I’ve been researching on choice of law issues in the metaverse.
Second Life is sort of a beta-metaverse, where people lived, made love and transacted virtually through avatars. Facebook’s proposed #metaverse is just an Augmented Reality (AR) enhanced version of the concept.
I stumbled on this eyebrow-raising litigation concerning Second Life.
Bunch of claimants (including one who goes by Stroker Serpentine—what an imagery of a name!) sued someone who copied their virtual sex toys (code and image, presumably) that facilitate avatars having digital sexual intercourse.
The defendant’s response was “it’s just a video game”.
Sex aside, I’m investigating the legal issues about the applicable law for such disputes and which state’s court has jurisdiction.
While the operator of Second Life may have agreements with users on applicable laws and choice of dispute resolution (on which a separate lawsuit famously determined that the mandatory arbitration clause is inapplicable), it’s not a given that users suing each other over #IP disputes will be subject to those same terms.
Generally the nexus needed for IP enforcement is not clear. The UK Supreme Court has suggested that where unregistered IP is concerned, a foreign court can determine IP rights and infringement. For registered IP rights, generally the law and court of the state in which the IP is registered applies and has jurisdiction.
What about non-IP matters? Eg torts and unjust enrichment. What law applies and which courts should a claimant sue in? Can the metaverse operator dictate some form of virtual court or #arbitration tribunal which seizes jurisdiction of such matters which happen in the digital universe?