Hey Lawyers: Catch ’em all: Poke-Plaintiffs are everywhere.
Posted By Cliff Tuttle | August 3, 2016
No. 1,276
Lawyers sometimes take cases because they get publicity. I recently read about a law firm in Florida who was suing in behalf of Pokemon hunters because the rules were grossly one-sided and absolved the company of any liability for anything. The post speculated that this firm had grown too large over past years by performing servicing of delinquent mortgages and that the decline in mortgage foreclosure activity had left them looking for something else to do.
Pokemon Go will not go away soon. Thus, it is only a matter of time before electronic trespass suits start appearing on the dockets. One eager plaintiff wrote to AVVO about this this morning, looking for a lawyer to do something about uninvited persons walking across his/her land. You can bet this potential client has a contingent fee in mind. A tall fence might be a better investment than a lawyer in the long run. This is especially true if there is something on the land worth keeping trespassers away — like a large garden.
Of course, you could sue the little urchins for walking onto your land, but they are minors (who cannot be sued directly in many states) and they probably don’t have any real money anyway. Even if they did, the damages would most likely be nominal. Better to sue a large corporation for multiple trespasses, preferably in a class action. You know the drill.
But then again, lawyers who bring such cases run the risk of being portrayed in the media as some kind of Scroogy spoilsport or otherwise ridiculed. Unless you subscribe to the maxim that all publicity is good publicity, that could be a negative.
I don’t intend to take any Poke-cases myself, but I will gladly write about them. To that end, I just initiated a new category in this blog: “Pokemon Litigation.”
Anyway, here’s the AVVO inquiry: