EA faces lawsuit for breaking PS3 Battlefield promise

By Fred Dutton Published 18 November, 2011

Battlefield 1943 no-show attracts class action.

EA is being taken to court for failing to keep its promise that the PlayStation 3 version of Battlefield 3 would include a free copy of Battlefield 1943.

As reported by Kotaku, US law firm Edelson McGuire filed a class action suit against EA today on behalf of disgruntled PS3 owners.

The suit isn't focusing on the fact that EA went back on its promise, but that it was announced after the game had gone on sale and even then only via Twitter, meaning many customers were unaware of the fact.

It alleges that EA "misled and profited from thousands of their customers by making a promise that they could not, and never intended, to keep."

According to the lawyers, all that those signed up to the class action want out of EA is the free copy of 1943 that they were originally promised.

We've approached EA for comment and will update if we hear back.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • number3son #1 6 months ago

    Didn't EA outlaw class-action lawsuits recently? Or was that only for Origin users?

  • sfp_noodle #2 6 months ago

    This seems a bit OTT, but EA deserve something like this for their arrogance. They could quite have easily have done what THQ did and offer the game as a free download on the PSN.

  • Sharzam #3 6 months ago

    Ok this is silly, i know we are talking about amercians but its pretty simple.

    They 'believed' 1943 would be included, but its pretty easy to check when ordering anything (game or other product) you see the contents on the box/order. At any point did it say on the box that 1943 was included i assume no. Some amercian gamers were just going by the the fact EA said something months ago which is subject to change.

    Everything is subject in this world to 'if' 'but' 'subject to change' or my personal favorite 'technical diffculties'.

    Doesnt mean can sue every company on the planet. I am not saying that EA are all lovley i am just saying a law suit is a bit over the top for what is basically a single comment months prior to release.

    edit: To all the people giving me negatives, i feel for you. You obviously always believe what corparations say and trust everyone. A word of advice never trust any company as they only want your money.
    Edited by Sharzam at 19/11/11 @ 11:10

  • Tallon4 #4 6 months ago

    Beats me why EA did not include a game that nobody's willing to buy nowadays afterall. Mind you, it's a great game :D

  • Freakz #5 6 months ago

    I want my battlfied 1043 copy now !! :D

  • wattsn26 #6 6 months ago

    This is highly unnecessary...

  • night735 #7 6 months ago

    Its not unnecessary at all. We were told it would be on the disc and it wasn't. How would you feel if the online part (main part) of the game was left out at last minute?
    Bit extreme but amounts to same thing!

  • Lunastra78 #8 6 months ago

    I support this lawsuit.

    Even if it doesn't lead to anything, EA still gets much deserved bad publicity and lack of customer faith concerning future pre-order bonuses.

  • frunk #9 6 months ago

    Normally I disagree with all this lawsuit rubbish - just people fishing for a pound of flesh they are not really due.

    But this one has real merit, and the way the EA has acted about it - they pretty well deserve this. Good luck!

    Not that it affects me... I got the proper... I mean PC version. ;)

  • Yeoung #10 6 months ago

    I didn't buy battlefield, nor was I aware of the extra content, but it seems to me than when someone advertizes the features of a product, said features should be included in the product upon release.

    If for whatever reason the publisher/developer is unable to deliver said content, they should send out a press-release noting the content that has been taken out pre-release. If done post-release, many people will have already purchased the product, especially considering the high pre-order count.

    EA is definitely at fault here and should make the promised content available post-release or compensate with something of arguably equal value. I bought Skyrim the other day and I kinda feel jiffed that I'm unable to play the game because of the save file bug. So while some of you may claim this is over the top, it also happens to send a message that consumers should get the product as it's advertized. For a big company, that message is very important.

    That is just my opinion though. Obviously.

  • Monkeyspoon #11 6 months ago

    I think EA should just give it away whether you bought B3 or not. I doubt they sell many copies on PSN anymore. I can't see why it would be a problem. A lot less fuss.

