A New Nintendo Joycon Lawsuit Could Set Precedent For Future Claims
A new Nintendo Joycon lawsuit is bringing the company into hot water. The Canadian law firm Lambert Avocat is seeking court approval to file a class action against the video game company for the drifting of Joy-Con. The drifting of the analog sticks causes the game controllers to register movement even when they are not touched. The lawyer claims that this is a serious defect and that Nintendo should be held accountable for putting defective hardware on the market.
This lawsuit claims that Nintendo engaged in unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices.
The plaintiffs seek relief from Nintendo for the loss of enjoyment of the product. The class action includes nine counts of relief, which range from a breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. This means that the seller has a legal obligation to provide the product with the ability to function as advertised. The case was put on hold until individual arbitrations are completed.
As the United States is not a member of the International Trade Commission, the US court has not yet ruled on the suit, but the company has been closely monitoring the proceedings. The US case has not reached a final decision, but the UK case could set precedent for further lawsuits. While a class action lawsuit has not been filed against Nintendo, it can help consumers who have experienced the drifting of Joy-Cons.
The United States Federal Court of California has referred the Nintendo lawsuit to arbitrate.
The court found that the plaintiff’s failure to receive proper compensation is sufficient grounds for a class action. A trial will likely follow, but the ruling will be final and binding. It is important to note that there are also similar suits being filed in France and Quebec, Canada. While this case is largely focused on the United States, there is also a possible precedent for a class action in a Canadian court.
The United States case will be decided on the merits of the lawsuit. Currently, there is no precedent for a class action that relies on the class-action lawsuit as the basis for the litigation. A judge is required to take the complaint into account, which can affect Nintendo’s sales and reputation. Regardless of the outcome of the suit, a jury trial is necessary to determine the validity of the plaintiff’s claim.
The UFC-Que Choisir lawsuit has cited two cases involving the Joy-Con.
The French consumer organization is suing Nintendo for planned obsolescence, which involves intentionally designing products that break. The plaintiff’s goal is to get Nintendo to change how Joy-Cons are made. The company also offered free replacements to Switch Lite users. In September, the Washington court refused to dismiss the suit and referred the case to arbitration.
The UFC-Que Choisir, a California attorney, and other Switch owners are filing lawsuits against Nintendo, alleging that the joy-con drifts when they are pressed together. The case was filed in June 2017 and filed in January 2018. A judge in Washington moved the case to arbitration, and a California court has yet to rule on the validity of the complaint. There are also other similarities in the litigation.
The lawsuit documents a minor’s experience with the Nintendo Switch.
The Joy-Con controllers failed after a few months, and the minor had to pay $40 to get them repaired. Despite this, she had to pay $40 for the repairs, and she has to pay the cost herself. The lawsuit includes photographs of the technical teardown and electron microscope images of the damage to the circuitry. Moreover, the lawsuit details other cases in which the faulty Joy-Cons were used.
The UFC-Que Choisir, a French consumers organization, filed a lawsuit against Nintendo on behalf of the people affected by the drifting Joy-Con. The complaint was filed after the company issued a warning on the defect. The group also issued a letter to Nintendo stating that it was “repairable” and that the plaintiffs had received a refund. The lawsuit has been on hold pending the results of individual arbitrations.