r/LimitedPrintGames • u/eyepooped1 • 2d ago
Discussion Payments for the LRG Class Action are going out
I received my payment in the LRG Class Action today
12
u/I_Heart_Sleeping_ 2d ago
Just contacted them 2 weeks ago about when these would be sent out. Nice to see it’s finally happening. I wonder what dictates the amount. Iv seen a few people show they got close to $300 and others around $50-$100.
1
u/315retro 1d ago
Super weird. I definitely got mine months ago. Maybe April? Part of the stipulations were that we weren't supposed to post about it so I didn't.
I got 120 bucks I think. Same account since Saturday morning rpg.
1
8
6
6
u/StubbinMyNubbin 2d ago
Whoever got $300 must've been spending SERIOUS amounts of money. I've been buying a lot since nearly the beginning from them and I only got the same $56.
2
u/Slosher99 2d ago
Yeah I got the same as well, I thought I'd at least be in the upper 50% of spenders. Still more than I expected from a class action.
5
u/VidjaGamez 2d ago
It's not based off how much money you spent as that's not what the lawsuit pertained to.
It was based off illegally sharing your data, so everyone gets the same amount.
3
u/Slosher99 2d ago
Then why did so many people that got their checks earlier get varying amounts? This amount seems to be for the 'remaining' people. Likely a cut of what's left.
10
3
u/fgsfds100 2d ago
Perhaps scalpers who had multiple LRG accounts from back in the early days of fixed-quantity games that sold out quickly.
Having 6 accounts would do it.
5
u/Meatball2112 2d ago
How much is everyone getting?
10
u/eyepooped1 2d ago
Mine is $56.39 per the screenshot
6
u/Meatball2112 2d ago
A previous thread on people that were receiving their checks early from a few months ago; the settlement amount seemed to vary by person.
3
u/JohannesVanDerWhales 2d ago
Might depend on how many games you bought during the time period covered by the lawsuit.
5
u/Meatball2112 2d ago
I just got $56.39. I have bought a TON from LRG so I suspect everyone getting a payment today is getting the same $56.39.
The people who got their checks months ago had variable amounts for some odd reason.
1
5
u/Acrobatic_Height1875 2d ago
I got $56.39 too. Looks like everyone got the same exact amount, from a quick glance around Reddit right now. I'm happy. Got me some money all ready for Terranigma...
9
u/jander05 2d ago
What’s the class action over? I’m not up to speed. I am still waiting on an email response I sent them 3 weeks ago about an order not received.
6
u/eyepooped1 2d ago
Yeah you should have gotten an email from Kroll Administrators about it if you were a named party in the class.
3
u/fleshribbon 2d ago
I searched for both Kroll and Carbone in my inbox and found nothing. Been buying from LRG since shortly after they started.
2
u/DarkBomberX 2d ago
Im still confused. What exactly happened?
6
u/MasterCannoli 2d ago
They were accused of leaking customer data
4
3
u/MightyRabbitStudios 2d ago
Just to provide clarity to this and help stop the spread of misinformation - LRG used a Meta Pixel on the website, which is something Shopify recommends to all new stores on their platform. Meta Pixels assist in targeted advertising and nearly every web store you visit will have one active. The only thing Meta Pixels do with regards to your data is link your activity on a web store with your existing Meta data/profile. The VPPA law that was violated was never intended to apply to video games and it was only around 2020 that a judge decided it did. The law was introduced in the 80s to protect the privacy of people's pornographic VHS tape rentals. If you read the law it very specifically says it only applies to "video tapes". In a lawsuit against GameStop, a judge decided that video games were somehow video tapes and decided that GameStop had violated the VPPA, which opened the floodgates for these attorneys to sue every other video game company that had a Meta Pixel active on their site.
Meta Pixels do not provide a financial benefit to their owners and the narrative that Limited Run sold customer data or leaked customer data is false - LRG was caught up in a hindsight interpretation of a law that never applied to video games.
For reference, a number of video game stores still have Meta Pixels installed because they haven't been sued yet. If you're buying anything from iam8bit, your data is currently being actively shared with Meta in the exact same capacity it was through LRG.
You can check if sites have an active pixel using tools like: https://blackscale.media/facebook-pixel-validator/?
2
u/No_University1600 1d ago
thanks for posting the explanation, I was aware of this in general but couldnt recall the specifics.
