Michigan Technology Law Review Michigan Technology Law Review
Article 4
2020
When Worlds Collide: Protecting Physical World Interests Against When Worlds Collide: Protecting Physical World Interests Against
Virtual World Malfeasance Virtual World Malfeasance
Hilary Silvia
California State University
Nanci K. Carr
California State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr
Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons,
Science and Technology Law Commons, and the Torts Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Hilary Silvia & Nanci K. Carr,
When Worlds Collide: Protecting Physical World Interests Against Virtual
World Malfeasance
, 26 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 279 (2020).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol26/iss2/4
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School
Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized
editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
mlaw[email protected].
brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by University of Michigan School of Law
279
WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: PROTECTING
PHYSICAL WORLD INTERESTS AGAINST
VIRTUAL WORLD MALFEASANCE
Hilary Silvia, J.D.* and Nanci K. Carr, J.D.**
If a virtual-world-game character is cast upon real-world
property without the consent of the landowner, inducing or
encouraging players to trespass, is the virtual-world creator liable for
damages? The United States Supreme Court has recognized that
digital technology presents novel issues, the resolution of which must
anticipate its further rapid development. It is beyond dispute that
protective legislation will be unable to keep up with rapidly evolving
technology. The burden of anticipating and addressing issues
presented by emerging technologies will ultimately fall upon the
businesses responsible for generating them. This duty was most
notably adopted by the creators of Pokémon Go in settlement of
nuisance and trespass claims brought by a nationwide class seeking
injunctive relief from the placement of virtual Pokéstops and Pokémon
Gyms (“Gyms”) on real property. This article is the first to address
this landmark settlement and proposes that future developers and
creators seeking to avoid similar liability exposure implement self-
regulatory practices, such as Value Sensitive Design, to create human
values-based frameworks within which they can create and advance
technologies. The societal need and social impact of such self-
regulation is clearly illustrated by emerging litigation seeking to hold
virtual-world actors responsible for real-world consequences utilizing
common law tort theories. In the absence of legislation, as case law
develops, self-regulatory frameworks like Value Sensitive Design are
essential to create constructs within which creators can develop
technologies that consider human values, address civic concerns, and
avoid lawsuits, while still achieving commercial and technological
objectives.
* Hilary Silvia is an Assistant Professor of Business and Real Estate Law at Califor-
nia State University, Northridge. J.D., Loyola University, Chicago; BBA, University of Notre
Dame.
** Nanci K. Carr is an Assistant Professor of Business Law at California State Univer-
sity, Northridge. J.D., cum laude, Southwestern Law School; B.S., Business Administration,
Ball State University.
280 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 281
I. A
SSERTING HUMAN VALUES AND PROTECTING HUMAN
R
IGHTS INJURED BY TECHNOLOGICALLY INVOLVED
T
ORTIOUS CONDUCT..................................................................... 283
A. Developers Utilize Augmented Reality to Affect Human
Behavior in Actual Reality..................................................... 285
B. Augmented Reality Games Present Significant Challenges
to Human Privacy and Property Values................................ 287
C. Niantic May Have Had Institutional Knowledge of
Human Value Concerns......................................................... 288
D. As Augmented Reality Games Increase in Popularity,
Society Seeks to Mitigate Their Adverse Impact on
Human Values........................................................................ 290
E. The In re Pokémon Litigation Settlement Addresses the
Impact of Pokémon Go on the Real-World Community......... 291
1. Individuals Assert Common Law Trespass Claims
Against Developers......................................................... 293
2. Individuals Assert Common Law Nuisance Claims
Against Developers......................................................... 294
II. T
RESPASS TO PHYSICAL PROPERTY IN AUGMENTED REALITY
AND THE
INTEGRATION OF THE RELATIVE HARDSHIP
D
OCTRINE ..................................................................................... 294
A. The Tort of Trespass to Land Combines Human Privacy
and Property Values .............................................................. 294
B. Balancing the Relative Hardship of the Property Owner
and Trespasser....................................................................... 294
1. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is
Permanent and Physical.................................................. 296
2. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is
Temporary and Physical ................................................. 297
3. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is
Virtual............................................................................. 298
III. N
UISANCE AND AUGMENTED REALITY:UNREASONABLE
(V
IRTUAL)INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF
(REAL)PROPERTY......................................................................... 299
IV. L
EGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO COMBATTING NUISANCE AND
T
RESPASS ISSUES GENERATED BY AR INTERACTIVE GAMES ....... 303
V. T
HE APPLICATION OF VALUE SENSITIVE DESIGN TO PREEMPT
T
ORTIOUS CONDUCT AND CLAIMS ............................................... 307
A. The Role of Value Sensitive Design in AR Interactive
Games .................................................................................... 307
B. Value Sensitive Design and “Reasonable” Interference -
Is “Don’t Be Evil” Enough?.................................................. 308
C. Evaluating Developer Liability Through Analogous Cases .. 311
C
ONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 314
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 281
INTRODUCTION
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “seismic shifts in
digital technology”
1
are presenting novel issues,
2
the resolution of which
must anticipate its further rapid development. Digital technology now per-
meates the human experience, presenting an array of novel and unanticipat-
ed challenges presently unchecked in the absence of a comprehensive regu-
latory framework. The creation of virtual worlds that collide with the real
ones we inhabit forces society to question the extent to which our identities
are immutable, and the extent to which we can continue to protect our per-
sonal information and property.
While legislators scramble to enact reactive legislation in the face of
scandals like Cambridge Analytica
3
and foreign efforts to influence domes-
tic elections,
4
tech companies insist that their efforts to self-regulate will
generate the necessary change. However, apology tours and references to
corporate ethics as a remedy have been criticized as “an end-run strategy to
avoid robust regulation.”
5
Indeed, it is the inconsistent application of their
own ethical guidelines, and the fundamentally conflicting priorities of
shareholders, regulators, and consumers that perpetuate this problem.
It is beyond dispute that protective legislation will be unable to keep up,
much less catch up, with technological changes. The burden of anticipating
and addressing issues presented by emerging technologies will ultimately
fall upon the businesses responsible for generating them. This duty was
most notably adopted in response to a class action lawsuit brought against
1. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219 (2018).
2. See, e.g., Shigenori Matsui, Does It Have to Be a Copyright Infringement?: Live
Game Streaming and Copyright, 24 T
EX.INTELL.PROP. L.J. 215 (2016); Andrew V. Mo-
shimia, Giant Pink Scorpions: Fighting Piracy with Novel Digital Rights Management Tech-
nology,23 D
EPAUL J. ART,TECH.&INTELL.PROP. L. 1 (2012).
3. See Saro Mohammed, Why the Recent Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Data
“Breach” Matters for Students, B
ROOKINGS (June 6, 2018), https://www.brookings.edu/blog
/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/06/06/why-the-recent-facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-
breach-matters-for-students (noting that the Cambridge Analytica scandal had implications
beyond the elections, including into the area of academics). See generally, Alvin Chang, The
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Explained with a Simple Diagram, V
OX (May
2, 2018, 3:25 PM), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17151916/facebook-
cambridge-analytica-trump-diagram.
4. See Devin Coldewey, Russian-Backed Content May Have Reached 126 Million on
Facebook, T
ECHCRUNCH (Oct. 30, 2017, 7:03 AM), https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/30
/russian-backed-content-may-have-reached-126-million-on-facebook.
5. See Yana Welinder, A Face Tells More Than A Thousand Posts: Developing Face
Recognition Privacy in Social Networks,26 H
ARV.J.L.&TECH. 165, 193-95 (2012) (“The
FTC has previously found various Facebook practices to be unfair and deceptive.” However,
because “unfair and deceptive” are ambiguous, narrow standards, a “race to the bottom” has
been created “whereby online businesses narrowly interpret privacy laws in order to gain a
competitive advantage.”); Evan Selinger, Will Tech Companies Ever Take Ethics Seriously?,
M
EDIUM (Apr. 9, 2018), https://medium.com/s/story/will-tech-companies-ever-take-ethics-
seriously-35d991f9f839.
282 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
the creators of Pokémon Go, an augmented reality (“AR”) game where vir-
tual characters are placed throughout the globe, including on private proper-
ty, and “seen” in mobile phone screens in conjunction with geolocation
technology.
6
This landmark case was brought by a nationwide class of indi-
viduals alleging claims for trespass and nuisance, seeking injunctive relief
from the placement of virtual Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms (“Gyms”) on
real property.
7
This settlement is particularly meaningful because it required
action in the absence of accountability. Although Pokémon Go’s creator,
Niantic, did not admit any liability under the terms of the settlement, and
thus has not taken accountability, the injunctive nature of the settlement has
resulted in a requirement that Niantic take affirmative action to change poli-
cies and practices.
8
Individuals, companies, and even government bodies
can now request and be granted swift removal of virtual Pokémon charac-
ters where their placement causes nuisance and trespass issues.
9
Consistent
with this outcome, developers are encouraged to proactively employ self-
regulatory frameworks, such as the rapidly evolving theory and methodolo-
gy called Value Sensitive Design, hailed as “the most comprehensive ap-
proach to account for human values in technology design.”
10
Engaging in
Value Sensitive Design invites game designers to ask: “How can I explore
the technical and design space from the perspective of human values? How
can I identify stakeholders and legitimate this choice? How do I elicit stake-
holder views and values? How do I resolve value tensions among stake-
holders? How do I translate stakeholder values into technical design choic-
es?”
11
Until the landscape changes – through high-impact litigation, robust
regulation, or effective voluntary implementation of effective self-
regulatory frameworks – injured parties confronting rapidly advancing tech-
nologies are left to rely, as the Pokémon plaintiffs did, on common law
principles to protect their physical world interests against virtual world mal-
6. Quentin Hardy, Pokémon Go, Millennials’ First Nostalgia Blast,NEW YORK TIMES
(July 13, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/technology/pokemon-go-millennials-
first-nostalgia-blast.html.
7. Pls.’ Mot. Supp. Prelim. Approval Settlement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig.,
No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 1 (Feb. 14, 2019) (Proposed settlement class includes “all persons in
the United States who own or lease property within 100 meters of any location that Niantic
has designated, without prior consent of such property owner or lessee, as a Pokéstop of Poké
Gym in the Pokémon Go mobile application.”).
8. See Order Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement in
re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 3-4 (Aug. 30, 2019).
9. See id.
10. Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann, Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design: A
Review of Methodological Practices in VSD Projects,E
THICS &INFO.TECH. (Aug. 21, 2018),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9476-2.
11. Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry & Alan Borning, A Survey of Value Sensitive
Design Methods,11F
OUNDS.&TRENDS IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 63, 63, 65
(2017).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 283
feasance. After all, “[n]ew technologies do not determine human fates; ra-
ther, they alter the spectrum of potentialities within which people act.”
12
In
this article, we will begin in Section II by discussing how technology can
lead to tortious conduct infringing on human values. Section III will explore
the relative hardship doctrine and whether there is a viable claim for tres-
pass to property in augmented reality. Section IV will consider whether a
virtual interference with the use and enjoyment of real property rises to the
level of nuisance, which will lead to the Section V discussion of the legisla-
tive approaches to combatting nuisance and trespass. Finally, we will ex-
plore the application of Value Sensitive Design as a self-regulatory frame-
work to anticipate and preempt tortious conduct and related claims.
I. ASSERTING HUMAN VALUES AND PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS
INJURED BY TECHNOLOGICALLY INVOLVED TORTIOUS CONDUCT
Human values and technological advancement are not always evolving
in the same direction. For example, our capabilities and technological ad-
vancements involving AR,
13
virtual reality (“VR”),
14
and geofencing
15
cur-
rently exceed implementation for many reasons, including legal, practical,
and ethical implications. The emergence of new technology brings into
question what many have historically viewed as the static, immutable nature
of human values. While technology solves many human problems, it also
creates opportunities and conflict never previously fathomed, challenging
society to constantly reexamine, defend, and often question, the human val-
ue framework. The right to privacy has been of particular concern, having
been described as a “sensitive and necessary human value[].”
