes a number of ways in which Niantic apparently intends to solve this problem.
Under the proposed bylaw, homeowners will be able to use a web form to complain about "points of interest" (eg, Pokéstops and gyms) located within 40 meters of their single-family home. Niantic says it will handle these complaints by removing the IP within 15 days and will maintain a database to make sure the new IPs are not placed there.
Public parks may also request that points of interest on their property be inaccessible outside the designated opening hours. And Niantic says that new IPs will be examined "for the main purpose of trying to avoid IPs that are more likely to cause nuisance or intrusion problems". New warnings in the game will also require players to "be courteous to real-world community members" while playing.
Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit could receive up to $ 1,000 under the settlement, while Niantic would also be responsible for more than $ 8 million in legal costs.
The settlement still needs to be approved by a judge, but it looks like it will end a critical conflict between the real world and the virtual world. Without a court ruling on this, however, the case will not necessarily constitute a legal precedent for future situations in which location-based applications will begin to encroach on the real-world space.
[ad_2]
Source link