I think there's some twisted analogue to the concept of an attractive nuisance here. Pokemon GO is creating an incentive for more people to goto that beach for something that wouldn't be exclusive to the beach. So people that want to utilize the beach as a beach are being hit by the negative externality created by Pokemon GO players being drawn to the area.
In this scenario it seems like any solution not implemented by Niantic will cost the municipality money/time. Reframed: why should this city have to subsidize Niantic's game?
What's funny is that the American concept around personal responsibility (or lack thereof) is less prevalent in Europe making me think that this is just the most expedient action the Netherlands could identify.
I'm against lawsuits blaming companies for others behaviors in general but this one is a bit more complex in my mind.
In this scenario it seems like any solution not implemented by Niantic will cost the municipality money/time. Reframed: why should this city have to subsidize Niantic's game?
What's funny is that the American concept around personal responsibility (or lack thereof) is less prevalent in Europe making me think that this is just the most expedient action the Netherlands could identify.
I'm against lawsuits blaming companies for others behaviors in general but this one is a bit more complex in my mind.