  • ShiftyGeezer #12 6 months ago

    @Yeoung : Sony 'promised' dual HDMI ports and whatnot on PS3. I don't know the nature of the promise everyone's refering to, but it wouldn't be the first time a company announced something and then backpeddled. We have that with hardware and software features all the time. Who here joined a class action suit because PSP was clocked at 200 MHz for much of its life? Or because PS3's RSX launched downclocked from its 2005 specs? Or because Sony never delivered on PSN features (http://www.destructoid.com/sony-man-promises-ps3-cross-game-chat-155461.phtml)

  • azic #13 6 months ago

    Gaming in all it's formats needs some sort of legislation I feel.

    We are ripped off all the time, conned into buying DLC that amounts to a 100k unlock file to enable that which is already on the disc I bought etc.



    Games released with sometimes show stopping bugs. Game (the retail store) controlling release dates at least in the UK and stoping digital releasing early.



    Services being hacked with no official body looking at it.



    Buy the game now... But fuck you if its bugged we will fix it when we feel like it.



    Games and all related services and hardware should be looked at by the powers that be to protect us the consumers from this sort of thing.
    Edited by azic at 18/11/11 @ 23:03

  • night735 #14 6 months ago

    Royal fuck up be EA. Surprised it took this long for something to happen. If they have any respect for the gaming community they will honor the game to anyone who has entered the online code on PSN!

    I'm not even that bothered about it, its the principal!!

  • Yeoung #15 6 months ago

    @ShiftyGeezer: I don't understand the point you are making. Are you implying that because action against false advertizing wasn't taken in the past, it should not be taken now, even given a valid cause?

    Edit: Also I compelled to point out that the article from the source you provided does not specify an advertized feature, but rather an unconfirmed, probably unauthorized rumor of which the initial statement was redacted.
    Edited by Yeoung at 18/11/11 @ 23:56

  • lockload #16 6 months ago

    Sony promised other OS on my ps3 but took that away, wheres my lawsuit?

  • night735 #17 6 months ago

    @Yeoung don't feed the troll who has already admitted he don't know the reason behind it!
    As much as I love my ps3. I want this "promised" content, even if I don't need it.... if that makes Denver lol..

  • night735 #18 6 months ago

    Denver=sence damn android phone lol

  • King_of_Hyrule #19 6 months ago

    If EA loses this lawsuit imagine what kind of lawsuits Peter Molyneux could face for all his broken promises over the past 10 years ;)

  • night735 #20 6 months ago

    STFU and GTFO

  • night735 #21 6 months ago

    Ok since when was this a 'promise' as given in the title?
    I'm pretty sure that this content was given in a 'statement' if I remember correctly. Would need to look that up though.
    I'm pretty sure its the latter (amongst many others) though for this lawsuit to even surface.


    Why would we complain otherwise?!?

  • FireMonkey #22 6 months ago

    Not sure if this matters to most people on here, but it was actually Sony and not EA who announced this PS3 exclusive.

    Can you sue a company for not delivering what another company has said they will?

    I can't actually find anywhere where EA confirmed this would be on the disk.

    Here is a link to one of the articles about the original announcement:
    http://www.gamesradar.com/e3-2011-battlefield-3-for-ps3-shipping-with-free-copy-of-battlefield-1943/
    ”EA is using the extra storage capacity of Blu-Ray to add a second game, Battlefield 1943 to the disc. That extra and exclusive content is a critical differentiator for PlayStation,” said SCEA CEO Jack Tretton, during Sony's E3 presser.
    Trettor added this free offering will make the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 “bigger and better” than anything the competition has to offer. Considering no exclusive perks have yet been revealed for the Xbox 360 or PC, that looks to be the case.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 19/11/11 @ 00:38

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #23 6 months ago

    @Sharzam nar man its not like they gonna lose money unless you can buy Battlefield 1942 on PSN. I dont see any real problem with it, considering peeps losing more money then EA will with something like this, hope they win.

  • night735 #24 6 months ago

    @firemonkey Sony would have been making 'statements' on EA's behalf then? They are in this together!?!?
    I'm not really that bothered about the content, its the principal that matters.
    I bought a game on the understanding I had additional content compared to Xbox or PC.

    Its called 'false advertisement' where I come from. And its WRONG!!

