For what it's worth, this is a grab bag...

[Bob Loblaw]

California Penal Code 319.3

(a) In addition to Section 319, a lottery also shall include
a grab bag game which is a scheme whereby, for the disposal or
distribution of sports trading cards by chance, a person pays
valuable consideration to purchase a sports trading card grab bag
with the understanding that the purchaser has a chance to win a
designated prize or prizes listed by the seller as being contained in
one or more, but not all, of the grab bags.

The way I read this (and I'm no lawyer) would indicate to me that what they are trying to prevent here would be something like a card company saying:

"we are going to distributed xx packs of this product, one of those packs contains a Honus Wagner RC, the rest of them contain commons worth nothing."

In the case of Razor, every pack provided some value...although Brian stated what the big hit was, it wasn't just a chase after one prize, there were other valuable cards included and each pack contained a card (PSA 7 or above) that was worth something, there is some degree of collectability in every pack.

I could be wrong but it seems open for interpretation.

That does bring to mind something else though. I recall a few years back when Wal Mart had a chase product like this and the grand prize was the Honus Wagner card. It seems like if lawsuits over "grab-bag" status didn't happen then (with larger distribution and Wal-Marts extremely deep pockets) I would think companies like Razor and Tristar would be in the clear now. I'm sure Wal-Mart did their checking when distributing such a product.

Certainly open for interpretation, I read it as a list of prizes with some packs having more value than others. Remember, a grab bag doesn't mean you get an EMPTY bag - you get SOMETHING. And that's why this penal code was amended, becuase a grab bag differs from a lottery in that a lottery, you get absolutely nothing if you don't win. A grab bag of sports cards means you may get a handful of 1/2 cent commons, but you get SOMETHING.

I posted this in the locked thread - I am solely trying to have a conversation and not bash any product. . . and I hesitate to mention Razor, but. . . the Honus Wagner "Find the Honus" promotion and the Razor product are very different.

I've said this numerous times in differentiating wax boxes and Tristar/Razor. . . when you're buying a wax box, it is deemed that you're buying the collectable cards inside, the partial set, and the inserts are nothing more than a sweepstakes. If I recall, the Find the Honus promotion were just regular Treat re-packages where one of the manufacturers inserted the Honus, was it not? I believe that WalMart's counsel would have, if needed, argued that people were buying the cards, and would have bought the cards anyway (not necessarily the case, but I think it goes along with the McDonalds-Monopoly piece connection). In the Tristar/Razor situation, there's no collectability aspect. You're plunking down your $ and hoping you get something - one thing - worth your money.

 

[011873]

It comes down to this, there have been attempts to sue the companies because little Johnny spent all his money on packs thinking he would find a Jeter auto. When his parents found out, they sued claiming its a lottery.

The companies came out on top because, well, ITS NOT GAMBLING.

 

[masonphillip]

[quote="Jeff N.":1nm7r4tj]

California Penal Code 319.3

(a) In addition to Section 319, a lottery also shall include
a grab bag game which is a scheme whereby, for the disposal or
distribution of sports trading cards by chance, a person pays
valuable consideration to purchase a sports trading card grab bag
with the understanding that the purchaser has a chance to win a
designated prize or prizes listed by the seller as being contained in
one or more, but not all, of the grab bags.

The way I read this (and I'm no lawyer) would indicate to me that what they are trying to prevent here would be something like a card company saying:

"we are going to distributed xx packs of this product, one of those packs contains a Honus Wagner RC, the rest of them contain commons worth nothing."

In the case of Razor, every pack provided some value...although Brian stated what the big hit was, it wasn't just a chase after one prize, there were other valuable cards included and each pack contained a card (PSA 7 or above) that was worth something, there is some degree of collectability in every pack.

I could be wrong but it seems open for interpretation.

That does bring to mind something else though. I recall a few years back when Wal Mart had a chase product like this and the grand prize was the Honus Wagner card. It seems like if lawsuits over "grab-bag" status didn't happen then (with larger distribution and Wal-Marts extremely deep pockets) I would think companies like Razor and Tristar would be in the clear now. I'm sure Wal-Mart did their checking when distributing such a product.

