Quote:
Originally Posted by PTLou
OT but....
Plantiff lawyers working on bot case. Pfff. Bots and those lawyers are equally horrible.
Lawyers in NYC use bots to automatically file plantiff suits when Public Companies file several types of notices with SEC. They have bots that scan SEC filings and auto file lawsuits.
For example public company files notice of acquisition. Next morning they will have 3-6 auto generated emails and auto generated lawsuits from random plantiff atty's with no idea or knowledge of the company, other than they filed a form with SEC.
I have no idea of what French law provides and doubt posters itt do either.
What this sounds like is a claim that Winamax allowed bots to play, that violates either or both of the Winamax terms of service and some gaming law or regulation. Perhaps so....
If so, what is the measure of recovery by these claimants ? Is it
(a) everything they lost or
(b) should it be everything they lost because they were playing a bot or
(c) should it be everything they lost because they were playing a bot unknowingly ?
If some of the claimants were simply playing so poorly it mattered little who their opponent was, do they get a freeroll for their bad play ? (fwiw, I think, yes.)
I am not defending Winamax at all, just curious of what these claimants should recover, if they were tricked into playing against bots because the Winamax terms forbade their opponents from using bots and they, the claimants, relied on that term.
If the terms limit recovery to something less than the aggregate losses, perhaps rake generated, should that stand as a limit ?
Should the gaming regulator be required to reimburse them because it failed to police its licensee ?