  • night735 #25 6 months ago

    I could say 'buy my game and you will have a new car in your drive tomorrow'

    Oh wait I didn't really mean that...... I meant.  Fuck off and buy your own car looser.., I already have your money you cunt lol.....

    Get me yet.....

  • night735 #26 6 months ago

    EA can suck my big one after this! And I have been faithful for far too long already!

  • crzymnkys #27 6 months ago

    I don't think it's so much about retracting an offer that makes the argument valid, but retracting after release date and to a select audience (I.e. Twitter users). If you can no longer offer something, inform all people before release so they can cancel their pre order if they wish.

  • night735 #28 6 months ago

    I knew the offer and I don't use twitter. It was not a select audience!

  • arcam #29 6 months ago

    The most interesting thing about this is if we get to find out why 1943 was pulled at the last minute. I have my suspicions, I'm sure others share them...

  • Snake_2011 #30 6 months ago

    FireMonkey Sony just made it up? EA said it to them which is the point lol.

  • plastickitty #31 6 months ago

    ahhh the good old United Suing of America

  • Cobalt_Jackal #32 6 months ago

    @night735

    Same here (and im not usually in favour of theese often frivilous lawsuits), but this time its diferent. Im in favour of this one. I agree with you it about time someone held these publishers to account. EA promised, they officially stated that 1943 would come free with BF3. Seemingly they've lied, and deservedly so shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Yet again we see the publishers/Devs (and too a certain extent the gaming industry as a whole/at large), we see them treating us loyal/faithful customers like shit. So imo i hope EA pay for their dishonesty. Or at the very least are made to honour their promise.

    This industry needs to be held to the light and some (if not alot) of its practices need to be seen by all and scrutinised and critised as unacceptable and just downright wrong... And just anti-consumer/against the customer. And in general again the industry as a whole needs to be held too account and the customer not allowed to be screwed over time and again like we've seen all to often theese days.

    P.S. Oh and i'll gladly "suck your big one" Mmmmmm. Infact i won't just suck it, i'll polish it till its completly clean :). Now unbutton/unzip ;) XD.
    Edited by Cobalt_Jackal at 19/11/11 @ 07:51

  • des #33 6 months ago

    Promises?
    Sony and EA made a deal,deal went bad.I like how some people blame EA for everything and yet not a single line of code can be published or even announced for PS3 unless Sony gives its blessing.

    In short you have to sue them both,good luck.

  • crzymnkys #34 6 months ago

    @night735. Sorry, probably didn't make myself clear. I meant retracting the offer and only telling a select audience about that retraction. I'm agreeing that what they've done is bad customer care.

  • revan8 #35 6 months ago

    Who cares, why would u buy bf3 and play 1943?? Losers need to get out more.

  • ShiftyGeezer #36 6 months ago

    @Yeoung - It's not false advertising when it's just a work-in-progress at a trade show. What about PSEye? We had that amazing trailer of potential features it could, none of which happened.

    That's not false advertising, which requires what's on the box/packaging/sales materials to be different to what you actually receive. In this case no-one should be sued. It's lousy PR, and people should maybe take their custom elsewhere after a grumble, but turning to the courts every time someone's upset is as pathetic as running to your Mum.

    Edit: Having seen one link with Sony claiming 1943 would be on the disc, I see that it is somewhat different from trade-show banter as above posts implied. (It's funny how everyone assumes everyone knows ever fact and no-one bothers to link to evidence...). There's definitely cause for redress.
    Edited by ShiftyGeezer at 19/11/11 @ 10:13

  • bantamenace #37 6 months ago

    @azic the arrogance of your post layout is astonishing

  • hiscore #38 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:11 12-12-2011

  • varkdm #39 6 months ago

    Can anyone actually point to a news article, advert, box shot etc where EA (not Sony) have promised this content? There seems to be a few comments on here from people saying it didnt happen and a few from people stating as fact that they did promise it.. if so.. where is the promise?

  • Bigkopman #40 6 months ago

    It will probably appear as a freebie for Plus account holders. Lol!

  • JensonJet #41 6 months ago

    "US law firm... filed a class action suit..."

    Wow, now there's a surprise!

