Topic: Legal

Legal side of Reputation Management

Amazon Doesn’t “Sell” Its Marketplace Goods–Milo & Gabby v. Amazon 0

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 11.04.04 PMMilo & Gabby is a small family business that designs and sells “animal-shaped” pillowcases. It discovered that knockoffs were listed for sale on Amazon’s website. The products were actually offered for sale by third party sellers, and all but one did their own fulfillment. One of the merchants used Amazon’s “Fufillment by Amazon” service which meant that the seller took advantage of Amazon’s logistics network. A seller who used this service ships its product to an Amazon fulfillment center where Amazon deals with storage, shipping, etc.

The record does not reflect whether M&G sent takedown requests prior to filing suit. It asserted trademark, copyright, and design patent claims. Upon receiving the lawsuit, Amazon suspended the sellers and prevented one of the rogue sellers from re-listing the product.

The district court granted summary judgment as to M&G’s copyright and trademark claims. It rejected M&G’s theory of direct infringement because of the lack of evidence that Amazon “actively reviewed, edited, altered or copied” M&G’s images. It rejected the trademark claims because there was “no evidence of any violation of a valid, enforceable mark entitled to protection under the Lanham Act.”

The remaining claim for design patent infringement went to trial. The parties agreed the key question is whether Amazon “offered to sell” the items in question and that this was a question of law. An advisory jury found in favor of Amazon, and the district court entered a verdict in its favor. M&G appealed.

Design Patent claims: On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that M&G advanced the theory on appeal that Amazon “sold” the product rather than its “offer to sell” theory it relied on below. M&G abandoned the former theory at summary judgment. Because it failed to meaningfully argue the “offer to sell” theory for patent infringement, the court affirmed judgment against M&G on the patent claim. The court notes that M&G did not raise alternate theories of infringement, such as inducement or contributory infringement.

Copyright claims: M&G offered two possible theories of copyright liability for Section 106 “distribution”: (1) Amazon was a ‘seller,’ and (2) it was a distributor.

The seller liability theory turned on what it means to “sell” an infringing product for copyright purposes. The court says usually that a transfer of title dictates who is the seller, but there are some exceptions. M&G argued that several Uniform Commercial Code provisions (dealing with consignment sales and the right to return certain goods bought primarily for resale) demonstrate that someone can be a seller even without taking title. The court says these exceptions are not applicable. While there may be some circumstances where someone can be considered a seller when not transferring title, M&G failed to make the case that those exceptions apply here.

The distribution right covers infringement by “sale or other transfer of ownership.” Since M&G don’t satisfy the definition of “sale”, The infringement by distribution argument depends on M&G showing that Amazon infringed on the distribution right by “another transfer of ownership.” The court says that M&G failed to devote meaningful attention to this argument and essentially waived it. In passing, the court says that, whatever the phrase “other transfer of ownership” means, it too would require some transfer of title.

Lanham Act claims: M&G did not plead a palming off claim in its complaint (it asserted a claim for false designation of origin). In response to Amazon’s motion for summary judgment, M&G raised for the first time a palming off theory. The district court rejected this argument, and the appeals court does the same.


This is a big win for Amazon since the case exposed Amazon to liability for sales by its marketplace vendors. (eBay weighed in as amicus on its side.) Any ruling that gives Amazon a clean bill of health for infringement that occurs on its platform is useful. It’s unclear whether this ruling is fact-specific or will have broader effects. I tend to think the latter.

The part of the case that is puzzling is that there is no doubt Amazon’s fulfillment service helps parties sell the products in question. In this respect, Amazon is no different from other third parties (some of whom are even more removed, such as flea market vendors) who can be found liable. Indeed, the court says Amazon’s services “made it easier for third parties to consummate a sale.” This theory does not warrant attention from the court because M&G did not argue derivative liability. The court’s recitation of facts makes it seem like that would have been a more viable argument.

The decision does not mention the DMCA at all. Amazon’s off-line activities would not be covered by the DMCA, but their reproduction of M&G advertisements would be eligible for protection under the DMCA (see, e.g., Corbis v. Amazon). Perhaps the court did not address this theory due to the narrow grounds on which M&G premised infringement? It is still noteworthy to see a copyright ruling involving Amazon not mention the DMCA.