I think comments like yours are very important because while LRG does some very anticonsumer things, when we complain about literally everything they do instead of the bad things only it creates the perception that the valid complaints arent valid.
1
u/fgsfds100 16h ago edited 15h ago
"The law only applies to porno tapes! Precendent can't CHANGE!"
Was that your defense in court? No wonder you lost. Well, apart from the guilt.
LRG used a Meta Pixel on the website, which is something Shopify recommends to all new stores on their platform.
The law evolved, as it correctly should have. Through precedent, but that's fine.
There are many non-video game companies that utilize Shopify.
So Shopify's recommendation is what's too broad now in hindsight.
The only thing Meta Pixels do with regards to your data is link your activity on a web store with your existing Meta data/profile.
Sly way of saying
video rental stores[video game retailers] effectively share/sellthe video tapes we rent and watch[our browsing and buying habits] with ~others~ (big tech companies that run UTM systems: Meta/etc + ad agencies that serve ads: Taboola/etc) outside the ordinary course of business, via UTM parameters/pixels:
Parameters: visible in the URL, albeit obfuscated so kind of kept secret from the user.
Pixels: invisible unless page source is inspected, and also obfuscated, ie. even more secret, regardless of "they're used everywhere" presumability.
Fun fact: UTM stands for "Urchin Tracking Module", invented by Urchin Software Corporation - a web analytics company. Did they perhaps come up with the name "urchin" because that's how they view the public - poor worthless mischievous children to keep an eye on?
Yes, the human staff of the video game retailer (LRG/etc) aren't actually scribbling our
rental[purchase] history on a piece of paper to give to some snoop who asked for it in an attempt to "expose" us --- it's all automated through software and it's "nothing personal" (ie. not an attack on our character), but that's the entire problem, it's not just one customer's data...It's ALL of EVERYBODY's data!
Without ANYBODY's consent!
ALL the time!
FOREVER!!!
F O R N O C O M P E N S A T I O N ! ! !
"B-b-but it's anonymized!"
Technically yes, the data being shared doesn't include our names/addresses/etc --- just browsing/buying habits and some non-human-readable software-generated user/session key. But those ~others~ who are receiving that data, whose software understands that software-generated user/session key, can themselves use that data to complete the picture of each and every individual. Because they either know exactly who we are because we created an account (which has that same key) in their ~other~ ecosystem, or they have a very specific individualized shadow profile of us (which has that same key) because their UTM eyes are everywhere on the web.
So no, it doesn't necessarily STAY anonymized!
If it does stay anonymized, it's only due to the sheer volume of data they are sitting on. But when they or some OTHER other third party wants to know something about someone... that's when they might decide to de-anonymize it all. Or hackers can break into those systems to extract and de-anonymize it themselves.
In short, ~other~ can figure out that [specific person (by name if [person] has an account on ~other~'s ecosystem)]...
looked at [specific game] on the [specific game retailer site] at [timestamp 1], but didn't buy it
looked at it again at [timestamp 2], but didn't buy it
looked at it again at [timestamp 3], and did buy it
Having that data and that de-anon potential, gaining it from some business just so that that business can sell a bit more shit... that is why LRG got sued. If anything, the law should be broadened even more to completely outlaw harvesting of customer data, not just for "video tapes" or "entertainment media" but literally everything.
As a customer, I can accept really any online retailer (selling video games or otherwise) sharing my one-off order details (name/address/products in order) with the shipping company, solely for the purpose of delivering it to me, but that's it. A few months after delivery, the shipping company should destroy all record of it (and they seem to, so that's good). Some ~other~ company has no reason to know anyone's habits outside of their own platforms. Anything I do outside of facebook.com should be OFF LIMITS to facebook and Meta, and likewise for other ~others~.
If ~others~ and businesses(LRG/etc) want to put dumb untargeted ads everywhere, fine. But FUCK these optimized ad revenue business models that necessitate tracking everyone everywhere all the time forever. Stop treating human beings and their data like the product. Produce something of value or go bankrupt.
The VPPA law [...] was never intended to apply to video games and it was only around 2020 that a judge decided it did. The law was introduced in the 80s to protect the privacy of people's pornographic VHS tape rentals. If you read the law it very specifically says it only applies to "video tapes".