16
Scholars
have identified “several human values with ethical importance that are rele-
12. K. A. Taipale, Data Mining and Domestic Security: Connecting the Dots to Make
Sense of Data, 5 C
OLUM.SCI.&TECH.L.REV., 1, 1, 6 (2003).
13. Augmented reality is “an enhanced image or environment as viewed on a screen or
other display, produced by overlaying computer-generated images, sounds, or other data on a
real-world environment.” Augmented Reality, D
ICTIONARY.COM, https://www.dictionary.com
/browse/augmented-reality?s=t (last visited Mar. 10, 2019).
14. Virtual reality is “a realistic and immersive simulation of a three-dimensional envi-
ronment, created using interactive software and hardware, and experienced or controlled by
movement of the body.” Virtual Reality, D
ICTIONARY.COM, https://www.dictionary.com
/browse/virtual-reality?s=t (last visited Mar. 10, 2019).
15. Sarah K. White, What is Geofencing? Putting Location to Work,CIO
(Nov. 1, 2017, 12:43 PM), https://www.cio.com/article/2383123/mobile/geofencing-
explained.html (defining geofencing as “a location-based service in which an app or other
software uses GPS, RFID, Wi-Fi or cellular data to trigger a pre-programmed action when a
mobile device or RFID tag enters or exits a virtual boundary set up around a geographical lo-
cation, known as a geofence.”); see, e.g.,A
RKAIVE, https://arkaive.com (last visited Mar. 10,
2019) (giving teachers a geolocation technology that recognizes if students are within the
range of the geo-coordinates of the classroom when they check in for attendance).
16. Leopold v. Levin, 259 N.E.2d 250, 254 (Ill. 1970).
284 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
vant to technologies, including property, privacy, freedom from bias, in-
formed consent, universal usability, trust, autonomy, identity, calmness, and
environmental sustainability.”
17
These values are properly integrated into a
self-regulatory value-sensitive analysis.
This article will focus primarily on the values of property and privacy.
With regard to property rights, our emphasis will be on real property and the
“bundle of rights” that may be adversely affected when confronted with
technologically enabled tortious conduct, generally manifesting as trespass
or nuisance issues.
18
Privacy values are more dynamic, and more difficult to
encapsulate in any one definition or claim.
19
Scholars have suggested that
privacy values may be “better conceptualized by focusing on the values of
trust, obscurity, and autonomy,”
20
and we will venture to do so here.
As one commentator framed the issue, “while ‘conscientious capital-
ism’ sounds nice, anyone who takes political economy seriously knows we
should be wary of civics being conflated with keeping markets going and
companies appealing to ethics as an end-run strategy to avoid robust regula-
tion.”
21
However, conscientious capitalism created through the implementa-
tion of Value Sensitive Design creates an opportunity for creators to devel-
op technologies that consider human values, addressing civic concerns
while achieving company objectives.
Value Sensitive Design is a self-regulatory design theory and method-
ology pioneered by scholars including Professors Batya Friedman, Peter
Kahn, and David Hendry, and is best described as “a theoretically grounded
approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a
principled and comprehensive manner throughout the design process.”
22
The
thoughtful planning required by the Value Sensitive Design methodology
endeavors to address seemingly incomplete technology development, where
a technology can be used to foresee and address a potential problem or bur-
den affecting an individual or society, but was overlooked. Many such ex-
amples exist. Did Waze consider human impact when it diverted traffic-
17. Woodrow Hartzog, On Questioning Automation, 48 CUMB.L.REV. 1, 3 (2017); see
also Mark Peterson, Fan Fair Use: The Right to Participate in Culture, 17 U.C. D
AVIS BUS.
L.J. 217, 246 (2017) (“Rather than treating fans like adversaries that need to be shut down and
silenced, the concerns of the people that paid for the games, and thus contributed to the suc-
cess of the company, should be taken into consideration.”).
18. See generally Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of
Tort Liability, 86 G
EO.WASH.L.REV. 1 (2018); Declan T. Conroy, Property Rights in Aug-
mented Reality, 24 M
ICH.TELECOMM.&TECH.L.REV. 17 (2017).
19. See generally Brandon R. Teachout, Gotta Collect It All!: Surveillance Law Les-
sons of Pokémon Go, 69 S
TAN.L.REV.ONLINE 83 (2016).
20. Hartzog, supra note 17, at 4.
21. Selinger, supra note 5.
22. Batya Friedman et al., Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods 1 (UW CSE
Technical Report 02-12-01, 2002) .
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 285
avoiding users through quiet residential neighborhoods?
23
Did Snapchat
consider human impact when it created a “speed filter” allegedly encourag-
ing excessive speed and reckless driving?
24
Human values were placed squarely at issue in the case of Pokémon
Go. Pokémon Go has presented significant challenges to privacy and prop-
erty rights, and those challenges were addressed in the recently-settled na-
tionwide class action lawsuit, In re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litigation,
wherein property owners nationwide sought to hold Niantic accountable for
significant trespass and nuisance issues they experienced as a result of the
placement of Pokémon characters and Gyms on or around their properties.
25
The impact of the In re Pokémon Go Litigation is far reaching, as it im-
poses policies and practices on Pokémon Go’s creators that may set the
standard for what consumers can reasonably expect from AR product devel-
opers in the future. The negotiated outcome is a win for both consumers and
the technology industry. Having been negotiated by experienced plaintiffs’
counsel, the settlement sets forth injunctive relief fashioned to protect prop-
erty owners following extensive litigation and investigation, enabling the
parties to be well-informed of risks and benefits as they weigh settlement
options. Similarly, it is a win for technology companies because it was ne-
gotiated by industry leaders familiar with what companies can reasonably
do to protect society. Before we explore the specific solutions proposed by
the settlement, we will first explore the problem.
A. Developers Utilize Augmented Reality to
Affect Human Behavior in Actual Reality
Developers of interactive games, including Pokémon Go, utilize aug-
mented reality to create an interactive gaming experience for users. Poké-
mon Go is based on Ingress, Niantic’s debut reality game. Ingress is a loca-
tion-based, augmented-reality mobile game released in 2013 with a science
23. Steve Lopez, Putting Up Roadblocks When Waze and Other Apps Send Cars Down
Your Little Street, L.A. TIMES (Apr. 11, 2018), https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-
me-lopez-navigation-apps-krekorian-20180411-story.html.
24. Katie Rogers, Snapchat at 107 M.P.H.? Lawsuit Blames Teenager (and Snapchat),
N.Y.
T
IMES (May 3, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/snapchat-speeding-
teenager-crash-lawsuit.html.
25. Class Action Compl. in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300 (July
29, 2016) (Plaintiffs sued Pokémon Go creator Niantic for nuisance resulting from players
participating in augmented reality mobile game app.); see also Pls.’ Mot. Supp. Prelim. Ap-
proval Settlement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 1 (Feb. 14, 2019)
(“The proposed Settlement provides injunctive relief in the form of remedial measures de-
signed to prevent the future placement of virtual game items on private property, and to
promptly address future complaints of trespass and nuisance by Pokémon Go players when
they arise.”).
286 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
fiction back story and a continuous open narrative.
26
It is considered an “ex-
ergame” because it includes a form of exercise while playing.
27
Niantic
CEO John Hanke stated that the company viewed the game as its “spiritual
core.”
28
Niantic used data from Ingress in developing Pokémon Go and de-
termining where to locate Pokéstops and Gyms.
29
Pokémon Go became the
fastest game to reach the top of the charts in both the App Store and Google
Play and in August 2016, and received five Guinness World Records, in-
cluding most revenue grossed by a mobile game in its first month, earning
$206.5 million.
30
Using a smartphone’s camera and GPS, Pokémon Go requires that
players move around to find and catch Pokémon, tiny animated characters
from the Japanese franchise, in real-world locations. Requiring almost no
skill, it is instead a social game for all ages, even bringing together adults
and arranging PokéDates
31
at Pokéstops. It also connects parents and chil-
dren, providing an opportunity for them to play together and explore their
communities, rather than being tied to a game system in the house. In a
small survey conducted in Seattle, parents praised the game. “I think it’s just
helping us find a common thing we can do together as a mom and a boy,
and that’s really awesome for me....As a boy coming home from school,
they don’t tell you what they ate or . . . what the teachers said . . . so it’s a
good way to be communicating,” revealed one parent.
32
Since the game at-
tracts players to Pokéstops and Gyms to catch characters and engage in oth-
er game play, it encourages players to get outside and it makes exercise fun.
The researchers found that Pokémon Go meets several conditions leading to
productive joint media engagement for families, including (a) the ability for
parents and children to learn and play the game together, (b) motivation for
26. Andrew Webster, Niantic’s First AR Game Ingress Is Getting a Massive Overhaul
in 2018, V
ERGE (Dec. 2, 2017), https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/2/16725884/ingress-
prime-update-niantic-pokemon-go.
27. JV Chamary, Why “Pokémon GO” Is The World’s Most Important Game,
FORBES (Feb. 10, 2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2018/02/10/pokemon-go-
science-health-benefits/#2fedc9763ab0.
28. Id.
29. Factsheet: Why Pokemon Go Is Still So Popular, IOL (Mar. 28, 2018, 7:30 AM),
https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/technology/factsheet-why-pokemon-go-is-still-so-
popular-14112531.
30. Id.
31. “PokeDates,” The World’s First Pokemon Go Dating Service, Launches to Organ-
ize Pokemon Go Dates Nationwide, N
EWSWIRE (Jul. 20, 2016), https://www.newswire.com
/news/pokedates-the-worlds-first-pokemon-go-dating-service-launches-to-13227402.
32. Nicole Lyn Pesce, This Is Why Parents Are Playing Pokemon Go with Their Kids,
M
ARKETWATCH (Mar. 30, 2017, 8:06 AM), https://moneyish.com/heart/this-is-why-parents-
are-playing-pokemon-go-with-their-kids.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 287
multiple generations to engage, (c) game features that make it easy to stop
and put away, (d) going outside, (e) walking, and (f) working in teams.
33
As noted above, within its first month, Pokémon Go achieved five
Guinness World Records, which it still holds today, including (a) most rev-
enue grossed by a mobile game in its first month, (b) most downloaded mo-
bile game in its first month, (c) most international charts topped simultane-
ously for a mobile game in its first month (downloads), (d) most
international charts topped simultaneously for a mobile game in its first
month (revenue), and (e) fastest time to gross $100 million by a mobile
game.
34
Pokémon Go is a record-setting, highly lauded game that has in-
spired millions of users to get outside and interact with their environment.
Therein lies the problem, as such environmental interaction presents chal-
lenges to personal privacy and property interests.
B. Augmented Reality Games Present Significant Challenges to
Human Privacy and Property Values
The Fourth Amendment protects “persons, houses, papers, and effects”
from unreasonable searches and seizures, articulating a protectable privacy
interest in one’s real and personal property.
35
As Professor Andrew Guthrie
Ferguson has observed, these protectable interests have expanded as the
meaning of these terms has evolved over time.
36
The definition of “persons,”
for example, now includes “more than just physical bodies; they now in-
clude clothing, bodily fluids, DNA and even corporations.”
37
Similarly,
“‘Houses’ now include curtilage, barns, apartments, and commercial spaces.
‘Papers’ now include digital recordings, writings, business documents, and
other communications.”