The court discusses what constitutes a sale in some detail, and covers a breadth of issues, including UCC provisions. The opinion also briefly alludes to first sale doctrine, including the case involving promo CD’s (Augusto, blogged here).

Finally, while not a big part of the ruling, the court refuses to consider the district court’s award of fees for the Lanham Act claim. Apparently, the trial court sent a clear signal that this was a bogus claim, but the plaintiff continued to pursue it. The court hammered down and awarded fees.

Eric’s Comments:

It’s painful to see how many times the court says that the plaintiff waived an argument or otherwise made unforced litigation errors. For example, because the plaintiff changed midstream its theory of design patent infringement, we don’t really get guidance on the application of design patent law to online marketplace sales. That leaves holes in this ruling that could be explored in future cases.

Still, I agree with Venkat that this is a big ruling for Amazon. This court says that Amazon didn’t make a copyright “sale,” and it seems to indicate that the same analysis would apply to patent law’s references to “sale.” This further ameliorates the district court’s troubling initial ruling on design patents, which was already blunted in part by the jury ruling.

The opinion is unfortunately marked “nonprecedential.” Still, this ruling reminds me a little of the Cablevision Second Circuit ruling. That ruling only addressed one of several litigation theories over DVR-as-a-service, yet it has evolved into the de facto legal standard. I expect that, over time, this case will stand for the proposition that Amazon doesn’t “sell” marketplace goods, even though the court only addressed pieces of that question.

The Federal Circuit’s holding that the person making a “sale” (at least for copyright purposes) usually is the person transferring title is another example of the Federal Circuit’s preferences for rules over standards. It’s a logical conclusion, however, and ideally other courts won’t lard it up with too many exceptions that can swallow the rule. If the “seller = transferor of title” syllogism holds, it deemphasizes plaintiffs’ various possible arguments over the other marketplace services that marketplaces provide to vendors and buyers, such as advertising services, payment services, trust-and-safety/reputation services–and even storage and fulfillment services. So long as the title passes directly from vendor to buyer, these ancillary services provided by marketplaces shouldn’t turn the marketplace operator into a “seller” for IP purposes. This reinforces the legitimacy of marketplace operators providing these ancillary services and perhaps encourages them to provide even more ancillary services.

While that may be good news, I remain troubled by the overlay of the Airbnb v. SF ruling, which opened up the door for regulators to bypass Section 230 by regulating “booking services.” Even if marketplace operators can sidestep some IP liability by not being “sellers,” regulators might still hinge liability on the marketplace’s closing of marketplace deals. See also the McDonald v. LG case, exposing Amazon to potential product liability claims for marketplace sales.

While this case was on appeal, eBay won a highly relevant (but uncited) ruling in Blazer v. eBay. That case held that, for utility patent purposes, vendors, not eBay, made the “offers for sale.” The court also rejected inducement and contributory patent infringement claims against eBay. It would have been nice if the Federal Circuit ratified or even acknowledged the Blazer opinion, but instead we get two different courts independently reaching complementary–and defense-favorable–rulings.

Case citation: Milo & Gabby LLC v., Inc., 2016-1290 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2017)

Related posts:

Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Amazon From Products Liability Claims–McDonald v. LG

Amazon AppStore and Google Play Defeat Lawsuit Over Infringing App Name–Free Kick Master v. Apple (Forbes Cross-Post)

Is Amazon Liable For IP Violations By Its Marketplace Vendors? (Forbes Cross-Post)

UMG Can’t Enforce “Not for Sale” Restrictions on Promo CDs — UMG v. Augusto

Source: Eric Goldman Legal

How a Chipmunk Emoji Cost an Israeli Texter $2,200 0

by Gabriella Ziccarelli and Eric Goldman

[Eric’s introduction: Gabriella is a star SCU Law alum and an associate at Blank Rome in DC. She is also a former Internet Law student of mine. As a teacher, it’s gratifying to have a former student on my blog to share the expertise they’ve accumulated since my course. Gabriella has been writing and speaking on emoji legal issues before I even began my paper on Emojis and the Law. She has graciously agreed to help us understand a recent Israeli court ruling interpreting emojis in a contract setting.]

We have not seen many judicial opinions carefully parsing the meaning of emojis (or even discussing the methodological tools for parsing their meaning), but we expect we’ll regularly see such cases soon enough. As part of the emerging caselaw, last month an Israeli court issued an interesting opinion about the meaning of emojis that’s worth a closer look.

