Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

CTA can't ban game ads - Judge

Entertainment Software Association wins preliminary injunction against Chicago Transit Authority over policy prohibiting promotion of M- or AO-rated titles.

A district court judge on Thursday told the Chicago Transit Authority it could not refuse to carry ads for mature games, granting the Entertainment Software Association's request for a preliminary injunction against the metropolitan transportation system. In a 22-page ruling, US District Court Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer said the gaming industry lobby is likely to prevail in its assertion that a policy prohibiting ads for M- or AO-rated games is an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

A final ruling hasn't been issued yet, but a judge is finding a lot to agree with in the ESA's case against the CTA.

A final ruling hasn't been issued yet, but a judge is finding a lot to agree with in the ESA's case against the CTA.

The policy was adopted last January, in response to a minor controversy. In the lead-up to Grand Theft Auto IV's April 2008 debut on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, a Chicago news channel reported on a series of ads for the open-world action game appearing on public transit buildings and buses. The CTA pulled the ads, fearful of public outcry, and in response, GTAIV publisher Take-Two Interactive sued the transit authority. The suit was eventually settled with an agreement for the CTA to rerun the ads later that year.

The CTA adopted its current game-specific advertising policy on January 1, 2009, and the ESA filed suit to have that guideline declared unconstitutional the following July. In its argument, the ESA noted that CTA buses have carried potentially disagreeable advertising many times before, including advertisements for an atheism advocacy group's campaign against organized religion and "Puppetry of the Penis," an experimental theater production.

The judge was particularly skeptical of the CTA's decision to single out games for more stringent advertising guidelines than its fellow entertainment media.

"Video games consist of a tiny fraction of the media violence to which children are exposed," the judge wrote. "Yet the CTA's ordinance singles out only video game advertisements for regulation, while granting carte blanche to a wide range of advertisements for other forms of media that may depict similar violence and may be similarly rated for age appropriateness. If an advertiser sought to place identical advertisements for an R-rated film and an M-rated video game of the same name--both with the same characters, based on the same storyline, and containing the same depictions of violence--the ad for the video game would be banned while the ad for the film would be displayed."

In defending its policy, the CTA said the government had a compelling interest in limiting speech related to M-rated and AO-rated game ads due to a correlation between youth aggression and violent games. That's the same justification used by states like California, Illinois, and Louisiana in their heretofore unsuccessful bids to establish state laws to keep violent games out of children's hands.

The ESA hailed the preliminary injunction, with the organization's president and CEO Michael Gallagher issuing a statement calling it a victory for the gaming industry, the people of Chicago, and the First Amendment itself.

"It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further," Gallagher said. "To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources. Chicago deserves better and we look forward to bringing this matter to an end."

137 Comments

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 3:22 pm GMT

    ", including advertisements for an atheism advocacy group's campaign against organized religion and "Puppetry of the Penis an experimental theater production. " My kind of ads, man I would love to have seen those.

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 3:19 pm GMT

    This had nothing to do with being offensive (photoshopping models so they look even skinnier) it had to do with certain people having a problem promoting mature content for an audience of what they think is nothing but "who will think of the children" which is completely wrong. Guess the lolli was the straw ....

  • rugripper40

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 9:01 am GMT

    lol...i guess theres a lot of kids under 17 going down to the bus depot to buy tickets and travel...but its ok to put up perfume,cloths,acohol,etc ads with claddily dressed women and men...we need to get these old battlelacks out of office...they have no clue wats up....they keep saying games promote violence,its pretty much the society we live in does...and chicago of all places...did u ever hear of john dillenger...lol

  • StarvingPoet

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 8:34 am GMT

    @Yuk_Too

    CTA is not a company - it's a branch of the government.

  • Yuck_Too

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 6:04 am GMT

    How can a Judge tell a company what they must or must not sell advertising space too?

    And does this mean all AO advertising is ok?...Seems like he missed the call on this one...granted a little porn advertising would spruce up the place no doubt.