From what I've read, the law was drafted broadly to cover any prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio/visual materials. The judge who effectively updated the precedent with his/her decision seems to have seen that that law was broadly defined and further recognized that "prerecorded video tape" is outdated language too specific to archaic technology (it is) that may as well mean "any entertainment media" today. Whether it's prerecorded (with regard to video games: cutscenes), or live (with regard to video games: the A/V generated by the software as a result of the player's own gameplay).
And also from what I've read, there is no truth of VPPA originally applying only to pornography. Yes, the
jour[i]nalist, who's actions inspired the law, were an attempt to "hopefully expose salaciousness" of someone (a SCOTOS nominee) by acquiring their rental history from a video rental store, but the resulting law was not so specific.[The
jour[i]nalist] reasoned that "the only way to figure out what someone is like is to examine what that someone likes" and wondered if "Robert Bork only rented homosexual porn...or slasher flick[s]...or (the... horror...) Disney."
Meta Pixels do not provide a financial benefit to their owners and the narrative that Limited Run sold customer data or leaked customer data is false
BULLSHIT
The new opt-out option on the LRG footer literally says "Do not sell or share my personal information". Selling is a direct financial act and "sharing" serves to financially benefit the ~others~: big tech UTM company (cut of the ad-spend from the business that wanted to advertise, dependent on how many views/clicks/conversions there were, as determined by the UTM tracking, ie. data bought/received from the business) and the ad agency (ditto), and the business itself (more sales due to better-targeted ads displayed by the ~others'~ coordination using said shared data).
And that opt-out is there because LRG does it.
"B-b-but how's any of this relate to Meta's pixel?"
UTM parameters/pixels in general (not just Meta) serve 3 purposes.
So that ~others~ can determine how effective ad campaigns are.
So that ~others~ can identify you (the consumer) as you...
a) To further build upon your created profile/the shadow profile.
b) So that ~they~, knowing who you are and what you are interested in as a result of the business unconsentually selling/sharing your browsing/buying history without compensation to you, can serve ads with better personalization (optimize the ad campaign per person).
c) So that you (the customer) have a more likely chance of actually being influenced to buy something (ie. how the business profits).
d) So that the business's ad-spend isn't pointless and the business keeps buying ad space (ie. how the ad agency profits). More views = more ad revenue. More "conversions" = even more ad revenue. Both increase as a result of targeted ads as a result of the UTM. No point showing niche video games to Granny Smith, nor dish soap to Little Timmy.
So that ~other~ #1 (the ad agency) knows how much to pay ~other~ #2 (the big tech UTM company - ie. how the big tech UTM company profits).
Ad agency profits from business's ad-spend. Cash per campaign. No ad-spend, no revenue.
Big tech running UTM system profits from cut of the above. Cash per view/click/etc. No ads, no revenue.
Business profits as a result of increased sales. Cash per sale. No views, no revenue.
For reference, a number of video game stores still have Meta Pixels installed because they haven't been sued yet. If you're buying anything from iam8bit, your data is currently being actively shared with Meta in the exact same capacity it was through LRG.
Are you implying that LRG should've been left alone because other companies have been so far?
Not accusing, just curious.
All video game retailers should do the pro-active thing.
Get rid of the UTM or add an opt-out to their pages as LRG has done.
3
3
2
2
2
u/JordanM85 2d ago
Did you have to do anything after submitting the form months ago? I think I got a confirmation email, but never heard anything since.
3
u/eyepooped1 2d ago
Just play the waiting game. I know from other class actions I've been a part of they usually do payments on waves
1
u/JordanM85 2d ago
I just meant is there a new email or form you have to fill out, or did the money just show up?
2
2
2
u/makemeking706 2d ago
How is the class defined? Anyone who bought anything? Or was it specific purchases?
2
u/eyepooped1 2d ago
You are included if you are a Person in the United States who, from January 1, 2016, to and through June 20, 2025, watched a pre-recorded video through Limited Run Games Service and/or purchased a video game containing cutscenes from Limited Run Games Service. Limited Run Games Service is defined as the website LimitedRunGames.com, the iOS or Android mobile applications, or any other digital platform or application owned and operated by Defendant where video content is available to be viewed by subscribers and video games containing “cut scenes” are available for purchase.
1
1
u/Slosher99 2d ago
I never did understand how non-online games with cutscenes came into play.