38
The term “effects” remains a catch-all but has ex-
panded beyond the realm of physical objects. The smartphone is an effect,
but what about the data stored on the smartphone? What about the data
stored in the cloud, which is in constant communication with the
33. Jennifer Langston, Parents Who Play “Pokémon GO” with Kids: “It Wasn’t Really
About the Pokémon”, U
NIV. OF WASH.: UW NEWS (Mar. 28, 2017), http://
www.washington.edu/news/2017/03/28/parents-who-play-pokemon-go-with-kids-it-wasnt-
really-about-the-pokemon.
34. Rachel Swatman, Pokémon Go Catches Five New World Records, G
UINNESS
WORLD RECORDS (Aug. 10, 2016), http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/8
/pokemon-go-catches-five-world-records-439327 (noting the following records: (a) $206.5
million of revenue in the first month, (b) 130 million downloads, (c) topped download charts
in 70 different countries, (d) top-growing mobile game in 55 different countries simultaneous-
ly, and (e) 20 days to gross $100 million.
35. U.S.
C
ONST.amend. IV.
36. Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, The Internet of Things and the Fourth Amendment of
Effects, 104 C
AL.L.REV. 805, 808 (2016).
37. Id. at 808-09.
38. Id. at 809.
288 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
smartphone? These later questions remain unsettled.
39
The Supreme Court
has explored on numerous occasions the privacy interests implicated when
physical searches are conducted on data and digital information. We are
now exploring the opposite, where privacy and property concerns are impli-
cated by searches of physical, real property instigated by virtual actors.
Speaking of the influence AR games have on users, scholars explain
how “people become so entranced with these imaginary creatures that they
lose all touch with reality. They walk off of cliffs, they get swept out to sea,
they join together with strangers to form packs and wander around all cor-
ners of the globe at all hours of the night, all looking to capture these imagi-
nary creatures.”
40
Game players become so entrenched in their games that a
subculture of fans, a “fandom,” is created, with players going beyond pas-
sive consumption.
41
This leads us to question: will technology soon be so
engulfing, deeply embedded, and autonomy-overpowering, that the legal
obligations we owe to each other are diminished? If so, will technology step
in to share liability with human users? Can the implementation of forward-
thinking, self-regulatory design practices like Value Sensitive Design effec-
tively mitigate these risks?
C. Niantic May Have Had Institutional Knowledge of
Human Value Concerns
In July 2015, Niantic faced significant human value challenges with its
first interactive augmented reality game, Ingress. Zeit, a German magazine,
contacted Google, who then owned Niantic, to complain that concentration
and death camps including Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz-Birkenau
were all set up as in-game “portals.”
42
Some of the camps were deleted the
day after Zeit’s initial contact; however, others remained, including the in-
famous Auschwitz “Arbeit Macht Frei” gates.
43
Initially, Google said that
the locations were included in the game because they were of “significant
historical value.”
44
Google later apologized, stating “After we were made
aware that a number of historical markers on the grounds of former concen-
tration camps in Germany had been added, we determined that they did not
39. Id. at 835.
40. Justin G. Mignogna, Pokémon Go, Augmented Reality Games, and How the Insur-
ance Industry Will Help Protect a Distracted Society from Becoming Even More Distracted,
70 R
UTGERS U. L. REV. 675, 676 (2018) (citations omitted).
41. Emily Schendl, Japanese Anime and Manga Copyright Reform, 15 W
ASH.U.
G
LOBAL STUD.L.REV. 631, 638 (2016).
42. Alex Hern, Pokemon Go: Who Owns the Virtual Space Around Your Home?,
G
UARDIAN (July 13, 2016, 9:46 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/13
/pokemon-virtual-space-home.
43. Id.
44. Jessica Guynn, Google Apologizes for Putting Nazi Camps in Game, USA
T
ODAY
(July 2, 2015, 2:49 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/02/google-niantic-
labs-ingress-nazi-concentration-camps/29618979.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 289
meet the spirit of our guidelines and began the process of removing them in
Germany and elsewhere in Europe.”
45
Following extensive complaints from property owners,
46
Niantic created
Ingress Game Community Guidelines that provide, in part, as follows:
• Respect the community.
• Treat other players and bystanders with respect and courtesy
and conduct yourself in an appropriate manner while playing
Ingress. In particular:
o Privacy: . . . Don’t post, repost or reveal other information
about another user’s identity. . .
o Trespass: Don’t trespass while playing Ingress. . . .
47
In addition, Niantic provides several options for reporting violations of its
guidelines. Those options include reporting trespassing of either the report-
er’s property or someone else’s property.
48
However, as guideline violations
carry little penalty, the impact of such actions are negligible.
Yet the insensitive location selection persisted with Niantic’s new
Pokémon Go. Since Pokémon is a Japanese game, one might think that
Niantic would have been more mindful with the location of Pokémon in Ja-
pan. However, that was not the case, as trainers captured Pokémon at the
Hiroshima atomic bomb memorial site.
49
The Pokémon were removed at the
request of the city prior to an annual ceremony in remembrance of the
45. Id.
46. See, e.g., u/BobbyT852, Removal of Portals as Landowner?,R
EDDIT.COM (Feb.
10, 2015, 4:00 AM), https://www.reddit.com/r/Ingress/comments/2vegb3/removal_of_portals
_as_landowner/ (“I am posting here as I am a landowner on whose land an Ingress portal is
situated. I am having trouble with people trespassing in order to gain access to the portal. Not
being a player myself, there doesn’t seem to be a way for me to contact Google to discuss this
issue. Can anyone here point me in the right direction?”); u/mikesicle, Dealing with a Tres-
passer, R
EDDIT.COM (May 13, 2016, 6:04 PM), https://www.reddit.com/r/Ingress/comments
/4j9czg/dealing_with_a_trespasser/ (“Just a few hours ago I had a very negative interaction
with someone I later found out was playing Ingress. He was driving erratically in my offices
back private parking lot (parking sideways in spots, blocking the exit then backing back into
the lot). I went back to see if he was lost or needed directions since we have a couple tenants
out back, but instead he reluctantly rolled his window down and just said ‘I’m playing a
game.’ . . .My boss/the owner has already had trespassing issues in the past at this property,
and she is completely freaked out about her and her daughters [sic] safety (previously tres-
passed persons were a threat to her daughter). He told me that he is ‘in and out of here all the
time, this is where he drops stuff off’ like he was entitled to trespass, and then berate[d] us for
asking him to leave. He showed his phone to us a few times, and after googling a bit I found
this game was the exact one he was playing.”).
47. Ingress Game Community Guidelines, F
ANDOM, https://ingress.fandom.com/wiki
/Ingress_Game_ Community_Guidelines (last visited Mar. 10, 2019).
48. Id.
49. Pokemon Go Removes Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Memorial Site from Game,
G
LOBAL NEWS (Aug. 8, 2016, 8:54 AM), https://globalnews.ca/news/2870350/pokemon-go-
removes-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-memorial-site-from-game.
290 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
140,000 who died there.
50
In addition, although Ingress received complaints
regarding portals at Auschwitz,
51
a year later, Pokémon were still being re-
ported there.
52
D. As Augmented Reality Games Increase in Popularity, Society Seeks
to Mitigate Their Adverse Impact on Human Values
Pokémon Go remains a popular game, and its success has encouraged
the creation of more augmented reality games. When Pokémon Go was first
introduced, there were crowds of trainers everywhere, heads down, focused
on their phones.
53
Today, we don’t often see those crowds, leaving some to
wonder whether Pokémon Go “is still a thing.”
54
As it turns out, three years
after its 2016 debut, Pokémon Go continues to be popular, ranking as the
second top-grossing mobile title as of January 2019.
55
It is continually up-
dated with new features and includes daily “research” tasks and story mis-
sions to keep the game fresh.
56
Pokémon Go experienced a resurgence in the summer of 2018 follow-
ing an update that introduced “friend codes” and Pokémon trading to in-
crease the game’s social components.
57
The trading requires Stardust, an in-
game currency, the purchase of which drives daily revenue. In the two
months leading up to the update, the game was generating about $1.8 mil-
lion in daily revenue. Since the update, Niantic has enjoyed a 39% increase
as players have been spending an average of $2.5 million per day.
58
In the wake of Pokémon Go’s continued success, Niantic released addi-
tional games based on Ingress. First came Jurassic World Alive, an aug-
mented reality game where players interact with and collect dinosaurs, re-
leased in the Spring of 2018 synchronously with the release of the film
50. Id.
51. Allana Akhtar, Holocaust Museum, Auschwitz Want Pokémon Go Hunts Out, USA
T
ODAY, (July 13, 2016, 8:34 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/12
/holocaust-museum-auschwitz-want-pokmon-go-hunts-stop-pokmon/86991810.
52. Id.
53. Gillian Paxton, Surprisingly, Pokemon Go is Still a Thing,A
BSOLUDRICOUS, (Dec.
2, 2018) https://absoludicrousblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/pokemon-go-is-still-a-thing.
54. Id.
55. Worldwide Digital Games Market in January 2019, W
HOLESGAME (Feb 24, 2019,
7:29 PM), https://wholesgame.com/news/worldwide-digital-games-market-in-january-2019
(last visited Feb. 12, 2019).
56. See Factsheet, supra note 29.
57. See Stefanie Fogel, “Pokémon Go” Earning $2.5 Million Daily Since Trading Up-
date (Report), V
ARIETY (Aug. 28, 2018, 11:01 AM), https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news
/pokemon-go-friends-trading-1202849566; Luke Winkie, “Pokemon Go” Finally Reveals In-
Game Friendships, Trading, V
ARIETY (June 18, 2018, 12:30 PM), https://variety.com/2018
/gaming/news/pokemon-go-friends-trading-1202849566.
58. Fogel, supra note 57.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 291
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.
59
Second came Harry Potter: Wizards
Unite, released in summer 2019,
60
which engages “state-of-the-art augment-
ed reality technology to reveal the magic all around us. Explore real-world
neighborhoods and cities to discover mysterious artifacts, learn to cast
spells, and encounter legendary beasts and iconic characters along the
way!”
61
While it is possible that future games would benefit from the les-
sons learned from Pokémon Go, it is yet to be seen whether Jurassic World
Alive and Wizards Unite have adequately addressed the privacy and proper-
ty challenges raised by their predecessors.
E. The In re Pokémon Litigation Settlement Addresses the Impact of
Pokémon Go on the Real-World Community
The Pokémon Go case invites us to consider how we define human val-
ues, what values are entitled to legal protection, and the extent to which we
will allow technology to affect them. As noted by Justice Kennedy, “the
Cyber Age has vast potential both to expand and restrict individual free-
doms in dimensions not contemplated in earlier times.”
62
Under the terms of
the Pokémon Go settlement, when individuals feel that their freedom or
their right to quiet enjoyment of their property has been negatively affected,
they can seek recourse directly from Niantic.
63
The settlement provides strictly for injunctive relief.
64
Niantic has
agreed to resolve complaints and communicate the resolution to affected
persons within fifteen days of the complaint, committing to this swift action
for 95% of cases every year.
65
This is meaningful given the refrain echoed
by many property owners that Niantic was non-responsive to complaints.
66
If the affected person owns a single-family home, characters within forty
59. Andrew Webster, Jurassic World Alive Looks Like Pokemon Go but with Giant
Dinosaurs, V
ERGE, (Mar. 7, 2018, 9:18 AM), https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/7/17090294
/jurassic-world-alive-pokemon-go-ar-augmented-reality-game.
60. Chris Pereira, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite Mobile Game from Pokemon Go Mak-
ers is Out Now for Free, GAMESPOT (June 21, 2019), https://www.gamespot.com/articles
/harry-potter-wizards-unite-mobile-game-from-pokemo/1100-6467923.
