Pokémon Go Away: Lawsuit Over Once-Ubiquitous Gaming App Settles
Niantic, the game's maker, has agreed to settle trespass and nuisance claims brought on behalf of Americans who own or lease property within 100 meters of any location that the company designated as a Pokéstop or Pokémon Gym.
February 15, 2019 at 12:47 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The company behind the Pokémon Go! mobile gaming application has agreed to settle a batch of nuisance and trespass lawsuits brought by property owners irked by the game's players.
The once-ubiquitous “augmented reality” game, which launched in 2016, led streams of players to roam the physical world with their smartphones in search of virtual Pokémon creatures to catch, train and do combat with. The game, which has dipped in popularity since its viral launch, also spawned a string of lawsuits.
Property owners and leaseholders, including named plaintiffs in New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New York, California, Tennessee and Utah, claimed that players created a nuisance by hanging out and creating disturbances around virtual Pokéstops—places to get useful items within the game—and Pokémon gyms—places to train Pokémon—which were placed near their property without consent.
In a deal outlined in court papers Thursday, Niantic, the game's maker, has agreed to settle claims brought on behalf of Americans who own or lease property within 100 meters of any location that the company designated as a Pokéstop or Pokémon Gym without the consent of the owner or leaseholder. The proposed deal, which still needs sign off from U.S. District Judge James Donato for the Northern District of California, provides for an injunction “designed 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,” according the court papers filed by plaintiffs lawyers at Pomerantz.
The settlement, however, leaves untested the central legal question in the case: whether a company like Niantic can be held liable for leading users to trespass by placing virtual items on private property without an owner's consent.
As part of the deal, Niantic has agreed to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to respond to complaints within 15 days in at least 95 percent of cases over the next three years. The company has also agreed to remove its virtual landmarks within five days when it determines that their location is within 40 meters of a single-family residence. The company has also agreed to allow public parks to indicate their hours of operation on Niantic's website to ward off any unwanted after-hours visitors. The company has also agreed to have an outside auditor review its compliance with the settlement at some point in the next three years.
The proposed deal does not, however, release any claims for monetary damages. Court papers indicate that the parties have agreed to mediate the named plaintiffs' monetary damages claims.
The Pomerantz lawyers who represent the plaintiffs indicate they will seek as much as $8 million dollars in attorneys fees. So far, they say, they've spent 2,500 hours on the matter, or about $1.4 million worth of attorney time. They claim their work on the case could warrant a multiplier of up to four times the lodestar amount. “Plaintiffs' Counsel expects to expend many more hours in connection with this Action in the future in the course of seeking final approval of the Settlement and then in monitoring Niantic's compliance with the Settlement,” the Pomerantz lawyers wrote.
Pomerantz's Jennifer Pafiti didn't immediately respond to a message requesting a comment.
Niantic didn't immediately respond to a request for comment sent via their outside counsel at Cooley.
Read the Motion for Preliminary Approval: [falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
Pokéstop: Judge Calls Timeout in Suit Against Pokémon Go Maker
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250