A landlord and prospective tenant were communicating about an available apartment. The prospective tenant’s text messages expressed enthusiasm for renting the apartment and included numerous emojis. In reliance on the positive messages, the landlord believed the tenant would rent the apartment and took it off the market. The parties started negotiating the lease, but the tenant eventually ghosted the landlord. As a result, the landlord put the apartment back on the market and found another tenant.

Israeli Judge Amir Weizebbluth of the Herzliya Small Claims Court awarded the landlord $2,200 in damages, explaining:

This is the place to refer once again to those graphic symbols (icons) sent by Defendant 2 to the Plaintiff. As stated, they do not, under the circumstances, indicate that the negotiations between the parties have matured into a binding agreement. However, the sent symbols support the conclusion that the defendants acted in bad faith. Indeed, this negotiation’s parties’ ways of expression may take on different forms, and today, in modern times, the use of the “emoji” icons may also have a meaning that indicates the good faith of the side to the negotiations. The [emoji laden] text message sent by Defendant 2 on June 5, 2016, was accompanied by quite a few symbols, as mentioned. These included a “smiley”, a bottle of champagne, dancing figures and more. These icons convey great optimism. Although this message did not constitute a binding contract between the parties, this message naturally led to the Plaintiff’s great reliance on the defendants’ desire to rent his apartment. As a result, the Plaintiff removed his online ad about renting his apartment. Even towards the end of the negotiations, in the same text messages sent at the end of July, Defendant 2 used “smiley” symbols. These symbols, which convey to the other side that everything is in order, were misleading, since at that time the defendants already had great doubts as to their desire to rent the apartment. The combination of these – the festive icons at the beginning of the negotiations, which created much reliance with the prosecutor, and those smileys at the end of the negotiations, which misled the Plaintiff to think the defendants were still interested in his apartment – support the conclusion that the defendants acted in bad faith in the negotiations. Even if I assume that the reason for the withdrawal from the negotiations was justified, the defendants should have notified the Plaintiff on 8 July, 2016 that they are not sure of their desire to rent the apartment, and that the Plaintiff should consider his steps accordingly. The defendants “dragged” the Plaintiff, “lulled” him, until he found himself close to the beginning of the lease period without having found a renter.

[Note: this translation came from the site Room404. We haven’t validated the translation.]

Here is the prospective tenant’s initial message:

Text message from Israel

According to Room404, this translates into:

Good morning 😊 Interested in the house 💃🏻👯‍✌️☄️🐿🍾️ Just need to discuss the details… When’s a good time for you?

The court also discusses a later text message containing a smiley. As the parties were negotiating the lease, the prospective tenant explained a delayed response by saying (also a Room404 translation): “It’s just that we’re moving the entire house to storage on Tuesday so we’re a little busy.. No worries! I will update Nir :)” [Nir was the prospective tenant’s co-tenant] The court says the final two characters, the noseless smiley emoticon,  expressed positive intent.

We’re not familiar with Israeli law on contract formation or “bad faith negotiations.” Under US law, there are no legal consequences for “bad faith” communications during failed contract negotiations except in special circumstances. Generally, the law is caveat emptor/vendor. As a result, US law most likely would have expected the landlord to keep running ads for the apartment, and accepting backup lease offers, until a lease was signed. Perhaps the court’s ruling turns on something specific to Israeli law.

US law would probably agree with the court’s conclusion that no contract formed. The initial text message contains obvious equivocation. First, it says the prospective tenant is “interested” in the house. Ordinarily, we’d treat interest in a transaction differently than a commitment to the transaction. Second, the initial message makes clear that the prospective tenant still wants to discuss details. The details are unspecified and could be major deal points. Because of this equivocation, ordinarily we would not treat this message as a manifestation of assent sufficient to constitute an offer or an acceptance. Similarly, the text’s equivocation ordinarily would not support a promissory estoppel claim because the landlord’s detrimental reliance on pre-lease negotiations isn’t reasonable. The subsequent text message is just ordinary negotiation chatter.

However, in interpreting the messages, we can’t just consider the text and ignore the emojis (or emoticon). Because we must assume the prospective tenant included them for a reason, how do the emojis modify or supplement the the initial text message’s words?