  • TehUndeadHorror

    Posted Jan 12, 2010 12:24 am GMT

    Yeah judge!!

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 11:37 pm GMT

    "How about getting rid of advertising in games." Not all games have it and those that do .... just do not play them...simple solution to that.

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 11:34 pm GMT

    "The older generation still thinks video games are just for kids. Can't wait until they die off." I second that.

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 11:32 pm GMT

    I still stand on the fact that pro sports is a billion times worst than vid games could ever be for our youth.

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 11:28 pm GMT

    We force cable companies to give us access locally on their cable, yes we want ads to be fare no matter your ideology or money.

  • goubagouba

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 12:59 pm GMT

    How about getting rid of advertising in games.

  • Pangamaster

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 12:29 pm GMT

    Speaking as a fellow man from Chicago and from the greater the state of Illinois. We arn't the most morally intact state (aka Blagoyavich) and if Daily wants to break the constitution he does what he wants, because Daily is the man and you don't mess with the man. especially if dat man is Chuck Norris

  • Pangamaster

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm GMT

    @LOXO7
    Thats a very dark and disturbing thing to say.... some of these people at gamespot are "older generation", so be mindful of what you say because u can get in a crud load of trouble even if dats just a joke

  • LOXO7

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 12:07 pm GMT

    The older generation still thinks video games are just for kids. Can't wait untill they die off.

  • brokendog

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 11:50 am GMT

    To those claiming that modern society is becoming morally corrupt and that it's okay to ban M and AO rated games from advertising, do you really want to claim that society morally "better" back then? Name any era in history and I can point out it's own "moral decay" no different than what we have today. No, fact is that society today (even with it's many flaws) is always improving and better than what we had 30, 40 or 200 years ago.

  • StarvingPoet

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 9:55 am GMT

    As a Chicagoan, I can tell you that constitutionality in Chicago is irrelevant. If Dailey says it's not okay, it's not okay. If an issue gets pushed too hard, the pushers tend to disappear.

  • King_Jeremy_77

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 9:40 am GMT

    CTA loses.

  • KelsieKatt

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 8:07 am GMT

    I know it's been stated a couple times before, but it seems a lot of people are missing the point of this issue.

    The problem isn't a matter of decision making about advertisements, it's an issue of discrimination. They're essentially refusing to market *specifically* video game advertisements, when all other forms are media can show whatever they want to. If the decision were based on limiting specific types of content, like sex, nudity, violence and what not, that would be entirely acceptable and completely up to the companies judgement. However, that isn't the case, this is flat out discrimination.

    It would be like if a restaurant instituted a dress code policy to eat there, but only applied it to people of a specific race or gender. Where as a dress code policy would have been entirely acceptable outside of that, as long as the rules don't discriminate and apply to everyone.

  • Rottenwood

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 7:42 am GMT

    Instead of enforcing an absurd ban on video game ads, perhaps transit officials can start banning violent drunks, scam artists, persistent beggars, and weirdos trying to sneak camera photos of my wife's feet. I think a majority of us, gamers or not, would prefer more attention in that direction.

  • Ovirew

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 7:36 am GMT

    I see no problem with advertising games of any sort. That is how you let your consumers know you have a new game - you tell them about it.

    What I do have a problem with is advertising IN games.

  • Kunai_Youki

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 4:40 am GMT

    well, videogames win once again!

  • Gr1mscythe

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 4:11 am GMT

    @ptown58: What does placing power lines have to do with rejecting advertising? 0.o

    @rageset: Companies don't have to specify that a particular advertisement violates one of their advertising rules/regulations to not allow an advertisement. Again, it's nothing more than a business transaction. If I owned an ad agency, and I didn't want to do an ad for Company Y, then no one, absolutely no one, has the right to coerce me into doing so. The right to freedom of speech is rarely a clear-cut issue. Meaning, this is far more than an issue of freedom of speech. CTA property: buses, trains etc. are not in the public domain. If I were to go and draw graffiti all over them I couldn't argue freedom of speech. Nor is it the internet, where everyone theoretically has equal access. The main issue here, which is being ignored is the government's unnecessary intervention. And yes, the CTA is government owned, but it's run just like the MTA is, as a municipal corporation - profit is still the bottom line. The USPS is a little different because it's federally owned and is responsible to the United States as a whole.

