Another legal loss against fair play: Leong vs. Square-Enix

(Yes, I will continue to follow the game, and will expose the playerbase for the barn animals they are. In fact, in no uncertain terms, I will use any legal means at my disposal to disgrace Square-Enix and degrade the playerbase with the truth about this game.)

I've been researching various case law for legal action against Square-Enix, and I have to say -- it doesn't look good for any of us who would like to think that you can even be defrauded by such a corporation.

San Franciscan Esther Leong sued Square-Enix for various and sundry claims surrounding the fees which can be charged a player who becomes in more serious arrears with their accounts.

The case was quickly dismissed, with prejudice, because the court would never be satisfied that it could do three things to satisfy standing -- and these same three things, which are in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, according to the dismissal, are the same three reasons I didn't sue Square-Enix two years ago:

1) The plaintiff has personally suffered a cognizable injury.
2) The injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged illegal conduct
3) The injury is redressable by court decision.

Basically, even if 1) and 2) were true, then, much as in Mayer, 3) effectively allows the court to walk away from any fraud claim, with the assertion that it cannot redress the injury through court decisions -- hence, rendering impossible that the plaintiff could ever be defrauded...

Effectively, the courts have ruled that most plaintiffs are too stupid to be defrauded, because the court can just walk away from the situation and tell the plaintiffs off.