Will the CPSIA harm the role playing games market?

[AdmundfortGeographer]

(2) CHILDREN’S PRODUCT.--The term “children's product” means a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. In determining whether a consumer product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger, the following factors shall be considered:
(A) A statement by a manufacturer about the intended use of such product, including a label on such product if such statement is reasonable.
(B) Whether the product is represented in its packaging, display, promotion, or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger.
(C) Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger.
(D) The Age Determination Guidelines issued by the Commission staff in September 2002, and any successor to such guidelines.

While Zelligars Apprentice bolded (A), I think (B) is where some worry lies. The D&D Starter Set is labeled for ages 12 and up. The Battletech Introductory Set by Catalyst Game Labs is labeled on its box for ages 12 and up. I have an older Warhammer box with ages 12 and up on it.

Right there "represented on its packaging . . . as appropriate for use by".

The RPG industry (but more likely the miniatures gaming wing) and especially our mom and pop retailers have some unsold inventory to deal with, probably by tossing into a landfill, before it can bother with raising its age range on new packaging. That's a cost that can't be hand-waved, much less the future expense of testing each new variant of a miniature, book, or deck.

And part (C) is just weasel words that should make everyone who has experienced America's enthusiastic industry of trial lawyers. Who gets to decide what is "commonly recognized by consumers"?

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Korgoth]

Here's what you do: the retailer gets a bunch of stickers that say "For Ages 13+" and sticks them on all the products.

That doesn't make you bulletproof, but it helps. Obviously it doesn't work where that age claim is found to be "unreasonable", or where the packaging or advertising can be "reasonably" said to be for children 12-.

Role playing game products will have to start having pictures on them of hawt chicks in chainmail bikinis working proofs in symbolic logic. Obviously intended only for 13 year olds and up.

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer!

 

[CharlesRyan]

I'm also not a lawyer. But I do have a little experience with product safety laws, testing, RPG manufacturing, and D&D.

Don't panic.

This is not the first law of its type, although it's a bit more stringent than its many predecessors. Why do you think every DDM product is marked "Ages 12+"?

Worst-case scenario: You'll see a whole lot of future hobby gaming product marked "Ages 13+."

More likely scenario: There will be amendments to the law, and/or the manufacturers who serve any industry that makes children's products will integrate cost-effective testing into their processes and supply chains. And you'll see a whole lot of future hobby gaming product marked "Ages 13+."

This very thing happened with the lead ban of 1990 (1991?): GAMA lobbied successfully to have miniatures exempted, while simultaneously all the minis companies found alternative metals and stopped using lead.

In the mean time, those bloodthirsty DAs looking to make their names enforcing this law have much, much bigger fish to fry than your FLGS. It's possible that one or two shops could find themselves briefly in the spotlight (happened in 1990/91), but beating up some independent when the Wal*Mart around the corner might not have its house in order doesn't generate the kinds of headlines most media-hungry lawyer-politicians want. (The people who might really have to worry are the supermarkets and drug stores that now sell a lot of low-cost, unbranded toys bought in bulk from China.)

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

More likely scenario: There will be amendments to the law, and/or the manufacturers who serve any industry that makes children's products will integrate cost-effective testing into their processes and supply chains. And you'll see a whole lot of future hobby gaming product marked "Ages 13+."

I agree we'll see games marked 13+ in the future. I hope there are amendments to the law. The original authors of the law have been adamantly against changing the law. PIRGs who lobbied for it don't want it changed in the least. Short of a politician attaching an amendment to a larger unrelated bill (standard Congressional practice) under the watchful eyes of the lobbyists in PIRGs, I don't see it getting revisited this congressional session with so many big publicity causes on the plate.

Yeah, I'm a pessimist on government.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The CPSC has already put in place some temporary exemptions while permanent exemptions are being debated.

Agency aims to ease confusion over lead law - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I mentioned the administrative pause in my OP. However, that 1-year exemption is only for manufacturer testing. Liability for selling has not been exempted non-compliant merchandise. Come Feb 10th (3 days from now) retailers are still in the crosshairs.

Plus, the NRDC sued and got a judge to overrule the CPSC's administrative judgement that only lead-testing/certification was retroactive. The judge just ruled that phthalate-testing/phthalate-certification is also retroactive.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The exemptions in the article I posted were not a general pause in enforcement, but targeted exemptions for specific categories of things like books, natural wood toys, and clothing which are very very unlikely to contain lead.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Ah I forgot about this new one. The new guidelines are said to excuse "ordinary books" from after 1985. Apparently it was practice in 1985 and earlier by some to have used lead-containing inks. How many 10-12 year olds were eating books and became harmed by lead poisoning is left unsaid, but it looks like everyone's D&D BECMI boxed sets and adventures become contraband on Feb 10th.

While these exemptions are only for what the federal CPSC will enforce, the 50 states' Attorneys General are not bound to exempt anything. In fact the Connecticut AG has already issued a press release cheering the overturning of one of the CPSC's attempted exemptions saying his office "will take whatever steps are necessary" to enforce the ban.

With one exemption down, it seems only a matter of time before this new one is struck down in court as well.

 

[CharlesRyan]

There's no doubt that there will be some drama and back-and-forth on this issue before the dust all settles, for anyone interested enough to pay close attention. But it will all work out, and it will not destroy ours or any other industry--any more than the zillion other iterations of product safety laws that have come out before. Congress's intent in the law was to protect children against being poisoned, particularly by products produced outside the reach of the US's safety enforcement. The intent was not to wreak economic havoc. If they got the law wrong in a big way, they'll go back and fix it.

DDM ran afoul of new pthalate regulations in the EU just a year or so ago. Created some hiccups in the supply chain, and I'm sure some people/businesses lost some money as a result. But the unexpected happens in business (as in life) all the time, and this was no different.

Product safety laws are a part of the manufacturing landscape, and always will be. This is nothing new.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The intent was not to wreak economic havoc. If they got the law wrong in a big way, they'll go back and fix it.

It never is the intent to cause havoc. But it happens. Like the luxury yacht tax intended to capture wealthy American's money, instead wealthy Americans simply bought their yachts outside the US putting American yacht builders out of business and their working class workers out of work. Congress went back and fixed the law, sure, but only too late to save any jobs.

Hasbro, and by extension WotC, can survive this easily purely by economies of scale. But I was much more worried about the smaller companies and individuals.