Certainly open for interpretation, I read it as a list of prizes with some packs having more value than others. Remember, a grab bag doesn't mean you get an EMPTY bag - you get SOMETHING. And that's why this penal code was amended, becuase a grab bag differs from a lottery in that a lottery, you get absolutely nothing if you don't win. A grab bag of sports cards means you may get a handful of 1/2 cent commons, but you get SOMETHING.

I posted this in the locked thread - I am solely trying to have a conversation and not bash any product. . . and I hesitate to mention Razor, but. . . the Honus Wagner "Find the Honus" promotion and the Razor product are very different.

I've said this numerous times in differentiating wax boxes and Tristar/Razor. . . when you're buying a wax box, it is deemed that you're buying the collectable cards inside, the partial set, and the inserts are nothing more than a sweepstakes. If I recall, the Find the Honus promotion were just regular Treat re-packages where one of the manufacturers inserted the Honus, was it not? I believe that WalMart's counsel would have, if needed, argued that people were buying the cards, and would have bought the cards anyway (not necessarily the case, but I think it goes along with the McDonalds-Monopoly piece connection). In the Tristar/Razor situation, there's no collectability aspect. You're plunking down your $ and hoping you get something - one thing - worth your money.[/quote:1nm7r4tj]

So if Razor had insert a couple of crummy base cards in these packages would your opinion differ?

If they hadn't promoted it using the Mantle as their poster child would your opinion differ?

The price point would have been different without the Mantle in the set but I believe that buyers would have purchased it anyway.

 

[bradical]

Hey Jeff,

I think you should sue Razor and TriStar.

-BW

 

[Bob Loblaw]

It comes down to this, there have been attempts to sue the companies because little Johnny spent all his money on packs thinking he would find a Jeter auto. When his parents found out, they sued claiming its a lottery.

The companies came out on top because, well, ITS NOT GAMBLING.

Right. Because you're buying a collectable set. There's a big difference to the 10 cards that come in a pack with a chance of getting something vs. a one shot charlie type of Tristar ball deal.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":35hd4hn0]

California Penal Code 319.3

(a) In addition to Section 319, a lottery also shall include
a grab bag game which is a scheme whereby, for the disposal or
distribution of sports trading cards by chance, a person pays
valuable consideration to purchase a sports trading card grab bag
with the understanding that the purchaser has a chance to win a
designated prize or prizes listed by the seller as being contained in
one or more, but not all, of the grab bags.

The way I read this (and I'm no lawyer) would indicate to me that what they are trying to prevent here would be something like a card company saying:

"we are going to distributed xx packs of this product, one of those packs contains a Honus Wagner RC, the rest of them contain commons worth nothing."

In the case of Razor, every pack provided some value...although Brian stated what the big hit was, it wasn't just a chase after one prize, there were other valuable cards included and each pack contained a card (PSA 7 or above) that was worth something, there is some degree of collectability in every pack.

I could be wrong but it seems open for interpretation.

That does bring to mind something else though. I recall a few years back when Wal Mart had a chase product like this and the grand prize was the Honus Wagner card. It seems like if lawsuits over "grab-bag" status didn't happen then (with larger distribution and Wal-Marts extremely deep pockets) I would think companies like Razor and Tristar would be in the clear now. I'm sure Wal-Mart did their checking when distributing such a product.

Certainly open for interpretation, I read it as a list of prizes with some packs having more value than others. Remember, a grab bag doesn't mean you get an EMPTY bag - you get SOMETHING. And that's why this penal code was amended, becuase a grab bag differs from a lottery in that a lottery, you get absolutely nothing if you don't win. A grab bag of sports cards means you may get a handful of 1/2 cent commons, but you get SOMETHING.

I posted this in the locked thread - I am solely trying to have a conversation and not bash any product. . . and I hesitate to mention Razor, but. . . the Honus Wagner "Find the Honus" promotion and the Razor product are very different.

I've said this numerous times in differentiating wax boxes and Tristar/Razor. . . when you're buying a wax box, it is deemed that you're buying the collectable cards inside, the partial set, and the inserts are nothing more than a sweepstakes. If I recall, the Find the Honus promotion were just regular Treat re-packages where one of the manufacturers inserted the Honus, was it not? I believe that WalMart's counsel would have, if needed, argued that people were buying the cards, and would have bought the cards anyway (not necessarily the case, but I think it goes along with the McDonalds-Monopoly piece connection). In the Tristar/Razor situation, there's no collectability aspect. You're plunking down your $ and hoping you get something - one thing - worth your money.