61. FAQ, H
ARRY POTTER WIZARDS UNITE, https://www.harrypotterwizardsunite.com
/en/faq/ (last visited Mar. 10, 2019) (showing that the game is co-developed by WB Games
San Francisco and Niantic, Inc.); see also Vineeth Bajji, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, D
AILY
UTAH CHRON. (Nov. 28, 2017), https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/11/28/harry-potter-
wizards-unite.
62. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2224 (2018) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)
(citing Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735–36).
63. Class Action Settlement Agreement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-
cv-04300, at 6 (Feb. 14, 2019).
64. Id.
65. Id.
66. Alex Ruppenthal, New “Pokémon Go” Bill Rejected by Illinois Lawmakers,
WTTW (May 2, 2017, 2:22 PM), https://news.wttw.com/2017/05/02/new-pok-mon-go-bill-
rejected-illinois-lawmakers.
292 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
meters of the home will be removed within five business days from the time
Niantic communicated the resolution of the complaint to the affected per-
son.
67
Niantic has agreed to maintain a database of nuisance and trespass
complaints for one year and will avoid further placement of additional char-
acters on the property. Regarding parks, Niantic has agreed to create a sys-
tem that would allow parks to limit the hours during which characters could
appear on the app within the park, thereby allowing the park to control the
hours during which players would be incented to be on park grounds.
68
“Niantic will also add a new warning to the rotating warnings that appear at
the launch of the game (which currently include “do not trespass while play-
ing Pokémon Go” and “do not play Pokémon Go while driving”) that states,
“Be courteous to members of the real-world communities as you play
Pokémon Go or something similar.”
69
While the technology is new, society’s firmly rooted reliance on com-
mon law to address emerging challenges is well established. In 1890, Samu-
el D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis observed, “Political, social, and eco-
nomic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in
its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society.”
70
In Section V, we
will discuss the various measures taken around the world to address the de-
mands of society and individuals affected by interactive technologies and
make recommendations for future action. Until then, and perhaps thereafter,
it is essentially up to the companies to self-police.
71
With legislation unable
to keep up, and corporate ethics failing to yield results, consumers
72
may
find themselves asserting their rights in an ever-changing landscape of
wrongs by bringing common law trespass and nuisance claims against game
developers.
67. Class Action Settlement Agreement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., at 7.
68. Id.
69. Class Action Settlement Agreement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., at 5.
70. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 H
ARV.L.REV.
193 (1890).
71. Hilary M. Goldberg, Nanci K. Carr & Paul J. Silvia, Stealing Time: The Propriety
of Alleging Common Law Conversion in Modern Wage Theft Lawsuits,36
J.L. & C
OM.1,12
(2017) (“The government cannot possibly police every employer, nor follow up on every
complaint.”).
72. The application of common law tort theory to novel technologies is well estab-
lished. For example, in the autonomous vehicle space, scholars are now examining whether
the owners of autonomous vehicles can be held liable under respondent superior for wrongful
conduct of the vehicle. “Because discretionary-uncommunicative vehicles grant their users the
maximum degree of control, discretion, and autonomy over their operation, a discretionary-
uncommunicative vehicle should generally be considered the agent of its user, not its manu-
facturer.”
Jack Boeglin, The Costs of Self-Driving Cars: Reconciling Freedom and Privacy with Tort
Liability in Autonomous Vehicle Regulation, 17 Y
ALE J.L. & TECH. 171, 189 (2015).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 293
1. Individuals Assert Common Law Trespass Claims
Against Developers
Although technology generally operates in the virtual space,
73
it has af-
fected, directly or indirectly, all dimensions of our physical space. At first
glance, the tort of trespass seems like the perfect fit for a plaintiff seeking
damages for the placement of a VR or AR object or character on her real
property. Fundamental to trespass claims is the owner’s legally recognized
interest in the exclusive possession of the land.
74
That interest is harmed by
either intentional
75
or negligent
76
entry, while there is no liability for acci-
dental intrusions.
77
The rule for trespass contemplates entry by a person or object, as it may
be “by personal intrusion of the wrongdoer or by his failure to leave; by
throwing or placing something on the land; or by causing the entry of some
other person.”
78
Trespass is not limited to actually touching the surface of
one’s property, possibly providing the flexibility needed for VR or AR tres-
pass claims. Indeed, a trespass may be “on the surface of the land, above it,
or below it.”
79
Does trespass liability extend to VR and AR? In Section III,
we will explore the application of common law trespass claims to novel is-
sues raised in connection with technology-involved property invasion.
73. See Eric. C. Chaffee, Securities Regulation in Virtual Space, 74 WASH.&LEE L.
R
EV. 1387, 1395 (2017) (“Virtual space entails a wide variety of realms including video
games, virtual worlds, virtual reality, and augmented reality.”).
74. See Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, Tempting Trespass or Suggesting Sociability?
Augmented Reality and the Right to Include, 51 U.C.
D
AVIS L. REV. 731, 736 (2017) (noting
that “[t]respass to land is a famously strict liability tort—in the sense that liability typically
stems from unauthorized intentional entry to land regardless of fault or harm.”).
75. See R
ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 158 (AM.LAW INST. 1965) (“One is sub-
ject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any
legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of
the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to
remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.”).
76. See id. § 165 (“One who recklessly or negligently, or as a result of an abnormally
dangerous activity, enters land in the possession of another or causes a thing or third person so
to enter is subject to liability to the possessor if, but only if, his presence or the presence of the
thing or the third person upon the land causes harm to the land, to the possessor, or to a thing
or a third person in whose security the possessor has a legally protected interest.”).
77. See id. § 166 (“Except where the actor is engaged in an abnormally dangerous ac-
tivity, an unintentional and non-negligent entry on land in the possession of another, or caus-
ing a thing or third person to enter the land, does not subject the actor to liability to the pos-
sessor, even though the entry causes harm to the possessor or to a thing or third person in
whose security the possessor has a legally protected interest.”).
78. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 670, 682 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
79. Id.
294 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
2. Individuals Assert Common Law Nuisance Claims
Against Developers
The doctrine of nuisance, while centuries old, remains firmly intact and
has been creatively and effectively deployed in various factual settings.
Fundamental to its application is the notion that an alleged nuisance must be
identified as a particular condition at a particular location that a court or a
jury may inspect.
80
In Section IV, we will explore the viability of a nuisance
claim when the “particular condition” is a virtual object, and the “particular
location” is virtual or augmented reality.
II. TRESPASS TO PHYSICAL PROPERTY IN AUGMENTED REALITY AND
THE INTEGRATION OF THE RELATIVE HARDSHIP DOCTRINE
A. The Tort of Trespass to Land Combines
Human Privacy and Property Values
Fundamental to the law of property is the right to exclude others.
81
Conversely, the right to include others belongs to the property owner,
whether by invitation, as in the case of a guest or customer, or in exchange
for consideration, as in the case of a lease. Property owners want to control
permitted uses on their property in order to reduce liability to, or based upon
actions by, those on the property.
82
Trespass-related damages will invariably
differ if the trespass is limited to one isolated occurrence versus the constant
hoarding of flocks of players to an AR character errantly located in some-
one’s front yard.
B. Balancing the Relative Hardship of the
Property Owner and Trespasser
In the context of trespass, the remedy awarded to the property owner is
largely dependent upon whether the trespass was temporary or is permanent,
and the reasonableness of the parties’ behavior.
83
In fashioning damages,
many courts invoke the relative hardship doctrine, also referred to as “bal-
80. Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 387-88 (1926).
81. E
DWARD H. RABIN,ROBERTA ROSENTHAL KWALL &JEFFREY L. KWALL,
FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN PROPERTY LAW 2 (5th ed. 2006) (“All theories of
property recognize that the right to exclude others is an important attribute of property.”); see
also Samuel Mallick, Augmenting Property Law: Applying the Right to Exclude in the Aug-
mented Reality Universe, 19 V
AND.J.ENT.&TECH. L. 1057, 1066-68 (2017).
82. See M
ILLER STARR REGALIA, MILLER &STARR CAL.REAL EST. § 19:74, Westlaw
(database updated May 2017) (explaining the duty of care a property owner owes to trespass-
ers).
83. See Stewart E. Sterk, Strict Liability and Negligence in Property Theory, 160 U.
P
A.L.REV. 2129, 2146 (2012).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 295
ancing of equities,”
84
“balancing of conveniences,”
85
or “comparative inju-
ry,”
86
to “weigh the injury that may accrue to one or to the other of the par-
ties, and to the public, by granting or refusing the injunction” to abate the
trespass.
87
The doctrine is applied after a finding that a trespass has occurred
to determine damages, which may vary, from requiring removal of the tres-
passory object and imposition of monetary damages, to requiring an actual
transfer of title of the property to the defendant in exchange for payment.
88
For purposes of this paper, we will focus on California law, because many
developers and possible defendants, like Niantic, are California domiciled
and have faced lawsuits in California courts.
Although trespass itself is a well-recognized concept, there are many
types and varieties of trespass. For example, there are over twenty different
types of trespass prohibited under California Law.
89
The most common
claim is a violation of California Penal Code § 602(m), which defines a
trespasser as any person “entering and occupying real property or structures
of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the per-
son in lawful possession.”
90
A violation of this statute is a misdemeanor.
91
In order to find a party liable for civil trespass in California, a plaintiff
must prove (a) that plaintiff owned, leased, or occupied the property, (b) de-
fendant intentionally, recklessly, or negligently entered the property, (c) de-
fendant lacked permission to enter the property, or acted in excess of the
permission, (d) plaintiff suffered actual harm, and (e) that defendant’s en-
try/conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
92
A plaintiff must only show “annoyance and discomfort” to prove enti-
tlement to damages for the loss of peaceful enjoyment of their property.
93
Applied to AR games, if a player enters the land of another to walk through
an Ingress portal, catch Pokémon, catch a dinosaur, or cast a spell, and an-
noys the homeowners along the way, there could be liability for trespass.
Clearly, there is civil and criminal liability for the AR player, and players
have been personally ticketed and fined for trespassing.
94
Highlighting the
84. Scheble v. Nell, 19 Cal. Rptr. 375, 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).
85. W
ITKIN,SUMMARY 11TH EQUITY § 192 (2018).
86. Sw. Const. Co. v. Liberto, 385 So.2d 633, 636 (Ala. 1980).
87. Id. (citing Pritchett v. Wade, 73 So.2d 533 (Ala. 1954)).
88. Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117, 1119 (Wash. 2010).
89. Cal. Penal Code § 602 (West 2016).
90. Id.
91. Id.
92. See Williams v. Santander Bank, No. CV 15-04188, 2015 WL 4484202, at *7 (C.D.
Cal. July 22, 2015) (citing Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88,
93 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)).
93. Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co., 45 Cal. 2d 265, 273-75 (Cal. 1955);
K
IMBERLY A. GAAB &SARA CHURCH REESE,CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE:CIVIL
PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL CLAIMS &DEFENSES ¶ 11:914, Westlaw (updated Oct. 2019).
94. Beatriz Costa-Lima & Mary Hudetz, Pokemon Go Players are Trespassing, Risking
Arrest or Worse,
D
ENVER POST (Jul. 14, 2016, 11:14 AM), https://www.denverpost.com/2016
296 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
issue, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department issued a safety adviso-
ry to Pokémon Go players after receiving several complaints from private
property owners near the famed Santa Monica pier in Santa Monica, Cali-
fornia, after players learned that the game’s key character, Pikachu, was lo-
cated there.
95
It warned “[I]f you are not invited, stay out of private proper-
ty. We can guarantee you won’t find Pokémon in a jail.”