In the initial text message, the smiley follows the words “good morning.” The smiley doesn’t seem to signal any contractual intent; it’s likely just a friendly flourish to the “good morning” introduction. See Marcel Danesi, The Semiotics of Emoji (2017), explaining that emojis are frequently used as emotional supplements to preceding words. Therefore, it’s probably incorrect for the judge to interpret the smiley as evidence of the prospective tenant’s optimism about the transaction.

The smiley emoticon in the subsequent text message has many possible meanings. It could have meant that the deal was still on. Alternatively, it could have been included to blunt what the landlord might have interpreted as bad news (the prospective tenant’s continued delays). It could have also been used to admit embarrassment over the delay. It could even be facetious. If the prospective tenant had used the “thumbs up,” “ok” or “check mark” emojis instead of the smiley emoticon, would those have been clearer about the prospective tenant’s intent to accept the lease?

There are 6 more emojis in the initial text message following the words “interested in the house” (again, as Danesi posited, these emojis likely modify or supplement the preceding words):

  • a ballerina
  • women with bunny ears (also known as the dancing girls emoji)
  • the victory hand (also known as the peace sign emoji)
  • a comet
  • a chipmunk
  • a champagne bottle

What do these emojis mean in this context? We’re not sure. First, emojis develop geographically regional meanings, so it’s possible or probable that Israelis assign different meanings to these emojis than we assign to them in the United States. Second, even within the same geography, different subcommunities assign different meanings to individual emojis. The women with bunny ears emoji, for example, has several meanings. According to Emojipedia, the “two-person version of this emoji is often used as a display of friendship, fun, or ‘let’s party.’” Given that the prospective tenants were a couple, perhaps this emoji symbolized their excitement. (There is a separate emoji for a single woman with bunny ears, which is why it may be significant the prospective tenant chose the couples’ version). Finally, the interpretation of emojis is individually subjective. As Gabriella discusses in her Inside Counsel article, emojis are more likely to have individually subjective meanings than text-based communications because emojis are “not restricted to the confines of definitions, but rather expanded by the sender and receiver’s perceptions, experiences, and context.”

Furthermore, if we’re trying to parse the emojis meaning, we also have to consider the meaning of all the emojis–including the chipmunk and comet emojis, and those emojis do not have any clear meaning in this context. Also, we lack consistent grammar rules for emoji sequences, so did the prospective tenant mean for each subsequent emoji to modify the preceding emojis, and if so, how does that affect their meaning?  In other words, does the fact that the chipmunk followed the comet affect their respective meanings?

The court is also wrong to assume, without any further evidence, that the six emojis signaled positive intent. As Eric discusses in his paper, individual emojis routinely are viewed by some folks as positive and other folks as negative, sometimes in unpredictable ways. For example, the “bento box emoji is used in largely negative contexts, while the panda face is associated with less positive emotions than most other animals featured on the emoji keyboard.” So the court treats the chipmunk and comet emojis as positive expressions, perhaps because they are surrounded by other emojis that might have positive connotations, but we don’t know what percentage of folks would actually assign negative valences to those symbols.

Finally, the court does not consider whether the landlord and tenant saw the same emojis on their screens. This is not guaranteed due to the fact that platforms implement Unicode emojis idiosyncratically. It’s unclear if that is an issue here, but it might be. For example, there is substantial variation in how platforms implement the women with bunny ears emoji, and the differences (even if subtle) could affect the emoji’s meaning to the landlord and tenant.

Overall, it seems like the court’s opinion overanalyzes the emojis. This case involves the very common situation where a vendor must decide whether to take its merchandise off the market while negotiating with a hot prospect or keep shopping the merchandise around to other potential buyers. To keep the vendor from pursuing other buyers, the hot prospect sent numerous messages designed to demonstrate continued interest. It’s the repeated expressions of interest that seemed to dictate the outcomes, not the emojis per se. In other words, the court probably would have reached the bad faith conclusion even if the text messages contained no emojis or emoticons, because the prospective tenant’s messages (both in substance and frequency) were positive enough (without the emojis) to string the landlord along.

Naturally, it’s unreasonable to expect this judge to be an emoji expert. This was a small claims court, where justice is often driven by equity more than formalist legal rules; and the low dollar stakes meant that neither the judge nor the litigants were going to invest in experts to explain the nuances of emojis. So even if this opinion wrongly interpreted the emojis, it’s not necessarily predictive of what we’ll see in future cases that are more vigorously litigated. Still, the ruling is a good reminder that we anticipate courts are going to see lots of emoji issues, and they may not be fully prepared for that onslaught.

