The Entertainment Merchants Association

HOME             JOIN EMA             CONTACT US             SEARCH             iDEA

August 2006 Update

The  following summarizes key government affairs activities during August of the Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly the  Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association and the Video Software Dealers  Association).


ESA v. Foti (Louisiana Video Game Law)

On August 24, U.S. District Judge James J. Brady issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Louisiana video  game law enacted in June. The law would ban the sale to minors of any computer  or video game that contains depictions of violence that meet a three-part test for "offensiveness."

In blocking the law, Judge Brady stated, "The State's argument [in defense of the law] overlooks a line of cases holding  that video games are protected free speech... It appears that much of the same evidence has been considered by numerous courts and in each case the connection was found to be tenuous and speculative... The evidence that was submitted to  the Legislature in connection with the bill that became the Statute is sparse  and could hardly be called in any sense reliable."

Judge Brady found that "there are less restrictive alternatives which would achieve the State's goals ... including encouraging awareness of the ESRB video game rating system."

The judge also stated that the law was impermissibly vague. He declared that the law "fails to provide specific definitions of prohibited conduct; many of its terms ... have no clear meaning;  and there is no explanation of crucial terms... Consequently, video producers  and retailers will be forced to guess at the meaning and scope of the Statute."

Following the judge's ruling, EMA and the  Entertainment Software Association filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the judge make the injunction permanent.

For procedural reasons, the preliminary  injunction is technically effective only in East Baton Rouge Parish. EMA and the  Entertainment Software Association have requested the judge to extend the  injunction statewide. Until he does so, law enforcement in any other parish  could attempt to enforce the law. EMA alerted Louisiana retailers to this situation and encouraged them to exercise their best judgment regarding which  games to carry and to sell or rent to minors.


EMA v. Henry (Oklahoma Video Game Law)

EMA and the Entertainment Software Association filed a motion for summary judgment in the legal challenge to the  Oklahoma video game law enacted in June. The action followed the refusal of the  state to agree to a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law while the challenge is pending. A ruling on the summary judgment motion is expected  before the November 1, 2006 effective date of the act.

The Oklahoma video game law would ban the  dissemination to minors of any computer or video game that contains any depiction of "inappropriate violence." Under the law, "inappropriate violence" is defined, in part, as material that includes depictions that fall into any one  of nine categories.


ESA v. Hatch (Minnesota Video  Game Law)

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch has  announced that the state will appeal the July federal district court ruling that  permanently enjoined enforcement of the Minnesota video game law. The appeal will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit previously struck down a St. Louis video game restriction law and a Missouri violent video law.

The Minnesota law would have imposed a civil penalty on minors under age of the 17 who rent or purchase video games rated "M" ("Mature") or "AO" ("Adults Only") by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. The effective date of the act was August 1, 2006.


ESA v. Blagojevich (Illinois Video Game Law)

On August 9, the federal judge who oversaw the successful challenge by EMA and the Entertainment Software Association to the video game restriction law passed by the state of Illinois in 2005 ordered the state to reimburse the plaintiffs $510,000 for legal fees and costs associated with the case. (We still await a ruling by a federal appeals court on the state's appeal of certain aspects of the judge's decision overturning the  law.)