96
Similarly, in
Goochland County, Virginia, the sheriff’s department admonished, “Depu-
ties have located numerous individuals on business, church and government
properties at all hours of the night, when these places are closed to the pub-
lic. These actions are considered trespassing and put the individual and dep-
uties in a position of unnecessary risk. Please refrain from going onto prop-
erty without proper permission or after appropriate times.”
97
California law suggests that intentionally, recklessly, or negligently
causing a person to enter another’s property may create liability exposure
for trespass claims.
98
Could this notion of vicarious trespass subject devel-
opers to liability for a player’s trespass? The application of the relative
hardship doctrine informs our analysis.
1. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is
Permanent and Physical
Although trespass is most commonly depicted as a temporary or fleet-
ing unauthorized entry, cases have arisen involving the tortious placement
of a permanent object on the real property of another. For example, the
Washington Supreme Court recently applied the relative hardship doctrine
in ordering that plaintiff property owners are entitled only to compensatory
damages and must allow a house mistakenly erected on their property to
remain.
99
In Proctor v. Huntington, defendants unwittingly constructed their
home on their neighbor’s land.
100
Plaintiffs, who themselves were ignorant
/07/13/pokemon-go-players-risking-arrest-trespassing; see also Pokemon Go App Leads to
Trespassing Arrests, Criminal Charges for Players in Utah, O
VERSON LAW, PLLC, https://
www.utahcriminallaw.net/pokemon-app-trespassing-arrests-criminal-charges-players-utah
(last visited Mar. 15, 2020) (“Taryn McElfresh, 23, of Cincinnati, was arrested for trespassing
after ‘climbing [the] fence and entering Paul Brown Stadium to catch Pokémon for points.’
David Mastrototaro-Baermude, 20, was arrested by Tampa police after he alone, among a
group of 150 other trespassers, refused to leave Ballast Point Park while it was closed to the
public. In a similar incident, police in Manchester Township, Pennsylvania were called in to
remove about 20 players from a local park between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M.”).
95. Dylan Stableford, The “Pokémon Go” Craze is Creating a Headache for Police,
Y
AHOO NEWS (Jul. 13, 2016), https://www.yahoo.com/news/pokemon-police-dead-body-
robbery-000000842.html.
96. Id.
97. Id.
98. See J
UDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (2016).
99. Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117, 1119 (Wash. 2010).
100. Id.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 297
concerning where the property boundary lines were at the time of construc-
tion, eventually discovered this mistake and sued to eject defendants from
their land.
101
The court, after analyzing the relative hardship imposed upon
the parties, instead ordered that defendants were permitted to remain on the
disputed property, but must compensate plaintiffs for the value of the
land.
102
In permitting the home to remain, the court balanced the relative
hardship of the parties, noting that the defendants would incur greater hard-
ship if forced to remove the home, which was built with a good faith, albeit
incorrect, belief that it was built upon their own land.
103
2. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is
Temporary and Physical
Not surprisingly, courts have reached much different results where the
trespass was temporary in nature. One particularly noteworthy case strad-
dles both real and augmented reality thresholds. In Boring v. Google, a cou-
ple complained about the real-world intrusion on their private road by a
Google vehicle that photographed their home for Google Streetview and
subsequently posted the images captured online. The Borings claimed that
Google’s trespass over their unpaved and clearly marked “Private Road”
constituted an intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion of their privacy.
104
After two years of protracted litigation, all the claims for invasion of priva-
cy, conversion, negligence, and mental distress were dismissed, and the par-
ties were left to litigate the Borings’ trespass claim.
105
Ultimately, the Third
Circuit Appellate Court held that Borings’ allegation that “Google entered
upon their property without permission” was sufficient to allege a viable
trespass claim.
106
However, given the transient nature of the trespass alleged,
and the lack of actual damages incurred, the court noted that the Borings
might only be entitled to $1.00 in nominal damages plus “whatever sense of
vindication that might bring.”
107
Notably, the Borings’ request for punitive
damages was denied, distinguishing it from the well-known Wisconsin Su-
preme Court case, Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., wherein the Court af-
firmed an award of $100,000 in punitive damages for a willful trespass,
101. Id.
102. Id.
103. Id. at 1123. The court noted that the mistake in locating the home was caused by a
surveyor who incorrectly drew the property boundaries before defendants’ erected their home.
The court observed that requiring defendant to remove the home, garage, and water well that
was erroneously erected on plaintiff’s property “would be oppressive. . . and inequitable.” The
court ordered plaintiff to sell defendant the acre of land upon which their home was built for
fair market value, estimated to be $25,000 by an expert appraiser.
104. See Boring v. Google Inc., 362 Fed. Appx. 273, 276 (3d Cir. 2010).
105. Id. at 281.
106. Id.
107. Id.
298 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
even where only $1.00 in nominal damages were awarded.
108
Clearly, plain-
tiffs seeking to vindicate their property rights by bringing trespass claims
for transient, temporary trespasses can still reign victorious in court. How-
ever, unless actual damages or bad faith are proven, their reward will be
limited to nominal damages.
3. Balancing the Hardships Where the Trespass is Virtual
Establishing liability for real-world trespass against a physical person or
thing is relatively straight-forward and supported by well-established legal
principles. The novel issue presented by AR games is: when does the over-
lay of a virtual item on real property constitute a trespass? Moreover, what
recourse do property owners have when their properties are inhabited by
virtual creatures, visible only with the aid of a technological device, given
that an intentional trespass may only result in a nominal damages award?
Does the result differ if the placement of the virtual characters encourages
actual trespass by players?
There are presently more questions than answers surrounding the aug-
mented reality trespass debate. Is Niantic trespassing by placing its charac-
ters on private property without authority? Niantic did not admit liability in
connection with the settlement.
109
If trespass is the intrusion onto another’s
property, then can a virtual character, unseen without the aid of technology,
constitute an intrusion? Does the result change if, instead of a character, the
overlay is an advertisement or other message cast onto a real physical ob-
ject, such as a building, that can only be seen while playing the game?
Would this advertisement be considered a trespass if the player does not ac-
tually enter onto the property? “Part of one’s real property ownership pack-
age might include the use of that property in augmented space, similar to the
rights to the airspace we grant owners of land.”
110
Adding virtual space
ownership to the bundle of rights possessed by a real-world property owner
meaningfully expands the property interests developers would be compelled
to examine in a forward-thinking, self-regulatory Value Sensitive Design
analysis. Indeed, if the exclusive use and possession of real property in
augmented space stays with the real property owner, society now faces,
quite literally, a whole new world of liability exposure.
108. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 154, 166 (Wis. 1997) (Mobile home
seller was held liable for punitive damages where seller, over plaintiff’s protest, plowed a path
through plaintiff’s snow-covered field and subsequently used that path to deliver a mobile
home. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an award of nominal damages can support a
punitive damages award in the case of intentional trespass.)
109. Pls.’ Mot. Supp. Prelim. Approval Settlement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig.,
No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 13, (Feb. 14, 2019).
110. Donald J. Kochan, Playing with Real Property Inside Augmented Reality: Pokemon
Go, Trespass, and Law’s Limitations, 38 W
HITTIER L. REV. 70, 87 (2018).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 299
III. NUISANCE AND AUGMENTED REALITY:UNREASONABLE (VIRTUAL)
I
NTERFERENCE WITH THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF (REAL)PROPERTY
The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines a private nuisance as “a
nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoy-
ment of land.”
111
“Traditional nuisance cases involve noise, odor, traffic, vi-
brations, and other nearby offensive activity.”
112
Already a “thoroughly es-
tablished” principle in 1902, the Honorable Judge V.C. Pitney explained the
role of nuisance to resolve inevitable conflicts that arise at the intersection
of quiet enjoyment and commotion attendant to modern life:
The reason why a certain amount of noise is or may be
a nuisance is that it is not only disagreeable, but it also wears upon
the nervous system, and produces that feeling which we call ‘tired.’
That the subjection of a human being to a continued hearing of loud
noises tends to shorten life, I think, is beyond all doubt. Another
reason is that mankind needs rest and sleep, and noise tends to pre-
vent both. But then noise is one of the necessary accompaniments
of modern civilization, and men, as social beings, must of necessity
subject themselves to whatever annoyance reasonably arises out of
all those necessary and useful operations of society which do nec-
essarily produce more or less noise. The ordinary hum of machin-
ery, the noise of vehicles propelled along the public highways, and
the like, are examples of this noise. And in considering whether a
noise amounts to a nuisance, the question whether or not it is made
for a necessary or useful purpose is always taken into considera-
tion.
113
Judge Pitney placed great import on the purpose for which the noise was
generated, stating, “a noise which, if made to answer some useful purpose,
might be held to be not a nuisance, will, if used for an unlawful or unneces-
sary purpose, be held to be a nuisance.”
114
To be liable for private nuisance, either one’s conduct must be the legal
cause of an intentional and unreasonable invasion of another’s interest in the
use and enjoyment of her land, or if unintentional, the conduct was negli-
gent or reckless, or due to an abnormally dangerous activity.
115
Establishing
that the interference was “intentional” is a difficult threshold for property
owners to surmount. Liability, if any, may extend to the players and game
developers. Moreover, while property owners clearly have viable claims
111. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 821D (AM.LAW INST. 1965).
112. Hilary M. Goldberg et. al., It’s a Nuisance: The Future of Fracking Litigation in
the Wake of Parr v. Aruba Petroleum, Inc., 33 V
A.ENVTL. L.J. 1, 10 (2015).
113. Gilbough v. W. Side Amusement Co., 53 A. 289 (N.J. Ch. 1902).
114. Id.
115. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 822 (AM.LAW INST. 1965).
300 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
against the players who are trespassing and otherwise creating a nuisance,
prosecuting individual players is inefficient, ineffective, and expensive.
Limiting prosecution to individual players also limits recovery possibilities,
given that 32% of players are under eighteen and likely without the financial
resources to support a judgment.
116
This may explain why the plaintiffs in In
re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litigation named only Niantic, the developer,
with the power to redesign the game and abate the nuisance, and the pockets
from which to pay damages if held liable.
117
Whether game developers are liable for technology-inspired nuisance
claims remains an unresolved question, given that Niantic made no admis-
sion of liability in connection with the Pokémon Go settlement. However,
the settlement itself is a landmark outcome, having a far-reaching, industry-
changing impact given the requirements imposed by the agreement, which
include the implementation of strict deadlines for the resolution of com-
plaints for 95% of cases each year and the maintenance of records of such
requests.
118
Having set a new standard for reasonable game developer pro-
tections, a Value Sensitive Design framework following the Pokémon Go
settlement will surely integrate these policies before product release.
Plaintiffs face significant challenges when seeking to hold game devel-
opers liable for nuisance based on intentional, negligent, or even reckless
behavior. To defend against claims that a nuisance was created by intention-
al conduct, game developers may argue that their role is limited to the mere
placement of characters in an augmented reality overlay, and that they have
integrated warnings into the game, advising players not to trespass or oth-
erwise infringe upon the rights of others. To prove nuisance where the con-
duct was unintentional, a plaintiff must show that the conduct was negligent
or reckless. Arguably, creating a game that encourages players to go out into
the world to engage in active play creates a foreseeable risk of interference
with the rights of others. However, to prevail on a negligence theory, a
plaintiff will have to overcome the obstacles to establishing causation. Is the
developer the cause-in-fact of the nuisance where the actual disruption was
caused by the players? This raises many dynamic issues.
Plaintiffs also face challenges when seeking to hold other potential de-
fendants liable for nuisance. For example, private businesses located near
116. Mansoor Iqbal, Pokémon GO Revenue and Usage Statistics (2020), BUS. OF APPS
(Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.businessofapps.com/data/pokemon-go-statistics (“60% of
Pokémon Go users are aged 18-34 according to one measure; another finds 38% aged 19-34,
with a further 32% aged 18 or younger”).
