Do business owners have a right to control what digital content is attached to their location? With augmented reality, a computer programmer or bot can place a holographic object anywhere. I am sure everyone remembers the Pokémon experience of 2016. People were wandering around the country, sometimes in places they do not belong, to capture the elusive characters. Business’ were paying money to have a character positioned in their place of business. The idea was that the customers would be drawn to their doors. But that is an example of where the digital content creator and the business were aligned. What happens when they are not aligned? Here is what I can imagine. Instead of a group of protesters standing out in front of a company’s office they are boycotting, what if a programmer made a group of AR protestors that were able to make the point 24 hours a day, seven days a week? You would not be able to see them with the naked eye, but if just one sign or protestor was there directing the customers to their phone, could the protest have a similar or more far-reaching effect? Everyone has a mobile, in the early days of this type of augmented reality people would look at it for the neato factor. Now that “neato” factor may be able to send a clearer, wider-reaching message if executed properly.
If I have lost you, let’s go back to the Pokémon example. In a former life when I was an Environmental Consultant at an automotive plant, I was sitting in a meeting when a big announcement came over one of the attendee’s plant radio. “There is a Pikachu in the strip bank,” most of us found this funny, but some immediately headed out to the strip bank with a phone in hand, ready to catch the Pikachu. A strip bank is where a pristine car is kept awaiting its final paint job. This area was hard to get to, dangerous to access and is a controlled area. This area is normally free of dirt and debris that can affect the final finish of the car. Nobody that day cared about any of that and instead charged into the strip to capture the elusive Pokémon character. Nobody was hurt, but it illustrates my point. I am sure the Pokémon programmer had never been into this plant, he just plugged in GPS location and elevation then let the players mobile do the work. The programmer’s selection of that site was most likely random. I am sure that the plant did not work with the creators of Pokémon to help or allow that site selection. What happens if there was an accident while capturing the elusive Pikachu? What happens if a product was damaged? Would the makers of Pokemon be liable for this? These are questions for lawyers to think about and argue, which they already have begun. The Washington Post’s story cites that accidents have increased since the start of Pokemon Go. Fox News titled a similar article “Death by Pokemon” .
These early cases are when someone is caused a direct harm from Pokemon. It is measurable in the way other personal injury and damages are measured. But how is it going to shake out when the claim is digital trespassing or damages that affect a business’ reputation due to the creation of the digital protesters. It will become a mashup of digital freedom, 1st amendment rights, and a lack of suitable case law to argue directly.
We are quite ready to deploy our Augmented Reality Protester Bots, but they are coming soon. Maybe to a boycott near you.