  • drxym #42 6 months ago

    Class action suits are a waste of time. The sentiment is fine but the outcome is lawyers walk away with a fortune and the claimants get some pathetic voucher or other piss-off award of little value.

    But as the system is the way it is I see no reason not to slap EA for this. It's bait and switch. There are numerous ways they could provide BF1943 even if there were reason it couldn't go on the disk. The easiest is to scrape up all the people playing the game right now and arrange with Sony to send them a PSN code to download the game.

  • SheffAl #43 6 months ago

    Are you watching this Bethesda?

  • FireMonkey #44 6 months ago

    @varkdm - "Can anyone actually point to a news article, advert, box shot etc where EA (not Sony) have promised this content?"

    Nope because EA did not say it so can not be sued over it. It be interesting if Sony actually broke the deal with EA as if so there may be a case (albeit a small one) against Sony.

  • WinterMute78 #45 6 months ago

    @night735 1943 is not part of battlefield 3 which is what you have paid for. So your example of how would it be if the multiplayer was missing is wrong as multiplayer is part of BF3
    There is no reason why it couldn't have been a download but then you would still have people who are not on PSN complaining.

  • WinterMute78 #46 6 months ago

    @King_of_Hyrule that's a bloody good point

  • Eoin #47 6 months ago

    There are some ridiculous arguments being made in these comments.

    The three most ridiculous ones can be summarised as:

    1. "Oh those Americans, they'll sue over anything".

    The answer to this is simple: regardless of however lawsuit-happy the US might be in general, what we have here is a clear-cut and blatant case of false advertising. This is one of the reasons why lawsuits exist in the first place - so that corporations (and individuals) can't screw over people thoughtlessly. If EA can get away with promising something, not delivering it, and not telling anyone, then what on Earth are false advertisement laws for?

    2. "Companies do this all the time, look at Sony, they said the PS3 would have things and it didn't".

    The response to that is simple: every single thing that the PS3 said it had on the box was inside that box. Every feature that was "removed" (or simply didn't make it from the prototype to the actual model - since some people do understand that a prototype is not necessarily a final model) was something we knew about in advance.

    In the case of BF1943, it was removed with no prior warning, with customers left to find out themselves after they bought the game.

    While companies may bend or stretch the law on false advertising, they do, in general, try not to break them. EA have broken this law. Please let that sink it - this isn't just something nice that they took away: they broke the law.

    Oh, and for all the people bringing up Other OS: perhaps you've conveniently forgotten this, but there is a lawsuit regarding that as well.

    3. "Sony announced this and not EA".

    This is probably the most ridiculous argument. Does anyone believe that Sony made that up randomly? Did Jack Tretton wake up on the morning of EA and announce that the PS3 version would have BF1943 without consulting EA? Of course not. This was EA's decision, they were fully aware of it, and the fact that it was announced by Sony was incidental.

    If Sony actually had gone insane and made it up, EA could have instantly clarified it. A simple press release saying "We don't have a clue where Sony got that idea, they're making stuff up and BF3 won't include BF1943" would have been headline news across most games-related websites.

    You can even see EA attempting to explain the lack of the game in their Twitter feeds and on blog posts such as this one: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/26/early-expansion-pack-access-on-playstation-3-amp-battlefield-1943.aspx

    This was an EA promise, which was illegally broken. It's not really a huge deal, but it is something that they shouldn't be able to just walk away from.
    Edited by Eoin at 19/11/11 @ 15:00

  • FireMonkey #48 6 months ago

    @Eoin - Maybe there was to be an deal and Sony announced it early as E3 was a great to reveal it but the deal never got finalised.

    We don't know all the facts of what happened, but what we do know is that Sony made the announcement not EA. So claiming EA promised it to us is just a blatant fabrication of the facts and this case will be laughed out of court if it even gets there.

  • Eoin #49 6 months ago

    Post a screenshot of the BF3 box showing that 1943 is included.

    How about I post a link to an E3 conference saying that 1943 would be included?

    The box is not the only form of advertising.

    Oh wait, it doesn't say that on the box. But I suppose if it was included, but then EA deleted it off your hard drive at a later date, as long as they told you in advance - like Sony did with the features they've removed - you'd be totally cool with that.

