Why doesn't the FAQ disclose the Asmodee connection?

[Sevey13]

I noticed that in the "FAQ" section of the website, where it talks about the people behind BGA, nowhere does it state that the site is owned, and presumably financially supported, by Asmodee. Why is that? Indeed, I find no mention of Asmodee in the FAQ or About Us section. Why is that?

[voriki]

Because Asmodee joined the party prob less than a year ago and the FAQ most likely hasn't been updated since.

[Lemonhatred]

I very much doubt it would take almost a year to update either page with a sentence stating "in 2021 BGA was purchased by Asmodee" or similar, to me it looks like BGA simply does not think this is a problem.

Personally, I don't think they will update the FAQ or the about us section as neither explicitly claims BGA is not owned by Asmodee. If they were required to state ownership on those pages, there would probably already be a statement on those pages.

Search in the Legal info, Terms of use, Terms of service, and Privacy pages for "Asmodee", "Subsidiary" and "Subsidiaries" - that's where you'll find all the disclosures BGA is required to make about ownership.

I don't think anyone who complained about the Asmodee purchase or BGA's communication around it has left the site in protest, and they haven't been all that disruptive either, so why would BGA attempt to appease that group by stating the ownership status more frequently than required?

[sourisdudesert]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I am pretty sure that there is no legal requirement for us to display on the website the name of our shareholder (or shareholders, if it would have been the case). We chose to communicate on this when Asmodee acquired the service for obvious transparency reasons, but we were not legally forced to do it.

After that we did not update the FAQ because... the question was not so frequent

Anyway, as you raised this question in the Forum, it may be a question that is worth to be mention in the FAQ, so let's add it to the FAQ (will be done on next release - maybe this week).

[Lemonhatred]

I guess that's my predictive powers shown to be wrong lol

[Sevey13]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I am pretty sure that there is no legal requirement for us to display on the website the name of our shareholder (or shareholders, if it would have been the case). We chose to communicate on this when Asmodee acquired the service for obvious transparency reasons, but we were not legally forced to do it.

After that we did not update the FAQ because... the question was not so frequent

Anyway, as you raised this question in the Forum, it may be a question that is worth to be mention in the FAQ, so let's add it to the FAQ (will be done on next release - maybe this week).

Thanks for the response! While I don't claim to know anything about the legal implications you mentioned, nor do I know anything about the financial or managerial relationship, you hit it on the nose about the transparency point. That was what prompted me to ask in the first place. I appreciate your diligence, and hope that Asmodee keeps treating you well (or Embracer, or whomever buys Embracer).