So if Razor had insert a couple of crummy base cards in these packages would your opinion differ?

If they hadn't promoted it using the Mantle as their poster child would your opinion differ?

The price point would have been different without the Mantle in the set but I believe that buyers would have purchased it anyway.[/quote:35hd4hn0]

Yes and yes.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Hey Jeff,

I think you should sue Razor and TriStar.

-BW

Why? They havent' done anything to where I'm entitled to damages. I have no desire at all to sue them, or anyone else.

You can sue them if you want. While you're at it, sue Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC too.

 

[NECpilgrims8]

Hey Jeff,

I think you should sue Razor and TriStar.

-BW

Why? They havent' done anything to where I'm entitled to damages. I have no desire at all to sue them, or anyone else.

You can sue them if you want. While you're at it, sue Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC too.

Blasphemy. I thought you were the Robin Hood of the card world....

Don't you have like....28 years of experience? :?

 

[cgilmo]

Honestly, all the bantering and debating is pointless and boring without action.

 

[G $MONEY$]

Re: For what it's worth, this is also a grab bag...

[quote="Jeff N.":21kflxaz]The million card giveaway is a sweepstakes, but it's not enticing you to buy the product. If you were going to throw away the cards and only hunt for the million card giveaway, perhaps. To put it in a scenario that most of the guys here can understand, it's like Monopoly at McDonalds. You're not going to throw away the delectable royale with cheese and greasefries to play Monopoly - it's an added bonus.

A lottery is a game of chance where you pay your money in the hope for a grand prize. In this situation, the Ruth ball. Sure, you may get something lesser (i.e a $5 winning ticket vs. a David Justice ball), but you want the grand prize.

Please help me understand how your definition of a lottery could not be applied to busting a box of cards?

I read a case on this years ago. The cards are defines as the collectable that you're keeping and buying, and the Million Card giveaway is the bonus. You're buying a collectable set of baseball cards. Not a grab bag.[/quote:21kflxaz]


Isn't this the same exact thing?!? You are buying a collectible autographed Baseball, no different then the cards.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Yeah, everyone knows people who collect baseball cards are prone to nothing but action.

But this is an interesting topic and I agree with Jeff N. However if you're looking to pull anything specific, busting wax = gambling, maybe this needs to be addressed in a constructive way by society.

Honestly, all the bantering and debating is pointless and boring without action.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Honestly, all the bantering and debating is pointless and boring without action.

What kind of action do you want? This is a message board, not an activism board.

[youtube:mhrsnvai]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suyPtIwHohI&feature=fvw[/youtube:mhrsnvai]

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Re: For what it's worth, this is also a grab bag...

[quote="Jeff N.":3bdhptoe]

[quote="Jeff N.":3bdhptoe]The million card giveaway is a sweepstakes, but it's not enticing you to buy the product. If you were going to throw away the cards and only hunt for the million card giveaway, perhaps. To put it in a scenario that most of the guys here can understand, it's like Monopoly at McDonalds. You're not going to throw away the delectable royale with cheese and greasefries to play Monopoly - it's an added bonus.

A lottery is a game of chance where you pay your money in the hope for a grand prize. In this situation, the Ruth ball. Sure, you may get something lesser (i.e a $5 winning ticket vs. a David Justice ball), but you want the grand prize.

Please help me understand how your definition of a lottery could not be applied to busting a box of cards?

I read a case on this years ago. The cards are defines as the collectable that you're keeping and buying, and the Million Card giveaway is the bonus. You're buying a collectable set of baseball cards. Not a grab bag.[/quote:3bdhptoe]


Isn't this the same exact thing?!? You are buying a collectible autographed Baseball, no different then the cards.[/quote:3bdhptoe]

In which case, the lottery definition, under the California Penal Code, applies.

The autographed baseball is not part of a set - that's what differentiated it. I need to do some research.

 

[bradical]

Why? They havent' done anything to where I'm entitled to damages. I have no desire at all to sue them, or anyone else.

