WotC Gale Force 9 Sues WotC [Updated]

In the second lawsuit against WotC in recent weeks (Dragonlance authors Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman sued the company for breach of contract and other things about a month ago), Gale Force 9 is suing the company for breach of contract and implied duty of good faith.

Gale Force 9 produces miniatures, cards, DM screens, and other D&D accessories. They’re asking for damages of nearly a million dollars, as well as an injunction to prevent WotC from terminating the licensing contract.

From the suit, it looks like WotC wanted to end a licensing agreement a year early. When GF9 didn't agree to that, WotC indicated that they would refuse to approve any new licensed products from GF9. It looks like the same sort of approach they took with Weis and Hickman, which also resulted in a lawsuit. The dispute appears to relate to some product translations in non-US markets. More information as I hear it!

UPDATE. GF9's CEO, Jean-Paul Brisigotti, spoke to ICv2 and said: "After twelve years of working with Wizards, we find ourselves in a difficult place having to utilize the legal system to try and resolve an issue we have spent the last six months trying to amicably handle between us without any success. We still hope this can be settled between us but the timeline for a legal resolution has meant we have been forced to go down this path at this time."

 

[billd91]

Interesting that you would make that assumption. There was a Korean poster earlier who confirmed TRPG was a crappy producer that delivers shoddy work. You don’t think WoC have a right to be protective of their IP?

1) If you're referring to Lucas Yew's post, he says the TRPG Club has a reputation. He didn't confirm that the product in question was shoddy. We still don't know if it was or wasn't - which is one of the things I pointed out.
2) If WotC signed off on the product translated by TRPG Club, why should their complaint be considered? It passed their own QC. To then turn around and use it as a reason to get out of a contract looks problematic to me. Unless there's language in the license to give them that out, I'd be really concerned about this kind of behavior if I was interested in doing D&D business that required a contract with WotC.
3) It seems to me you're the one making assumptions - that the product actually was shoddy and that WotC therefore has the right to use that as a reason to break their contract. From our position, I'm not sure we can say that's true of either point. That may be something for the court to decide.

 

[GSHamster]

The updated link doesn't seem to be correct. It's pointing back to this thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

At a guess, my thought would be the big revenue hit is coming from people not playing (and thus not buying) Magic or other CCGs as much as they were; as a lot of that play is in person and many in-person activities have been limited or outright shut down.

Nah, Arena is where the MTG money is at right now. Paper magic was stagnating even before the pandemic.

 

[TheSword]

1) If you're referring to Lucas Yew's post, he says the TRPG Club has a reputation. He didn't confirm that the product in question was shoddy. We still don't know if it was or wasn't - which is one of the things I pointed out.
2) If WotC signed off on the product translated by TRPG Club, why should their complaint be considered? It passed their own QC. To then turn around and use it as a reason to get out of a contract looks problematic to me. Unless there's language in the license to give them that out, I'd be really concerned about this kind of behavior if I was interested in doing D&D business that required a contract with WotC.
3) It seems to me you're the one making assumptions - that the product actually was shoddy and that WotC therefore has the right to use that as a reason to break their contract. From our position, I'm not sure we can say that's true of either point. That may be something for the court to decide.

As I said in my earlier post. Saying “tough luck that the production isn’t good enough, you signed off on it” doesn’t stop the relationship souring when a third party is responsible for the quality. It may be technically WOCs fault but by that same argument I see no moral problem with WOC using a different technicality to slam the brakes on the relationship.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in business if the relationship sours, you need to get out otherwise it’s toxic for both parties. If your company wants you out, they’ll always find a way if they’re willing to suffer the consequences no matter what your employment contract says. The same applies to contracts for services.

I suspect D&D considers its reputation worth more than the potential payout to GF9

 

[Zaukrie]

Disney is having some big financial problems.

They were heavily in debt before Covid, parks are closed and movies can't really make money atm.

Disney could lose this much for like 30 years, and still have cash left over.......their stock price went up after the last earnings report.....I don't think they are in any trouble at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Disney could lose this much for like 30 years, and still have cash left over.......their stock price went up after the last earnings report.....I don't think they are in any trouble at all.

They are short of cash and borrowed.

They were 50 billion in debt pre Covid and their income streams have closed.

Parks are shut or under performing. No big movies not that people are really going to theatres anyway. Their hotel and cruise ships not doing so well either.

It's also not clear the movie theatre chains will survive. Online streaming doesn't make them the same amount of money.

 

[Zaukrie]

They are short of cash and borrowed.

They were 50 billion in debt pre Covid and their income streams have closed.

Parks are shut or under performing. No big movies not that people are really going to theatres anyway. Their hotel and cruise ships not doing so well either.

It's also not clear the movie theatre chains will survive. Online streaming doesn't make them the same amount of money.

Disney Cash on Hand 2010-2023 | DIS

Disney cash on hand from 2010 to 2023. Cash on hand can be defined as cash deposits at financial institutions that can immediately be withdrawn at any time, and investments maturing in one year or less that are highly liquid and therefore regarded as cash equivalents and reported with or near...

www.macrotrends.net

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The updated link doesn't seem to be correct. It's pointing back to this thread.

This is the correct link: Gale Force Nine Sues Wizards of the Coast

@Morrus pls fix?

 

[Dire Bare]

Also, concerning Disney, the live action remakes were based mainly on the artistic creativity from the original creators of the animated classics. No royalties were paid to them either! Clearly, big companies think it's OK to disregard their promises or duties.

I can't believe I'm stepping in to defend Disney here but . . . this part is nonsense.

Disney's animated classics were all made in house as studio productions. All the writing, animating, and other tasks were done by employees. There are no royalties to screw anyone out of.

The situation with Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars novels is completely different. Lucasfilm contracted ADF (and other authors) to write novels in the Star Wars universe and as a part of that contract, ADF is due royalties for every booksale. Disney is using legal trickery to try and get out of that obligation.

 

[MoonSong]

Hiya!

The undercurrent vibe I'm getting from WotC is that the current people in charge have a different mindset than the older ones...maybe? I know WotC has had several changes to the folks calling the shots over the last couple years. Because of that I'm just feeling like the people "in charge" have a vastly different world and business view on what constituted right/wrong and allowed/disallowed, and that ties directly into their choices.

Sort of a "Well, WE are the good guys here...and THEY are the bad guys. Ergo, anything we do in order to cancel the bad guys contracts is, ultimately a GOOD thing and totally justified. Because THEY are the bad guys. If they are the bad guys, then it's totally legal to screw them over because we are just defending ourselves and our loyal fans".

It's a mentality that a surprisingly large number of people world-wide have adopted; a very "the ends justifies the means" way of thinking.

It's the only reason I can think of for a company to try to do the same thing they've done before and gotten sued for...yet think that this time it's somehow going to magically be ok? Strange. A lawyer SHOULD know better and SHOULD have advised WotC to "not do that again".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

It is a scary attitude. I'm more and more afraid of ever getting in the path of someone like this.

Well, these two lawsuits look pretty similar to me. If this is becoming a pattern, I will be very sad that WotC is becoming such a toxic company with its parteners.

Well, it seems it is the third lawsuit this year. Earlier, they were sued by a distributor for breach of contract.