Some other coverage of this case:

Room404💃🏻👯‍✌️☄️🐿🍾 Show Intention to Rent Apartment, Says Judge

Quartz💃🏻👯‍✌️☄️🐿🍾 Emojis prove intent, a judge in Israel ruled

Thrillist: This Couple Lost Thousands in a Lawsuit Over a Stupid Emoji

Source: Eric Goldman Legal

Internet Law Issue: Does Using Moderators Nullify Certain DMCA Immunity Protections? 0

online moderatorsOnline platforms that feature user-generated content filtered by moderators may have to find other ways to police content if a paparazzo emerges victorious in a current Internet law case.

Do Moderators Disqualify Websites From DMCA Shields?

The suit at the center is Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s sanctuary clause, which absolves sites of “infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user,” may not provide legal shelter for moderated websites in certain IP cases.

Mavrix Photographs — “a celebrity photography company specializing in candid photographs of celebrities in tropical locations” — alleged that LiveJournal — a moderated online journal — violated Mavrix’s copyrights.

Mavrix purports that a community within LiveJournal called “Oh No They Didn’t!” violated the DMCA by posting twenty Mavrix copyrighted images between 2010 and 2014.  ONTD’s content is created and submitted by users, but moderators retain final post privileges; first, a team of volunteer moderators approves posts; then, LiveJournal employees rubberstamp the volunteer-filtered posts.

Appeal’s Court Overturns Decision: Look At Procedures, Not Creators

The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision.  The appeal’s bench found that the district court inappropriately focused on who created and approved the material rather than LiveJournal’s content publishing procedures.  The Ninth Circuit also found that factual questions, regarding whether or not LiveJournal moderators acted as agents of LiveJournal, still needed to be addressed.

If the court decrees that LiveJoural’s moderators are agents of the site, LiveJournal could be held liable for copyright infringement over user posts.  The court needs to determine “whether Mavrix’s photographs were indeed posted at the direction of the users in light of the moderators’ role in screening and posting the photographs.”  Moreover, safe harbor stipulations won’t apply if the ONTD moderators are found to be doing more than “merely accessibility-enhancing activities.”

If this case turns out for Mavrix, it could profoundly affect site operations for the majority of semi-moderated platforms.  In fact, many websites may choose to abandon moderation altogether, to avoid potential liabilities.

Contact An Internet Law Attorney

Kelly / Warner is an Internet law firm that works with tech companies, online businesses, and startup entrepreneurs. Our team handles everything from incorporation to IP registration to complex litigation and more. We invite you to learn more about our Internet business legal practice.

Additional Source

The post Internet Law Issue: Does Using Moderators Nullify Certain DMCA Immunity Protections? appeared first on Kelly / Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law.

Source: Kelly Warner Law

Amazon Review Loophole & Feedback Blackmail: E-commerce Law 0

Amazon review loophole

Is There A Marketing Loophole When It Comes To Up-Voting Amazon Reviews?

The ever-evolving nature of online business is a source of both excitement and exasperation for entrepreneurs.  Boundaries are repeatedly being pushed, often pitting pioneers against the proverbial “powers that be.”

Take, for example, the semi-recent Amazon review changes. A few months back, a tornado barreled through the e-commerce industry: Amazon had banned incentivized reviews. No longer could sellers offer free products in exchange for honest feedback. Ostensibly, the move hurt companies relying on the technique for product launches.

But instead of throwing in the towel, marketers did what they do best…adjusted. Many started offering “list optimization” and “list maintenance” services. How did the new system work? Promotions experts enlisted users to up-vote helpful reviews; instead of writing posts, operatives boosted positive reviews.

It was a genius approach; because if you look closely at Amazon’s interface, a question sits at the bottom of each review: “Was this review helpful to you?” Nowhere does it indicate that review-rating is dependent on product purchase. After all, (and theoretically), reviews are tools for potential buyers — and potential buyers find some reviews more helpful than others during the decision making process.

Regardless, Amazon insists its algorithms unearth these types of up-vote networks. “We have machine-learned processes to detect inauthentic customer insights including the manipulation of helpful votes and will ban vendors, sellers, and reviewers who are found to be out of compliance with our policies,” explained a spokesperson for the company.

