Take-Two sues the Chicago Transit Authority

by Xav de Matos { May 6th 2008 at 1:30PM }

Take-Two Interactive has filed suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in a Manhattan federal court on Monday for pulling ads that promoted the controversial game, Grand Theft Auto IV, without explanation. Take-Two Interactive alleges the CTA has violated its free speech and contractual rights, saying it pulled its posters within days of the ads first appearing on April 22.

In the filing Take-Two accused the CTA and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000 campaign agreement that included running Grand Theft Auto IV promotional advertisements on buses and at bus stops throughout the Chicago area, which were scheduled for display for six weeks between April and June.

The advertisements were pulled after a Fox News affiliate questioned the CTA's priorities of promoting the controversial title during a surge of violent crime in the city of Chicago.

Take-Two seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.

[Thanks, LeGrande J.]

Tags: business, grand-theft-auto, grand-theft-auto-iv, gtaiv, lawsuit, take-two

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

WilsonGoneWild @ May 6th 2008 1:43PM

I don't see the reason for the lawsuit unless Take-Two was stupid enough to agree to a contract that didn't stipulate a refund if this were to happen. After all, this did happen before a few years ago.

How did G.W.Bush say it? "Fool me once...shame on you. Fool me twice....well, you...won't fool me again.. err...where's Cheney?"

vidGuy @ May 6th 2008 1:51PM

Take-Two had a contract with CTA; CTA breached that contract. Should be a simple case in Take-Two's favor.

Screamscape @ May 6th 2008 2:06PM

It's called free publicity. You can't buy coverage like this and as they hope that this will become a national news story and give GTAIV tons of free coverage as there is nothing about the story that will slow game sales.

RudyHuxtable @ May 6th 2008 1:52PM

At least now a game publisher's lawyers are going to earn their living.

BorgDroNeZ @ May 6th 2008 2:08PM

I thought this was funny because I got off a train in Chicago on the red line, and there were gta4 ads on the train, and got off at a stop that had Niko on the side of the building.

As much financial trouble as CTA is in, they can't afford to pull ad because of a dumb ass news report on a conservative news station.

DiscoGhost @ May 6th 2008 2:14PM

meh...if violent crime is really up in chicago then i can understand the reasoning for pulling ads for a game that encourages violent crime.

glenncou @ May 6th 2008 3:04PM

I'm not advocating that GTAIV is responsible, but yes, violence in Chicago has been increasingly high. Between April 14th-30th of this year, there were "at least 54 shootings in the Chicago area [sic]that[sic] have left 15 people dead. In one horrific weekend, at least nine people were killed in 36 separate attacks."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/29/chicago.violence/index.html

DiscoGhost @ May 6th 2008 3:15PM

yeah, by no means am i blaming GTA either, but it is morally responsible for them to take down advertisements that glorify violent crime.

Royale @ May 6th 2008 3:26PM

It's an advertisement for a video game... A VIDEO GAME! Morally responsible? Bull shit... in that case Chicago is morally responsible to not issue business licenses and liquor licenses to strip clubs, bars, dance clubs, gun shops, etc... because by the same standard and morals they should not exist. My morals tell me that it's ok to play that game... why? because it's a GAME. My morals also tell me not to go deal drugs, shoot people up at the mall, run people over with cars etc...

Morality is different for everyone, but it's not up to my government to enforce their (or anyone's) moral values on me or anyone else.

DiscoGhost @ May 6th 2008 3:33PM

@ Royale

I'm not saying that GTA should be illegal in chicago, which is what you seem to have taken from it. I'm just saying that if violent crimes are a huge problem all of a sudden in your city, your city's government shouldn't be advertising media that glorifies violence.

Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't allow GTA to advertise in chicago...i just dont think the CITY should be signing up as the sponser.

Royale @ May 6th 2008 5:13PM

A city having moral responsibility towards a video game advertisement is what I took from your post.

Also, the city isn't sponsoring the game, the game is sponsoring the city by purchasing advertising from them.

8complex @ May 6th 2008 2:15PM

I think that the lawsuit's main point is that they pulled the ads without reason, and more than likely with prior knowledge of what they ads looked like and what they were advertising.

The least they could've done would be to have advertised using a more simple picture (perhaps just the logo and release date), but they chose to just hit the delete button without reasoning beyond the media's criticism.

Not that I see where the criticism holds ANY grounds as most of the "violent crimes" going on around town are in poor enough areas that they wouldn't be able to afford the game, game system, and a reasonable TV anyway.

glenncou @ May 6th 2008 3:09PM

"Not that I see where the criticism holds ANY grounds as most of the "violent crimes" going on around town are in poor enough areas that they wouldn't be able to afford the game, game system, and a reasonable TV anyway."

What an incredibly stereotypical response. "A reasonable TV"? Are you serious?

ZEBRA NINER @ May 6th 2008 2:22PM

They agreed to a contract, took the money, and then decide not to fulfill their end of the deal. That's pretty lame. I don't see how Take Two can lose.

Tony @ May 6th 2008 2:36PM

Gamespot actually had the following comment from the CTA:

"A CTA representative said at the time that the decision to pull the campaign was made not because of complaints over the GTA IV ads, but due to complaints over a series of ads that Take-Two ran in 2004 for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. That campaign was worth $90,000 to the CTA, and due to the fact that the ads had run their course by the time it became an issue, they didn't need to be pulled."

Personally, there's no way to take that and not put them at fault. They took the ads, they approved it and they ran it. It doesn't just end there. They breached the contract and they clearly realize it. It doesn't matter what happened in 2004, but furthermore, they didn't do a thing about it until Fox News Chicago asked them about it to begin with.

The CTA says they won't be charged for the ads because of this, but come on. If I had a product, it was approved for advertisement and it's yanked only after the fact it's easy to believe that's going to have a SIGNIFICANT effect on my sales and consumer product knowledge.

The CTA deserves what it gets here, if anything happens. I have no sympathy for them at this point. They're constantly bluffing, exaggerating, playing the victim and using their customers as pawns with everything they do. I wouldn't even use their services if I didn't have to.

Tony @ May 6th 2008 2:42PM

I wanted to add that I think the first amendment thing won't go anywhere. This is private property, after all. That doesn't really diminish the contractual obligations, though.

It'll be interesting to see if this is treated differently than if something like this were to happen with a different medium. They had no problem advertising for films like Saw and Hostel.