    This is a rather pathetic strawman argument. I haven't said anything like that. You're assuming I'm a PS3 fanboy, and the reason that you're assuming that is because you're an idiot.

    I happen not to like the fact that Sony took away Other OS.

    Magically I also dislike when huge corporations lie and advertise falsely and then try to pretend that everything is OK.

    I also don't pretend that one of those things magially justifies the other.

    I wonder how long Sony have known that it wouldn't be included. Shame they kept their mouths shut about it, but no, they're not to blame in the slightest of course........

    It was EA's duty to clarify if the contents of their product differed from what was previously advertised.
    Edited by Eoin at 19/11/11 @ 15:14

  • Eoin #50 6 months ago

    Maybe there was to be an deal and Sony announced it early as E3 was a great to reveal it but the deal never got finalised.

    We don't know all the facts of what happened, but what we do know is that Sony made the announcement not EA. So claiming EA promised it to us is just a blatant fabrication of the facts and this case will be laughed out of court if it even gets there.

    If the deal never got finalised then it was EA's responsibility to clarify that. Before release. Instead, knowing that it was their responsibility, they attempted to clarify it after release.

    There are blog posts that clearly indicate that EA were behind this promise. I've posted the link to one of them already.

    As for how far this case will go, I can only imagine that EA will settle. If this gets to court, they're extremely likely to lose.

  • Eoin #51 6 months ago

    Where only Jack Tretton of Sony mentioned it, you mean? Yeah, that's a really solid basis for a class action lawsuit against EA.

    Once again: do you believe that Sony made that announcement randomly, without consulting EA, who were so totally surprised by the announcement that they then did nothing at all to contradict it?

    Did you even bother to read the blog post I linked to where DICE admit that this was their decision and that they changed it later (without telling anyone)?

    No, of course not, you're too busy wrongly assuming that anyone who thinks that EA breaking the law should be punishable is a PS3 fanboy.

    Can I sue Sony for announcing PS3 features at E3 that didn't make it into the actual console?

    YES.

    If Sony announced something was going to be in the PS3, and didn't retract that before release, and it wasn't in the PS3, then go right ahead and sue. It would be a clear-cut case of false advertising, and you'd win.

    But why do you keep on bringing up Sony and the PS3? If whatever you think Sony did there was wrong, then how in the world does that, in your head, make EA right? Do yourself the favour of thinking your own argument through, at least a little.

    Or is that somehow different as they're "not mentioned on the box" - oh wait, but neither is BF 1943 mentioned on the BF3 box.........

    Once again: the box is not the only form of advertising. Please also remember that people pre-ordering the game on the strength of this announcement could easily have done so long before the box was revealed, and people ordering online were hardly in a good position to check the box.

  • varkdm #52 6 months ago

    @Eoin It doesnt matter what private deal EA had with Sony, EA never promised YOU, IE the people the class action represents, a damn thing. I'm going to release a press statement now that says Mass Effect 3 will come with a free xbox 360.

    So by your logic, because i've released the statement, even though I'm not EA or Bioware, they can be sued because they've not lived up to what ive told the world they are going to do.

    The only peole here who have said something was going to happen, that didnt, is Sony. If EA went back on a PRIVATE deal with Sony, then its up to Sony to sue EA. It's up to you as consumers to sue Sony, as they are the only company that promised anything about this to you. Once they've been sued, Sony can then include those costs in their law suit against EA, for breaking this private deal that you apparently know for certain existed.

  • Rens11 #53 6 months ago

    @Cobalt_Jackal

    This in not some gay chatroom!

  • Cjail #54 6 months ago

    Sometimes customers do shoot back.

  • Gastrian #55 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • alcides #56 6 months ago

    That's what brilliant about the US

  • jefranklin18 #57 6 months ago

    @varkdm

    EA announced it during the Sony press conference at E3. The only transcript I could find is at ArsTechnica (page7 of the transcript if the link doesn't work).

    EA really have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

  • varkdm #58 6 months ago

    @jefranklin18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg1OfvU-1W8

    It was a Sony guy saying it though...