117. Class Action Compl. in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300 (July
29, 2016).
118. Order Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance
Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 3 (Aug. 30, 2019).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 301
Pokéstops
119
can drop a lure to attract Pokémon for approximately thirty
minutes, which will attract players to catch Pokémon on their way to a near-
by Gym.
120
Is that business owner liable for nuisance for intentionally luring
crowds, possibly interfering with the quiet enjoyment of neighboring prop-
erties? It is certainly foreseeable given that the purpose of dropping a lure is
to draw a crowd. A plaintiff might also argue that Niantic shares liability
with the business owner, because in creating the lures, they have enabled
nuisance creating activities, even though the business owner has singularly
chosen to employ the feature in a manner that created the nuisance.
In addition to lures, Niantic offers private businesses the opportunity to
be a sponsored location, which is another intentional act to attract a crowd
and create a nuisance. At the peak of the game’s popularity in the summer
of 2016, each sponsored McDonald’s in Japan attracted 2,000 visitors a day,
for which McDonald’s paid up to fifty cents ($0.50) per visit to Niantic,
generating up to $250 million for the developer.
121
Imagine the crowd, con-
gestion, and noise created by 2,000 visitors per day. While McDonald’s
sought that crowd, the neighboring businesses and area residents did not.
They could argue that the use and enjoyment of their land were substantially
and unreasonably interfered with by both McDonald’s and Niantic. Whether
property owners and AR game developers will be held jointly liable for pub-
lic nuisance is an open issue. Developers thus far have escaped formal lia-
bility determinations, although the terms of the Pokémon Go settlement re-
quire additional accountability and remedial action.
122
“Unlike the private nuisance—tied to and designed to vindicate indi-
vidual ownership interests in land—the ‘common’ or public nuisance
emerged from distinctly different historical origins. The public nuisance
doctrine
123
is aimed at the protection and redress of community interests and,
at least in theory, embodies a kind of collective ideal of civil life which the
courts have vindicated by equitable remedies since the beginning of the 16th
119. See Hern, supra note 40 (“A Pokéstop does not exist: it is a latitude and longitude
stored on Niantic’s servers, interpreted by the Pokémon Go client which then represents it as a
circle hovering over a stylized Google map of the area surrounding the player.”).
120. Joel Berg & Nicole Chynoweth, The Reality Is Augmented, the Liability Is Real,
C
ENT.PA.BUS. J., (Jul. 15, 2016, 5:00 PM), http://www.cpbj.com/article/20160715
/FACEFORWARD13/160719910/the-reality-is-augmented-the-liability-is-real.
121. Josh Constine, Pokémon GO Reveals Sponsors Like McDonald’s Pay It Up to
$0.50 Per Visitor, T
ECHCRUNCH (May 31, 2017), https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/31
/pokemon-go-sponsorship-price.
122. Cf. Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 816 S.E.2d 77, 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (wherein
Snapchat’s motion to dismiss was denied and the company was held accountable).
123. R
ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 821B(1) (AM.LAW.INST. 1979) (defining a
public nuisance as “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public.”). Exam-
ples of public nuisances include the “obstruction of a public highway,” “maintenance of a
pond breeding malarial mosquitoes,” and the “shooting of fireworks in the public streets.” Id.
§ 821B, cmt. b.
302 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
century.”
124
Traditionally, the application of the public nuisance doctrine has
been limited to “conduct . . . performed in a location within the actor’s con-
trol.”
125
However, parties have made recent attempts to expand the doctrine
of public nuisance to impose liability on corporate actors for public conse-
quences, many with indirect or unestablished causal connections, such as
climate change, water pollution, and opioid addiction.
126
Model jury instructions provide guidance when evaluating a defend-
ant’s potential liability for public nuisance. To prove a case for public nui-
sance in California, for example, a jury must reach the following conclu-
sions:
1. That Defendant, by acting or failing to act, created a condition
that:
• was harmful to health; or
• was indecent or offensive to the senses; or
• was an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to in-
terfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property;
or
• unlawfully obstructed the free passage or use, in the cus-
tomary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay,
stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street,
or highway; or
• was a fire hazard/other potentially dangerous condition to
Plaintiff’s property;
2. That the condition affected a substantial number of people at
the same time;
3. That an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or dis-
turbed by the condition;
4. That the seriousness of the harm outweighs the social utility of
[name of defendant]’s conduct;
5. That Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant’s conduct;
6. That Plaintiff suffered harm that was different from the type of
harm suffered by the general public; and
124. People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 929 P.2d 596 (Cal. 1997).
125. In re Lead Paint Litig., 924 A.2d 484, 499 (N.J. 2007).
126. See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:16-cv-03493, 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 220968, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) (public nuisance action seeking to hold man-
ufacturers of polychlorinated biphenyls responsible for contamination of public waterways);
Compl. Cty. of Mariposa v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp., No. 1:18- cv-00626 (E.D. Cal.
May 7, 2018) (public nuisance action seeking to hold manufacturers and distributors of pain
medication responsible for opioid addiction); State v. BP P.L.C., Nos. 3:17-CV-06011 &
3:17-CV-06012, 2018 WL 1064293, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2017) (public-nuisance action
seeking to hold fossil-fuel companies responsible for sea-level rise associated with climate
change); Compl. N.Y. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., No. 400016/2018, at 8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug.
14, 2018) (public nuisance, unjust enrichment and deceptive advertising seeking to hold man-
ufacturer liable for opioid crisis).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 303
7. That Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff’s harm.
127
Recently, and controversially, some courts have extended the public
nuisance doctrine to impose liability upon defendants without establishing
causation. This extension serves as evidence that the well-established legal
doctrine of nuisance is not immune from evolution alongside changing
technology and attendant injuries. For example, in The People of California
v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company, et al., the State of California
brought a lawsuit against five companies involved in the manufacture and
sale of lead-based paint at a time when lead-based paint was legal.
128
The
trial court held that three of the defendants were liable for a public nuisance,
ordering them to pay $1.15 billion in damages to an abatement fund.
129
This
order was reversed on appeal on November 14, 2017, with the Appellate
Court limiting the Plaintiff’s recovery to “the amount necessary to cover the
cost of remediating pre-1951 homes” which resulted in a severely dimin-
ished recovery for plaintiffs.
130
A divided Supreme Court of California de-
nied the defendants’ petition for review.
131
Defendants then appealed to the
United States Supreme Court, insisting that it is “imperative that [the United
States Supreme Court] intervene now, before an extreme causation-and-
reliance-free form of “public nuisance” liability becomes the weapon of
choice in the ongoing tort wars.”
132
On October 15, 2018, the Supreme
Court denied the petition leaving the Appellate Court’s public nuisance rul-
ing intact.
IV. LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO COMBATTING NUISANCE AND
TRESPASS ISSUES GENERATED BY AR INTERACTIVE GAMES
The impact of AR games on the community is far-reaching, with parties
on both sides presenting new and novel arguments to advance and defend
against classic nuisance and trespass claims. Legislation has not evolved as
quickly as technology, so communities and municipalities face extraordi-
nary challenges when left to rely on common law tort theories and voluntary
self-regulation by technology companies. For example, according to the
Niantic Safety FAQs, the Pokéstops and Gyms should be “located at public-
127. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CACI No. 2020
(2016).
128. People v. ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499, 598 (Ct. App. 2017),
review denied, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 1277 (Cal. Feb. 14, 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 377 (Cal.
2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 378 (2018).
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. Id.
132. Pet. Writ Cert. ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co. & NL Indus. v. People of California, at
3, (July 16, 2018).
304 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
ly-accessible locations, such as historical sites, public works of art, interest-
ing architecture, and unique local businesses.”
133
Before the Pokémon set-
tlement, if someone objected to the location of a Pokéstop or Gym, they had
to request that Niantic modify or remove it by completing a form that re-
quires the latitude and longitude, owner verification for removals on private
property (non-residential), and images.
134
The settlement has replaced this
onerous task with a less daunting procedure. Understandably, in an industry
where Niantic had to face a lawsuit before implementing a logical, consum-
er-friendly reporting process, there is hesitance to rely on the AR game de-
velopers to self-regulate.
135
Moreover, as discussed below, where lawmakers
have attempted to take the lead, they have been thwarted by constitutional
challenges to proposed regulations.
Industry self-regulation has thus far proven ineffective, and the efficacy
of the request for exclusion process prescribed by the Pokémon Go settle-
ment is yet to be seen. The hope is that it addresses widespread concerns,
such as those raised by the 2016 placement of Pokéstops at the Loyola
Dunes on the north side of Chicago, which enjoy both state and federal pro-
tection.
136
Although the park benefitted from the increased traffic and reve-
nue resulting from the game, it suffered from increased littering, vandalism,
and even instances of wildlife destruction.
137
Several hundred requests for
removal of the Pokéstops fell on deaf ears until Illinois State Representative
Kelly Cassidy introduced the Video Game Protection Act, nicknamed
“Pidgey’s Law” after a common Pokémon.
138
The legislation would give a
game developer up to four business days to remove an unwanted location-
specific game element if such removal is requested by the location owner,
and failure to comply would result in a $100 per day fine until the location
is removed.
139
Consistent with the tenets of self-regulatory Value Sensitive
Design, Cassidy’s bill would require “the developer of a location-based vid-
eo game [to] remove . . . an ecologically sensitive site or location . . . on
private property, or site or location otherwise deemed dangerous by the real
property owner, manager, or custodian.”
140
While environmentalists sup-
ported the bill, tech companies put pressure on lawmakers to vote against it.
On April 21, 2017, six organizations representing tech industries sent an
opposition letter to Cassidy and the Chairman of the Illinois Judicial Civil
133. See Pokémon Go Safety FAQs,NIANTIC, https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/pokemon-
go/?p=web&s=safety-and-security&f=safety-faqs&l=en (last visited Mar. 10, 2018).
134. See Request Modification or Removal of a PokéStop or Gym, P
OKÉMON GO,
https://pokemongolive.com/en/report-location (last visited Mar. 10, 2019).
135. See Welinder, supra note 5, at 193-95; Selinger, supra note 5.
136. Ruppenthal, supra note 66.
137. Id.
138. Id.
139. H.B. 2459, 100
th
Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2018).
140. Id.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 305
Committee, arguing that the bill “would impose unnecessary, impracticable,
and constitutionally suspect obligations on application developers . . . .”
141
The authors of the opposition letter argued that the “First Amendment re-
stricts the state’s ability to regulate artistic expression and truthful speech –
both elements of any “[l]ocation-based video game”– and that “Illinois resi-
dents and visitors have a First Amendment right to obtain truthful infor-
mation and entertainment relating to public places including ‘historically
significant sites.’”
142
Although the bill did not pass,
143
Niantic ultimately re-
sponded to the community’s concerns by removing the Pokéstops from the
Loyola Dunes.
144
The Milwaukee County Parks Department similarly failed in its attempt
to hold Niantic responsible for thousands of dollars in damages to a city
park caused by Pokémon trainers, who left empty beer cans, trash piles, and
overflowing toilets.
145
Nearby residents complained of traffic congestion,
late-night noise, and unauthorized vendors.
146
Unable to recover damages in
court, the Milwaukee County Board passed an ordinance requiring creators
of location-based augmented reality games to obtain permits before using
Milwaukee parks in its games.
147
However, Candy Lab, the maker of Texas
Rope ‘Em,
148
another augmented reality game, sued the county for violation
of its First Amendment rights, and successfully sought an injunction, pend-
ing trial, arguing that the required Special Event Permit was not appropriate
for an augmented reality game since there are no start and end times or need
for portable restrooms and garbage collection.
