The nature of location-based gaming may mean that certain real-world locations will be visited by higher-than-normal numbers of people who are playing the game, which generally has been received favorably by nearby attractions or local businesses. However, these games may generate activity at locations that are
privately-owned or have access limits, or otherwise cause undesirable congestion.
Pokémon Go notably has several publicized events of players being drawn to inappropriate locations for the game, requiring the developer to manually remove these areas from the game. In one of the first legal challenges for location-based gaming, a Federal District court ruled that a Wisconsin county ordinance to require game developers of such location-based games to get appropriate permits to allow locations in the county's public park systems was likely unconstitutional. While the county had felt there was no
First Amendment rights involved due to how locations were generated in-game, the Federal judge disagreed. The interaction of location-bound games with
property law is largely undefined. Several models have been analysed for how this interaction may be resolved in a
common law context: an extension of
real property rights to also cover augmentations on or near the property with a strong notion of
trespassing, forbidding augmentations unless allowed by the owner; an '
open range' system, where augmentations are allowed unless forbidden by the owner; and a '
freedom to roam' system, where real property owners have no control over non-disruptive augmentations. One issue experienced during the
Pokémon Go craze was the game's players disturbing owners of private property while visiting nearby location-bound augmentations. The terms of service of
Pokémon Go explicitly disclaim responsibility for players' actions, which may limit (but may not totally extinguish) the liability of its producer,
Niantic, in the event of a player
trespassing while playing the game: by Niantic's argument, the player is the one committing the trespass, while Niantic has merely engaged in permissible
free speech. A theory advanced in lawsuits brought against Niantic is that their placement of game elements in places that will lead to trespass or an exceptionally large flux of visitors can constitute
nuisance, despite each individual trespass or visit only being tenuously caused by Niantic. Another claim raised against Niantic is that the placement of profitable game elements on land without permission of the land's owners is
unjust enrichment. More hypothetically, a property may be augmented with advertising or disagreeable content against its owner's wishes. Under American law, these situations are unlikely to be seen as a violation of
real property rights by courts without an expansion of those rights to include augmented reality (similarly to how
English common law came to recognise
air rights). Some attempts at legislative regulation have been made in the United States.
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, attempted to regulate location-based games played in its parks, requiring prior issuance of a permit, but this was criticised on
free speech grounds by a federal judge; and
Illinois considered mandating a
notice and take down procedure for location-bound augmentations. == Consumer countries ==