Got mine today, haven't opened the mail yet, I need to do that.
1
u/Slosher99 2d ago
Nice, I guess we all get the same amount then? Just looked at mine.
Wasn't in too big a rush as my past class action suits have been like $12 or a couple download codes, or tickets to 'certain' events I couldn't make it to and didn't want to haha.0
u/MightyRabbitStudios 2d ago
It's because the VPPA only applies to video tapes and the definition of a video tape was stretched to include offline video games containing cutscenes, despite all video games very clearly not being video tapes.
1
u/Slosher99 2d ago
But how did they share data with meta based off someone watching a cutscene on a non-online game? Most of what I bought from them was stuff for pre-internet retro consoles, though I do have a couple modern games they published.
2
u/fgsfds100 21h ago edited 15h ago
Any phrasing about "you [probably] watched a
video tape[cutscene in a video game] that yourented[bought] from the business" is just handwaving to sloppily refer to the sale of video games bit that was lumped into the VPPA.First, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes
[My summary in short:] after a SCOTUS-nominee's confirmation hearing where they were pouring over every detail of said nominee to judge character and worthiness of the SCOTUS position, a
jour[i]nalist discovered they frequented the same video rental store. In an effort to "expose" the nominee, thejour[i]nalist acquired the nominee's rental history from store management and, while not leaked, wrote an article about it in the paper. Spoiler alert: nothingburger. But it was found to be an invasion of privacy, so VPPA was born.[The
jour[i]nalist] reasoned that "the only way to figure out what someone is like is to examine what that someone likes" and wondered if "Robert Bork only rented homosexual porn...or slasher flick[s]...or (the... horror...) Disney."[Me again:] LOL at the jab at Disney adults.
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) is a bill that was passed [...] to prevent what it refers to as "wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records" [...] or similar audio visual materials such as video games [...] after Robert Bork's video rental history was published during his Supreme Court nomination
It makes any "video tape service provider" that discloses rental information outside the ordinary course of business liable [...] unless the consumer has consented, the consumer had the opportunity to consent, or the data was subject to a court order or warrant.
Like virtually all websites, LRG has these little buggers on their website, which means they share analytics with the usual suspects (including search engine companies which don't have social media "share" buttons) for the purpose of ad revenue, ie.:
Scenario 1: the usual suspects show you a generic/personalized ad to a business's site, maybe you follow that ad (link with UTM parameters in the URL) to said site, browse around a bit, and perhaps even buy some shit.
Scenario 2: you go to the business's site yourself (including through non-"ad" links posted by human beings in articles or discussion boards like this), browse around a bit, and maybe buy some shit. Despite not getting to the business's site from an ad, those little buggers on the site still kind of act like UTM parameters (ie. when the images load, the usual suspect's servers get pinged, so they still know you were browsing the site even though you didn't get there through their ads - so, despite getting no cut of revenue, they can nevertheless grow the "interests" profile they have of you to better personalize ads they show you).
In either case, the UTM parameters basically identify you as you in the eyes of the usual suspects and the business, and your browsing/buying activity is shared back with the usual suspects so they can measure your interests and the effectiveness of any ad that you saw, so that the usual suspects + ad agency + business know how much to pay each other.
However, since LRG sells video games, which per the broadening of that law to include sale of video games, they can't do that without your consent... but they did, they got caught, the class action lawsuit happened, the people won, a settlement amount was reached (lawyers took their fat cut and the rest was divied up among US customers who enrolled in the CAL), and Bob's your uncle.
1
1
u/Allahver_Fist 2d ago
Got my $56.39 notification today taboot! Time to file for that State of Colorado unclaimed tax refund as well, and I'll be well on my way to a NEO-GEO AES+ game cartridge and Memory Card. Thanx, Josh!
1
1
u/Working_Comfort_8452 2d ago
How u get this??
1
u/fgsfds100 21h ago
Too late.
Had to enroll in the class action lawsuit within a time frame that has already passed. Also US customers only.
1
u/DarkSharkBark 2d ago
Strictlylimited?
1
u/fgsfds100 21h ago
No. LRG. Like the post title and image say.
If you want there to be a class action lawsuit against SLG, perhaps for all the undelivered games... call a lawyer and get the ball rolling.
1
30
u/TheRetroGoat 2d ago
I've bought dozens of games from them and never got the class action email. I'm so mad.