149
Milwaukee County argued
“Texas Rope ‘Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it
does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays,
and video games – mediums of expression that typically enjoy First
Amendment protection – Texas Rope ‘Em has no plot, no storylines, no
characters and no dialogue.”
150
However, Justice Scalia declared that “video
141. State Privacy and Security Coalition, Re: Illinois HB 2459, the Location-based
Video Games Protection Act, N
ETCHOICE (Apr. 21, 2017), https://netchoice.org/wp-
content/uploads/SPSC-and-Assns-Letter-Illinois-HB-2459-Location-Based-Games-Privacy-
FINAL.pdf.
142. Id.
143. Ruppenthal, supra note 66138.
144. Id.
145. Stefanie Fogel, AR Games Like ‘Pokémon Go’ Need a Permit in Milwaukee,
E
NGADGET (Feb. 6, 2017), https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/06/pokemon-go-milwaukee.
146. Id.
147. Id.
148. Defs.’ Mem. Law Supp. Its Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. Dismiss Pl.’s Compl. Candy Lab,
Inc. v. Milwaukee Cty., No. 17-CV-00569, at 4 (May 31, 2017).
149. Mallory Locklear, First Amendment Suit Halts Anti-”Pokémon Go” Law,
E
NGADGET (Jul. 21, 2017), https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/21/first-amendment-suit-
halts-anti-pokemon-go-law.
150. Id.
306 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
games qualify for First Amendment protection,”
151
enhancing the critical
import of the integration of socially responsible Value Sensitive Design into
technology development.
In addition to municipal legislative actions, law enforcement and the
military have attempted to take the bull by the horns, both domestically and
internationally. For example, at the Joint Base Lewis-McChord military
base near Tacoma, Washington, the military advised: “DO NOT chase
Pokémon into controlled or restricted areas, office buildings, or homes on
base.”
152
The warning followed an incident at an Indonesian military base
where a jogger unintentionally wandered onto the base while chasing
Pokémon. The 27-year-old game player was briefly detained by West Java
police before being released.
153
In another instance, Lindsay Houghton, staff
sergeant of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of British Co-
lumbia admonished the public, stating, “We’ve heard stories of Pokémon
gyms and PokéStops being inappropriate not only here in Canada but
around the world.”
154
Houghton was referring to a Gym that was located
outside a clubhouse in Coquitlam for Hells Angels, a notorious motorcycle
gang, some of whose members have been or are engaged in criminal activi-
ty.
155
Houghton continued, “We think it’s highly inappropriate that this
game would include a location that attracts all ages – including children – to
the location of a gang that is not only as well known as the Hells Angels is,
but includes people who are involved in the highest levels of organized
crime, including violent crime.”
156
While even the most progressive, com-
prehensive Value Sensitive Design practice would be unable to identify and
locate every dangerous gang’s hangout and refrain from placing a character
nearby, it would ideally provide for a swift removal mechanism to cure such
issues as they arise.
In the tiny village of Bressolles, France, Mayor Fabrice Beauvois
sought to require technology developers to seek permission, or a permit, be-
fore geo-locating characters within village limits.
157
The mayor asserted that
151. Brown v. Entm’t Merch. Ass’n., 564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011).
152. Military Base Issues “Pokemon GO” Warning, F
OX NEWS (July 19, 2016),
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/19/military-base-issues-pokemon-go-warning.html
(issuing a warning on Facebook).
153. Id.
154. Pokemon Go “Gym” Outside Hells Angels Clubhouse in Coquitlam Draw Warn-
ing, G
LOBAL NEWS (July 25, 2016, 5:52 PM), https://globalnews.ca/news/2846577/pokemon-
go-gym-outside-hells-angels-clubhouse-in-coquitlam-draws-warning.
155. Id.
156. Kim Bolan, Hells Angels Clubhouse in Coquitlam a Surprise Pokemon Go Gym
Location,V
ANCOUVER SUN (Sept. 27, 2016), https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news
/hells-angels-clubhouse-in-coquitlam-a-surprise-pokemon-go-gym-location.
157. David Lumb, French Mayor Bans “Pokémon Go” in His Town, E
NGADGET (Aug.
17, 2016), https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/17/french-mayor-bans-pokemon-go-in-his-
town.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 307
the game’s virtual world is no different than any café owner in the real
world who would want to open in a French town.
158
Just as the café owner
would first seek permission from the mayor, Niantic should have asked first
before imposing its virtual world on his village.
159
After incidents in
Bressolles, Mayor Beauvois believed that the game needed to be banned to
ensure safety and order in the village.
160
While a common approach has been to ban, prohibit, or restrict partici-
pation in AR gaming,
161
others have taken the opposite approach to combat
issues arising from uninvited players. In 2016, the University of Nebraska
invited Pokémon trainers into Memorial Stadium for an afternoon of Poké-
mon hunting, designing a safe opportunity for the public to play the game,
while also preventing trespass issues and damage to University property.
162
This event was created in direct response to “a good number” of incidents
wherein people snuck into the stadium, including during a band camp.
163
The Nebraska Huskers tweeted, “Guys, you don’t need to jump the fence to
catch Pokemon at the stadium. We’ll let you in on Thursday.”
164
While a to-
tal of 3,708 trainers accepted that invitation,
165
this type of solution is tem-
porary and appropriate for only a select few property owners.
V. THE APPLICATION OF VALUE SENSITIVE DESIGN TO PREEMPT
TORTIOUS CONDUCT AND CLAIMS
A. The Role of Value Sensitive Design in
AR Interactive Games
Scholars have long argued that the Internet and technology could be de-
signed in a way that would protect fundamental human values.
166
“A deep
body of social science and technology research from outside the law has
demonstrated the ways in which values become embedded in technology,
such that the use of that technology becomes an expression of that value.”
167
Legal scholars such as Professors Deirdre Mulligan and Kenneth Bamberger
158. Id.
159. Id.
160. Id.
161. Class Action Compl. in re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300 (July
29, 2016).
162. Zach Pluhacek, Memorial Stadium Opening for Pokémon Go Players, L
INCOLN J.
S
TAR (July 12, 2016), https://journalstar.com/news/local/memorial-stadium-opening-for-pok-
mon-go-players/article_82831b8b-c161-55f2-8116-40136b2ffc3c.html.
163. Id.
164. Nebraska Huskers (@huskers), T
WITTER (July 12, 2016, 4:31 PM), https://
twitter.com/Huskers/status/752963574683742208.
165. Id.
166. See L
AWRENCE LESSIG,CODE:VERSION 2.0 121-25 (2006).
167. Deirdre K. Mulligan & Kenneth A. Bamberger, Saving Governance-by-Design, 106
C
AL.L.REV. 697, 708–09 (2018).
308 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
have built upon this research, stating, “[g]overning through technology has
proven irresistibly seductive. Everything from the Internet backbone to con-
sumer devices employs technological design to regulate behavior purpose-
fully by promoting values such as privacy, security, intellectual property
protection, innovation, and freedom of expression.”
168
Furthermore, “recent
battles over the values embedded in technology design [make] the case that
we are entering an era of policymaking by ‘design war.’”
169
B. Value Sensitive Design and “Reasonable” Interference -
Is “Don’t Be Evil” Enough?
Creators of the virtual world have the ability to model and manipulate
the virtual layer cast upon real property. The fact that the developers of AR
games like Ingress and Pokémon Go can and have removed virtual charac-
ters from real property, albeit following vigorous protest or legal action, is
evidence of that. In a time of slow-moving regulation, industry self-
regulation is a seductive option. However, the efficacy of self-regulation is
questionable as companies are permitted to shift their priorities and policies
so long as they are within the confines of existing law, largely without gov-
ernment oversight.
One such example of a quiet shift is in the case of Google, which until
recently defined its code of conduct with the phrase “[d]on’t be evil.”
170
The
previous version of the Google Code of Conduct stated:
“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we
serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes,
it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, fo-
cusing on their needs and giving them the best products and ser-
vices that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more
generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-
workers with courtesy and respect.
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be
evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything
we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should
be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical busi-
ness conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspi-
rational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us
hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust
and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation
168. Id. at 697.
169. Id. at 698.
170. Kate Conger, Google Removes “Don’t Be Evil” Clause from Its Code of Conduct,
G
IZMODO (May 18, 2018, 5:31 PM), https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-
mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393.
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 309
of our success, and they are something we need to earn every
day.
171
This portion of the Code of Conduct was quietly replaced with the follow-
ing:
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put Google’s
values into practice. It’s built around the recognition that every-
thing we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and
should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethi-
cal business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well
as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards
helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal
users. Respect for our users, for the opportunity, and for each other
are foundational to our success, and are something we need to sup-
port every day.
172
Notably absent is the previously prominent, introductory ethos, “Don’t
be evil,” though that phrase does appear later in the document, in commen-
tary form.
173
From company ethos to consumer warnings, companies have numerous
avenues to project goodwill while deflecting liability. For example, Niantic
attempts to limit its liability with a cautionary warning in its Terms of Ser-
vice, last updated May 15, 2019:
TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW,
NEITHER NIANTIC NOR ANY OTHER PARTY INVOLVED
IN CREATING, PRODUCING, OR DELIVERING THE
SERVICES OR CONTENT WILL BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
INCLUDING . . . FROM ANY COMMUNICATIONS,
INTERACTIONS, OR MEETINGS WITH OTHER USERS OF
THE SERVICES OR PERSONS WITH WHOM YOU
COMMUNICATE OR INTERACT AS A RESULT OF YOUR
USE OF THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED ON
WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR ANY OTHER
LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT NIANTIC HAS
171. Google Code of Conduct, ALPHABET (Apr. 21, 2018), https://web.archive.org/web
/20180421105327/https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html (last visited
Mar. 10, 2019).
172. Google Code of Conduct, A
LPHABET (July 31, 2018), https://abc.xyz/investor/other
/google-code-of-conduct.
173. Id.
310 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES. . . .
THE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET
FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE
BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN NIANTIC AND YOU.
174
In addition, the following warnings appear in the game itself:
1. Do not play Pokémon Go while driving.
2. Do not enter dangerous areas while playing Pokémon Go.
3. Remember to be alert at all times. Stay aware of your surround-
ings.
4. Do not trespass while playing Pokémon Go.
175
The argument that a technology developer should not be held liable for
foreseeable misuse is not novel. In the 2004 case Williams v. Cingular Wire-
less, the plaintiff sued Cingular for negligence after a Cingular customer
caused a traffic accident while allegedly using his phone.
176
The Indiana
court said that holding cell phone companies liable for such crashes “would
effectively require the companies to stop selling cellular phones entirely be-
cause the companies have no way of preventing customers from using the
phones while driving.”
177
Moreover, the cell phone functioned as intended,
and the accident was not caused by any defect within the product.
178
Unfor-
tunately, Williams v. Cingular Wireless offers little in the way of preceden-
tial value because the cellular company had no control over where custom-
ers would take and use the product, which is at the heart of AR trespass and
nuisance cases. In the case of AR, developers affirmatively place characters
and game elements at specific locations, so there is an increased level of
control between the developer and the physical environment within which
the product is used, or misused.
179
The Pokémon Go settlement recognizes
this control and provides property owners with a remedy to remove Poké-
stops and Gyms located on or near their property.
180
174. Niantic Terms of Service,NIANTIC, https://www.nianticlabs.com/terms/en (last vis-
ited Mar. 15, 2019).
175. Breanne L. Heldman, Pokemon Go Adds New Safety Warnings, E
NT.WKLY. (July
31, 2016, 12:00 PM), https://ew.com/article/2016/07/31/pokemon-go-new-safety-warnings
(noting that new warnings were included in a game update on July 31, 2016).