    As a side-note, I don't agree with the CTA's decision. That being said, I believe they have every right to do so.

  • pdevil21

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 4:05 am GMT

    Who are you going to hide grand theft auto from anyway?

  • darthturkey

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 3:04 am GMT

    what has that got to do with Australia

  • Iloveconnie

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 3:00 am GMT

    I dont like the fact that the government is telling this company what they can and cannot put on their trains. **** off.

  • RageSet

    Posted Jan 11, 2010 12:01 am GMT

    Some of you don't understand the jest in this matter. While it is perfectly legal for a company to ban certain advertisement (Google does it all the time) from being displayed, they have to outright ban any and all that aren't compliant to [their] rules. Not single out one branding but allow others of the same (theme/content wise), that is "an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech".

    Since the CTA took down the advertisement to avoid possibly public outcry, they did so on a form of their own opinions and NOT according to their advertisement rules & regulations. Again unconstitutional. They even tried to justified their decision, stating factually WRONG information "the government had a compelling interest in limiting speech related to M-rated...games...due to correlation between youth aggression and violent games".

    These are the same false factoids certain states tried to use to ban M-Rated game sells to minors and were found...surprise...unconstitutional.

    One last thing, the CTA isn't a private company, it is a government operated company (like the USPS). Which makes this more interesting, as this another way for the Illinois state government to try to ban anything videogame M-Rated (they tried to establish laws banning the sell of M-Rated games to minors).

  • BlueFlameBat

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 10:50 pm GMT

    tl;dr
    But buses can refuse to carry whatever ads they want to refuse, right?

  • ptown58

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 10:27 pm GMT

    "No one has a right to tell a company that they're not allowed to reject a certain type of advertising" Yes ,we do have a right, cant put your krap just anywhere you want, we live here too.... ie ..cable lines.

  • Racebannon_

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 9:54 pm GMT

    The fact that it's even an issue is not good, no one would argue that. However, it was challenged by facists, and in the end, common-sense and freedom of speech prevailed--as it ALWAYS should--and for that everyone is happy.

  • Gr1mscythe

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 9:26 pm GMT

    I don't get why people think this is good. At its heart, this is government interference in the advertising decisions of a private entity. No one has a right to tell a company that they're not allowed to reject a certain type of advertising. Most certainly not the government. It's a business transaction, and if the CTA doesn't want to enter into it, why should it be forced to?

  • Jd1680a

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 9:10 pm GMT

    This is a good victory for constitutional rights for the people in Chicago. It appears that minority groups such as video game and atheism billboards was judged upon based on someone's prejudice within the transit authority.

  • Shadow_Fire41

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:32 pm GMT

    @darkcomedian
    THANK YOU!
    my god how our country has fallen.
    i wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years most people are idiots in america and we get invaded and taken over, as disturbing a thought as that it.

  • darkcomedian

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:30 pm GMT

    @ airshocker Darkmoone1 lilmp89
    do you guys have a problem with nudity?

  • darkcomedian

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:23 pm GMT

    Violence has been around forever and unfortunately our kids are exposed to it one way or another, do I think that thats right? no, but I do not think we should blame videogames for every stupid, or violent things children do, the jobs of parents is to set a moral foundation for their child at a young age, teaching them whats right and wrong, and if they do it well, then it should stick to them for the rest of their lives, no matter what type of media they are exposed to because they know that it is fake and is meant for entertainment purposes. If a child acts violently with no cause, it is usually at the fault of the parents, not teaching them well enough or even at all.