You can sue them if you want. While you're at it, sue Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC too.

The emotional stress they are causing you.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Why? They havent' done anything to where I'm entitled to damages. I have no desire at all to sue them, or anyone else.

You can sue them if you want. While you're at it, sue Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC too.

The emotional stress they are causing you.

I get on FCB to relax. Emotional stress is caused by real world stuff. Posting here is fun.

 

[bradical]

I get on FCB to relax. Emotional stress is caused by real world stuff. Posting here is fun.

Then why all the hostility towards TriStar and Razor?

 

[RL24]

Re: For what it's worth, this is also a grab bag...

[quote="Jeff N.":2qd0i7tv]

[quote="Jeff N.":2qd0i7tv]The million card giveaway is a sweepstakes, but it's not enticing you to buy the product. If you were going to throw away the cards and only hunt for the million card giveaway, perhaps. To put it in a scenario that most of the guys here can understand, it's like Monopoly at McDonalds. You're not going to throw away the delectable royale with cheese and greasefries to play Monopoly - it's an added bonus.

A lottery is a game of chance where you pay your money in the hope for a grand prize. In this situation, the Ruth ball. Sure, you may get something lesser (i.e a $5 winning ticket vs. a David Justice ball), but you want the grand prize.

Please help me understand how your definition of a lottery could not be applied to busting a box of cards?

I read a case on this years ago. The cards are defines as the collectable that you're keeping and buying, and the Million Card giveaway is the bonus. You're buying a collectable set of baseball cards. Not a grab bag.

I thought the No Purchase Necessary was put on packs to avoid the lottery/gambling aspect? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's both. Just remember reading that at one point.[/quote:2qd0i7tv]

NPNs are available on any type of sweepstakes. I believe -and don't hold me to it - that it's illegal to compel the purchase of a product to enter a sweepstakes - therefore, there are NPNs to enter sweepstakes of baseball cards, to get free McDonalds Monopoly pieces, etc.[/quote:2qd0i7tv]

It all comes down to the NPNs. McDonalds and Topps have to offer them, so you can "play the game" without paying money. Otherwise it would be gambling, and you would have to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards or an order of McDonalds fries that come with a game piece.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've read practically every John Grisham novel. :lol:

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I get on FCB to relax. Emotional stress is caused by real world stuff. Posting here is fun.

Then why all the hostility towards TriStar and Razor?

I don't believe I was the least bit hostile in this thread towards either. I stated the law, as it applies to one of our 50 states (I don't want to research the other 49), and how the Tristar product seems to fall into that misdemeanor category. I don't speak about Razor any longer.

 

[muskiesfan]

This isn't the first year of this product Jeff. We had spoken about it before. Wasn't there another company that did something similar a couple of years ago? I know TriStar has done it a couple of times now, but I thought there was some other "no name" company that did it as well?

I honestly do not know enough on these issues, but don't card companies have to make sure that there products are legal? I know assuming is wrong, but I would assume that the companies would do some type of research to make sure that what they are doing can't come back and bite them in the ass. I could be completely wrong on that, but it would make sense to me.

Also, since there is some sort or legal information on the matter, could companies simply believe that whatever they put out falls well within the realm of being legal since they have won in the past?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

This isn't the first year of this product Jeff. We had spoken about it before. Wasn't there another company that did something similar a couple of years ago? I know TriStar has done it a couple of times now, but I thought there was some other "no name" company that did it as well?

I honestly do not know enough on these issues, but don't card companies have to make sure that there products are legal? I know assuming is wrong, but I would assume that the companies would do some type of research to make sure that what they are doing can't come back and bite them in the ass. I could be completely wrong on that, but it would make sense to me.

Also, since there is some sort or legal information on the matter, could companies simply believe that whatever they put out falls well within the realm of being legal since they have won in the past?

I know Tristar has done it... Razor, of course... Just had Mystery bats/balls - and if they were packaged alone (I think the balls were) and there was one "draw" ball, I would say that falls into this definition as well. I know Just Mystery jerseys had cards, but they were inserts and not a set - I would argue that that would fall into that definition as well.

Here's the thing - the crime is a misdemeanor in California and probably a misdemeanor in other states. As they say, it's easier to beg for forgiveness then to ask for permission.