176. Williams v. Cingular Wireless, 809 N.E. 2d 473, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
177. Id.
178. Id. at 477.
179. See generally In re Lead Paint Litig., 924 A.2d 484, 499 (N.J. 2007) (public nui-
sance has always been limited “to conduct[] performed in a location within the actor’s con-
trol. . .”); Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 387-88 (1926) (nuisance must
be tied to a particular condition at a particular location that a court or jury can inspect).
180. Order Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement in re Pokémon Go Nuisance
Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 7 (Aug. 30, 2019).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 311
Underlying much of the debate concerning developer liability for player
conduct is this question: at what point, if any, will VR or AR be held ac-
countable for human behavior, and to what extent? Will technology soon be
so deeply embedded that the legal obligations we owe to each other are di-
minished? Will this liability always be joint and several between the tech-
nology developer and the human tortfeasor? Or, at some point, will technol-
ogy be so invasive, so compelling, that it achieves a level of mind control,
relieving the human actor from liability? Will this new technology be treat-
ed more like a mind-altering drug, such that the supplier is also held liable?
Or like a gun, which has largely held developers immune from challenge?
181
C. Evaluating Developer Liability Through Analogous Cases
Technology is developing so quickly that it is difficult to foresee all of
the problems that could arise. Some scholars have opined that “. . .it is not
difficult to imagine circumstances in which an AR experience designer is
held jointly liable for the trespass (and any resulting damage) because the
AR experience led users to onto the private property.”
182
Until such case law
develops, it is instructive to consider analogous cases.
Tracing jurisprudence from the time of paper maps to Snapchat, we first
explore the case of Captain Wahlund, an experienced international pilot
who, on August 31, 1975, was flying his private plane from Charleston,
West Virginia to Danbury, Connecticut using navigational charts produced
and sold by Jeppesen & Co.
183
These charts indicated that the Martinsburg,
West Virginia airport was equipped with an instrument landing system
(“ILS”).
184
Despite the light rain, fog, and wind, a safe landing could be
made by someone with Wahlund’s experience using an ILS. Unfortunately,
the Jeppesen maps were wrong, and the airport lacked an ILS. The plane
crashed, killing all three occupants.
185
The administratix of Wahlund’s estate
prevailed on claims for negligence, breach of implied and express warran-
ties, and strict product liability for a $1.5 million judgment.
186
On appeal,
Jeppesen argued the charts were products rather than services to defeat the
strict products liability claim. The court found that by “selling the charts,
Jeppesen undertook a special responsibility, as seller, to ensure that con-
sumers will not be injured by the use of the charts; Jeppesen is entitled –
181. Melissa Chan Just About Everyone But The Gun Makers Gets Sued After a Mass
Shooting, TIME (Aug. 20, 2019), https://time.com/5653066/mass-shooting-lawsuits.
182. B
RIAN D. WASSOM, AUGMENTED REALITY LAW,PRIVACY, AND ETHICS:LAW,
S
OCIETY, AND EMERGING AR Technologies 169-70 (2015).
183. Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co., 707 F.2d 671 (2d Cir. 1993).
184. Id.
185. Id.
186. Id.
312 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
and encouraged – to treat the burden of accidental injury as a cost of pro-
duction to be covered by liability insurance.”
187
In another Jeppesen maps case, Jeppesen created charts that synthesized
graphic representations of complex data provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
188
While the words and figures in the chart were correct, the
scale was off, resulting in another crash that killed everyone on board.
189
In
holding Jeppesen liable, the court noted that “it was reliance on this graphic
portrayal that Jeppesen invited.”
190
The graphic “radically departed” from
usual graphics in other Jeppesen charts and the conflict between the graphic
and the words rendered the chart unreasonably dangerous and therefore de-
fective.
191
The Jeppesen cases were product liability cases, wherein the injured
party’s conduct at a particular location was guided by the defendant’s maps
and information, and the defendant was held liable for the resultant foresee-
able outcome. This logic may be extended to AR gaming, wherein player
conduct is guided, and indeed incented, by the developer’s geo-located
game elements. Along these lines, vicarious liability for trespass and nui-
sance is comprehensible. Developers, however, will distinguish the
Jeppesen cases because Jeppesen owed a direct duty to its customer, the in-
jured party, as the manufacturer of the defective product that caused the in-
jury. In the case of AR incented nuisance and trespass claims, the injured
party is not in privity with the developer creating a more tenuous connec-
tion.
Injuries, lawsuits, and the resultant common law evolution have transi-
tioned from paper maps to smartphone applications. One such lawsuit in-
volves the popular Snapchat app, and its speed filter, which measures the
speed at which the phone and its user are traveling and allows them to snap
a picture to record the speed.
192
A witness involved in a speed filter-related
accident described her experience:
I looked up and noticed that we seemed to be accelerating. I looked
in the front, and saw Christal McGee holding her phone. The screen
had a speed on it, which was about 80 m.p.h. and climbing. I asked
Christal if her phone was keeping up with the speed of the car.
Christal said it was. I told her I was pregnant and asked her to slow
down. Christal responded and said she was just trying to get the car
to 100 m.p.h. to post it on Snapchat. She said “I’m about to post it.”
187. Id. at 677 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A cmt. c (AM.LAW
INST. 1965)).
188. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Jeppesen & Co., 642 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1981).
189. Id.
190. Id. at 342.
191. Id.
192. Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 816 S.E. 2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 313
I began pleading with Christal to slow down. I saw the speed on the
phone hit 113 m.p.h. before she let off the gas. Just after I saw the
speed of 113 m.p.h., a car pulled out of an apartment complex, and
I screamed.
193
The car that pulled out of the apartment complex was driven by Went-
worth and Karen Maynard, who were struck by Ms. McGee’s speeding car,
causing Wentworth permanent brain damage.
194
The Maynards sued both
Snapchat and McGee arguing that Snapchat knew users could “use its ser-
vice in a manner that might distract them from obeying traffic or safety
laws.”
195
Still, the judge ruled that the Communications Decency Act
196
(the
“CDA”) provides Snapchat with complete immunity for its allegedly negli-
gent actions.
197
Under the CDA, the trial court reasoned, service providers
are immune from liability for information posted by a third-party user, like
Ms. McGee.
198
“Ultimately, the use of the CDA is to ‘protect internet ser-
vice providers for the display of content created by someone else.’”
199
How-
ever, on appeal, the court distinguished this case from predecessor cases
200
because the Maynards were not trying to hold Snapchat liable for something
a third party user published on its platform, but rather for the very design of
its filter.
201
As the court noted, “the Maynards seek to hold Snapchat liable
for its own conduct, principally for the creation of the speed filter and its
failure to warn users that the speed filter could encourage speeding and un-
safe driving practices. Accordingly, we hold that CDA immunity does not
apply because there was no third-party user content published.”
202
The Snapchat lawsuit has been widely reported as yet another example
of “a growing problem largely attributed to people who can’t put down their
193. Id. at 79.
194. Id.
195. Id.
196. Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018).
197. Maynard, 816 S.E. 2d at 78.
198. Id. at 79 (“No provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider[.]”)
(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) (“The CDA was enacted by Congress to provide ‘federal im-
munity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information origi-
nating with a third-party user of the service.’”) (quoting Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129
F.3d 327, 330 (4
th
Cir. 1997)).
199. Maynard, 816 S.E. 2d at 79 (citing Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings LLC,
755 F.3d 398, 406 (6th Cir. 2014)).
200. Maynard, 816 S.E. 2d at 80-81 (distinguishing from Jane Doe No. 1 v. Back-
page.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2016), Fields v. Twitter, 217 F.Supp.3d 1116 (N.D.
Cal. 2016), and Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009)).
201. Maynard, 816 S.E. 2d at 80.
202. Id. at 81.
314 Michigan Technology Law Review [Vol. 26:279
electronic devices while they’re behind the wheel.”
203
As noted by Jason
Levine, executive director of the Center of Auto Safety, “It’s incredibly im-
portant and instructive that we’re seeing a court of appeals take seriously the
impact of technology that’s designed for the purpose of entertainment, and
how it can have a public safety impact.”
204
Others, even in the face of fore-
seeable, tragic outcomes, insist that full liability remains with the user, not-
ing that “Snapchat is a tool, and it can be used for good or for bad.”
205
The application of self-regulatory Value Sensitive Design would require
developers to consider public safety and proactively integrate protective
mechanisms, beyond mere warnings when their products create or encour-
age a foreseeable risk of harm to the user or community. For example, when
designing a filter to capture high-speeds, developers would be prudent to
conduct a thorough risk and liability analysis and embed features that dis-
courage or prohibit usage while driving, such as an artificial intelligence
based algorithm to determine whether or not the user is likely to be behind
the wheel.
206
Developers are enjoying massive financial success given the
popularity of these products. One could argue that this success, to an extent,
is at the expense of property owners and communities and that this expense
should be repaid.
CONCLUSION
“Pokémon Go . . . not only takes users out into the real world, but it
brings real world issues into the gaming world,”
207
requiring that we either
address or adapt to its impact. As we learned from the remedies fashioned in
the In re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litigation settlement, Niantic can remove
virtual characters from real property.
208
As we wait for the industry to re-
spond to the impact of the settlement, it will be interesting to note whether
203. Katie Rogers, Snapchat at 107 M.P.H.? Lawsuit Blames Teenager (and Snapchat),
N.Y. TIMES (May 3, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/snapchat-speeding-
teenager-crash-lawsuit.html.
204. Martina Barash & Steven Sellers, Snapchat Crash Case May Spell Liability for App
Maker, BLOOMBERG L. (June 7, 2018, 5:44 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-
liability-and-toxics-law/snapchat-crash-case-may-spell-liability-for-app-maker-2?context=
article-related.
205. Id.
206. Notably, Uber has filed a patent application describing a system that will detect a
user’s drunken behavior by tracking “how someone typically uses the Uber app: how quickly
they type (and with how many typo), how precisely they click on buttons, their walking speed,
and the way their phone is typically held or dropped on any given day.” Shoshana Wodinsky,
Uber Wants to Patent a System That Knows When You’re Drunk, VERGE (June 8, 2018),
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/8/17441554/uber-drunk-passenger-ai.
207. Adam B. Thimmesch, Professor Thimmesch Discusses the Legal Issues Raised by
Pokémon Go,N
EB.C.OF L. (July 14, 2016), https://law.unl.edu/node/879.
208. See Order Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement in
re Pokémon Go Nuisance Litig., No. 3:16-cv-04300, at 7 (Aug. 30, 2019).
Spring 2020] When Worlds Collide 315
developers will become more mindful of virtual object placement in the first
place.
Owners of real property face significant trespass and nuisance issues
when virtual characters are located on or around their property, and these
interests may not be adequately protected by existing common law doc-
trines. Existing trespass theories are difficult to extend to the virtual world,
and the courts have yet to decide whether developers may be held liable for
nuisance where the complained of behavior is caused not by the virtual ob-
jects cast on the property, but rather by the voluntary acts of the players.
Moreover, attempts at imposing legislative control have been thwarted by
First Amendment challenges. Notwithstanding, it is without question that
not only could technology be designed in a way that would protect funda-
mental human values,
209
it should be.
Self-regulation, such as Value Sensitive Design, may decrease techno-
logically enabled tortious conduct by prompting virtual reality game devel-
opers to consider the stakeholders possibly affected by their game design
beyond their direct consumers and program accordingly. Until then, while
legislation lags behind and industry self-regulation remains ineffective, the
most productive protectors of human values may be individual plaintiffs,
armed with common law theories to combat modern injuries.
209. LESSIG, supra note 166, at 121-25.