Marketing Blackmail: Sabotaging A Listing To Drum Up Business?

A recent New York Post article did a story involving an Internet law issue that we’re also starting to hear rumbles about.

Here’s an excerpt.

The scenarios can get nastier still, according to one merchant who markets skin-care products on Amazon. Asking not be identified for fear of retribution from these vendors, the merchant said his product was a best-seller on Amazon in mid-April, when shoppers were scooping up 450 units a day.

Earlier this month, however, he noticed that all of the negative reviews — about eight of them — were on the top of his page, though the vast majority of his reviews were positive.

The merchant reached out to a “list optimization” vendor who’d previously sent him an e-mail advertising its services. The vendor, whose company the merchant declined to identify, offered to “clean up” his problem for $350 or to provide “listing maintenance” for $1,000 a month.

The skin-care merchant declined the services. The next morning the number of negative votes climbed to 160. On the following day it was 260.

The vendor called him back and suggested that one of the merchant’s competitors — whose positive review votes had, maybe not coincidentally, risen by a lot — was responsible for the negative votes.

The vendor reiterated his offer, upping the cost to $2,000 because the problem had grown exponentially. The vendor also offered to “screw the competitor’s site” according to the merchant.

Blackmailing businesses, via fake review manipulation, undermines “truth-in-advertising” standards and various Federal Trade Commission “unfair and deceptive” marketing rules. If someone is unfairly attacking your website or product listing, in this manner, let’s talk. Our team has helped hundreds of businesses with online review issues of this nature.

Want to read more about online feedback legalities? Head over to the consumer review law section.

The post Amazon Review Loophole & Feedback Blackmail: E-commerce Law appeared first on Kelly / Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law.

Source: Kelly Warner Law

NBA Announces 17 Teams Ready For 2018 Esports Launch 0

NBA esports league - esports agentThe NBA2k league — a joint venture between the NBA and Take-Two Interactive — is on track to launch in 2018, with 17 out of 30 NBA teams signed on to participate.

NBA Teams Taking Part In Esports League

What teams are taking part in NBA2k? At the time of this writing, the Boston Celtics, Cleveland Cavaliers, Dallas Mavericks, Detroit Pistons, Golden State Warriors, Indiana Pacers, Memphis Grizzlies, Miami Heat, Milwaukee Bucks, New York Knicks, Orlando Magic, Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trail Blazers, Sacramento Kings, Toronto Raptors, Utah Jazz, and Washington Wizards have committed to the league

for three years at $750,000 per team.

Brendan Donohue, NBA 2K managing director, enthused, “This is the first step in what promises to be an extraordinary league, bringing together the world’s best gamers and showcasing elite competition on an international stage.  Our teams have expressed tremendous enthusiasm for esports, and we are looking forward to forming something truly unique for basketball and gaming fans around the globe.”

NBA2k league Early Adopters

In February, the NBA and Take-Two made a statement concerning their commitment to developing the league.  And in following through, the NBA can claim the label “first sports league to jump on the esports bandwagon.”

Arguably, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was the first NBA owner to get involved in the business end of esports.  In 2015, he invested in esportsbook Unikrn, a leading esports betting website.

Everyone’s Excited About The Potential Opportunities

76ers CEO Scott O’Neil told ESPN, “It’s fun, we’ll be participating. There’s still a lot to learn from our perspective as to how the league will work and the infrastructure, where the revenue is coming from, how will the draft will work. But we’re excited; it’s a good opportunity to reach younger fans in a different way and hopefully incorporate them into our fanbase and vice-versa. We’re hoping to make Sixers, eSixers fans and bringing them into the Sixers fold.”

The Miami Heat esports organization is called the Misfits and its CEO Ben Spoont recently told ESPN: “2K is uniquely positioned as a professional sport video game title to be able to reach fans that are esport fans as well as NBA fans and 2K fans alike. The opportunity here is to be able to reach fans that are in vastly different markets but all with a common thread, which is their love of the NBA and/or video games.”

Connect With An Esports Agent

Kelly / Warner represents esports athletes and works with companies on esports business and legal issues. For more information, please visit our Esports law section.

The post NBA Announces 17 Teams Ready For 2018 Esports Launch appeared first on Kelly / Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law.

Source: Kelly Warner Law