  • Shadow_Fire41

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:22 pm GMT

    yes, video games are to blame for EVERYTHING.
    not public schools, not unwatching parents, video games are.

    do these dumbasses listen to themselves?

  • maevtr

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:14 pm GMT

    how this is any different from advertising any rated R or PG13 movie boggles my mind. its not like they can show any more nudity violence or cursing thats worse than anything you'll find on tv at 8 o clock. These companies look at the 100 complaints they get for indecency, but dont take in the millions of other people that are ok with it. The only people that have a voice in this country are angry white middle aged housewives with nothing better to do than right a letter (what is this 1904?) to the FCC or wherever. Learn to parent, because i sure as hell am not looking out for your children, and shouldnt be expected to.

  • Briantb_2008

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 8:01 pm GMT

    I remember hearing about this thought it was crap then and look at it finaly haveing a decesion a few years later

  • SonicX_89

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 6:48 pm GMT

    It is kinda funny that the CTA is refusing potential cash from ads considering that they are always raising fares and cutting services. I live in Chicago and depend on the CTA on a daily basis, and it is frustrating to hear about this type of thing every year. The game ads should be the least of their problems.

  • chedarcheese190

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 5:35 pm GMT

    im too biased to participate in this argument.

  • LostSoul781

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 4:28 pm GMT

    I thought this was America. How come people always try to take away the rights that they have themselves

  • grasshopper6

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 4:18 pm GMT

    well alright

  • gunner967

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 3:28 pm GMT

    First off, I agree that leaving R-rated movies up but taking M-rated games down is discriminating. Second, like someone said, there's only a small portion of gamers who are stupid enough to emulate their video games, and also, more people try to emulate movies because A, there are not $50-60, B, They've been around longer, and C, more kids are exposed to movies than games(a $90 DVD player and $15 DVDs or a $10 movie ticket as opposed to a $300 game console and $60 games). Will you listen to me run on and on and on and on.
    Anyways, just my opinion.

  • grnsuperman4

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 2:17 pm GMT

    I agree with the court on this one. If CTA decides they don't want to advertise any R or MA movie, game, music album, ect and they own the facilities then that should be their right. But to single out one form of media and allow others is discrimination.

  • mariostar0001

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 1:25 pm GMT

    Whoops, I meant to say mature, not bad. Not sure why I did that. Anyways I agree with you about discrimination, I'm just saying the ending should have been different.

  • ropumar

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 1:17 pm GMT

    @mariostar0001
    No one is talking about "bad movies and games" we talking of M rated games of movies and games. The argument raised by the gaming lobby was that would be discrimination against the gaming industry while all other medias didn't had free pass, since a M rated movie would still be able to be displayed. And Show the hypocrisy of they being able to advertise a SAW movie, but not the SAW game based on said movie.
    While the advertiser does own the right to decide what advertise, it can uphold this right only if isn't being discriminatory... as example: you can have a bar, but if you don't let latin people in because you think is your right then you will be against the law since is discrimination.
    By proving that CTA new policy was based in discrimination and nothing else, the gaming lobby easily wins.

  • mariostar0001

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 12:33 pm GMT

    Why is everyone saying that the advertiser had a first amendment right to advertise? The CTA had a first amendment right to decide what it will advertise. It's their property, not the advertiser's. The judge had no right to tell them to put something they didn't want on their property on their property. Though I must say that anti-game discrimination is wrong, it shouldn't be keep both mature movies and games up, it should be take both down, if anything.

  • shadowkiller11

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 12:07 pm GMT

    A judge that knows something, yay

  • jaredcrazy3232

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 11:41 am GMT

    I see the transit authority's point but still don't single one out and not something else.

  • ebonyflame

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 11:34 am GMT

    For an agency that is mired in yearly operation deficits I find it odd that they would refuse any advertising dollars they get.

  • oneligas

    Posted Jan 10, 2010 10:25 am GMT

    it's gonna take years until this ruling generation is in their coffins and then we will be free of this blatant persecution against video games.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!