  • FireMonkey #59 6 months ago

    @jefranklin18 - Ummm.. Yes. The SONY press conference and it was Jack Tretton (President and CEO of Sony America) who said it.

    Jack Tretton does have a bit of a reputation for making stuff up or misleading people for the benefit of Sony.

    One of his lies was “more than 70 new titles are coming to the PSP by December.”
    In fact there were less than 40 new titles. Now Sony would have had the true figures for titles going to be released, so we can only assume this was a lie to make out that the PSP was being supported by devs better than it actually was and to help sell more units.
    http://www.gamestooge.com/2010/07/04/jack-tretton-lying-again-now-about-psp/

    See more lies (or badly informed announcements) from the Sony president here;
    http://www.gamestooge.com/2010/10/21/jack-tretton-caught-in-lie-again/

    Do people really think it's EA's fault that someone working for Sony, who has a track record for making things up, made up something about BF3 (or announced it prematurely) in order to boost the sales of the game on his platform?
    Edited by FireMonkey at 19/11/11 @ 23:11

  • ROCK-NYC #60 6 months ago

    I think SONY was the ones that promised the game not EA. Nevertheless the game went missing anyway.

  • Sicho #61 6 months ago

    Gamers and their stupid sense of entitlement ...

  • Mindstorm #62 6 months ago

    @azic +1

  • M_of_the_sys #63 6 months ago

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-26-battlefield-1943-missing-from-ps3-battlefield-3

    "A Tweet made on the Battlefield Twitter page pointed to the recently announced week-long PS3 exclusivity for Battlefield 3 DLC as "in lieu" of the free game.

    "In lieu of 1943 being available on disk for PS3 customers, EA has made all BF3 expansions available early to PS3 customers," reads the Tweet."

    Announced by Sony, confirmed by EA.
    Edited by M_of_the_sys at 20/11/11 @ 20:46

  • Feanor #64 6 months ago

    @FireMonkey: An Executive Producer from DICE promises the PS3 version will have Battlefield 1943 as a free bonus at 7:45 on this video. Time for you to STFU.

    http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/06/16/e3-replay-battlefield-3-for-ps3/

  • NicolasVH #65 6 months ago

    Lawyered.

  • FireMonkey #66 6 months ago

    @Feanor - Time for you to learn some manners and stop being so rude I think.

    I stand corrected though as I hadn't seen that video. Every other link to the announcement that is made seems to refer to the one at E3 and search results never brought this up.

    I still doubt the case will go anywhere though.

  • ballshock #67 6 months ago

    Who's gonna get the money from EA getting sued? not you, but a different money hungry corporation

  • gandhimaster #68 6 months ago

    @Snake_2011 have Sony actually commented on it not being included in the full version?

  • dennett316 #69 6 months ago

    Oh geez, who buys a brand new release in order to play some 2 year old PSN title? Are they trying to convince us that this is the only reason they bought the game, or is it that they had a choice of format and chose the PS3 version because of the free 2 year old PSN title?
    Either way, it really is "panties in a bunch" time over something so trivial. EA's idea of a peace offering being an earlier opportunity to give them more money is more than a little bit cheeky, but still.
    At the end of the day, no-one can say they weren't going to get Battlefield 3 until they saw this awesome offer of a free PSN title...it would've been a nice bonus, but anyone buying a full price new release that costs many times the price of the 1943 download purely for said game has bigger things to worry about, like checking themselves immediately into the nearest mental health facility...or growing some common sense.

  • 32768Colours #70 6 months ago

    I've read this thread with great interest and I just have one question: do any of you work in the legal profession?

    If so, could you clarify whether this class action suit has any merit?

    Otherwise, I'd say there's an awful lot of opinions being paraded as fact.

    This generation the games industry has done a lot of things to stretch consumer goodwill, so personally welcome any legal action which calls their behaviour into question when necessary. In fact, its just a shame it doesn't happen more often. But as for an opinion on the case? Perhaps we should leave that to the courts to decide, given that they know what they're talking about.

  • Feanor #71 6 months ago

    @FireMonkey Wrong again.

    http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/25/ea-giving-battlefield-1943-vouchers-to-ps3-battlefield-3-owners/