`
`
`
`
`
`Bradford K. Newman (State Bar No. 178902)
` bradford.newman@bakermckenzie.com
`Alexander G. Davis (State Bar No. 287840)
` alexander.davis@bakermckenzie.com
`Anne Kelts Assayag (State Bar No. 298710)
` anne.assayag@bakermckenzie.com
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`600 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: +1 650 856 2400
`Facsimile: +1 650 856 9299
`
`Teresa H. Michaud (State Bar No. 296329)
` teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com
`Kirby Hsu (State Bar No. 312535)
` kirby.hsu@bakermckenzie.com
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: +1 310 201 4728
`Facsimile: +1 310 201 4721
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOHN COFFEE, MEI-LING MONTANEZ,
`and S.M., a minor by MEI-LING
`MONTANEZ, S.M.’s parent and guardian, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`Date Action Filed: June 12, 2020
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS UNDER FEDERAL RULE
`OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`November 19, 2020
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Ctrm.: 3 - 5th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`Robert F. Peckham Federal Building &
`United States Courthouse
`280 South 1st Street
`San Jose, CA 95113
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................ 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................... 1
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION ............................................................ 2
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`ALLEGED FACTS ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Google Does Not Develop Video Games Or Create Loot Boxes ................................. 4
`
`Players May Choose To Acquire Loot Boxes or Many Other In-Game Items From
`Developers Using Virtual Currency.............................................................................. 5
`
`Players Cannot Exchange Virtual Currency or Loot Box Items for Real Money ........ 6
`
`Google Play Is Only a Platform For the Third Party Games Described In the
`Complaint ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ..................................................................................... 7
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`Google Is Immune from Liability Under Section 230 for the Third-Party Content It
`Hosts on the Google Play Platform ............................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Google Play is an “interactive computer service” that provides a platform for
`video games created by third-party “information content providers.” ............ 9
`
`Plaintiffs’ attempts to plead around Section 230 fail. .................................... 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A single disclosure requirement in its Developer Program Policies
`does not transform Google into a content provider. ........................... 11
`
`Google’s alleged receipt of revenue from app and in-game virtual
`currency purchases does not undermine its immunity. ....................... 12
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law Claim Fails ........................................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Montanez and minor S.M. lack UCL standing.................................. 13
`
`Plaintiffs allege no facts to confer standing to state a UCL claim. ................ 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiffs articulate no economic injury at all in any alleged
`transactions with Google..................................................................... 14
`
`Plaintiffs do not and cannot sufficiently allege causation. ................. 16
`
`Plaintiffs allege no “unlawful” conduct because Loot Boxes do not constitute
`illegal gambling under California law. .......................................................... 16
`
`Plaintiffs allege no “unfair” conduct by Google. ........................................... 20
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claim is Likewise Deficient ................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Virtual currency is neither a “good” nor a “service” under the CLRA. ....... 21
`
`Google made no misrepresentation or actionable omission to Plaintiffs
`regarding Loot Box purchases. ....................................................................... 21
`
`i
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Loot Boxes do not qualify as illegal slot machines under California law. .... 22
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment Claim Fails. ................................................................. 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to specify which state’s unjust enrichment law applies. ........... 23
`
`Plaintiffs cannot maintain an unjust enrichment claim in California. ........... 23
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alvarez v. Chevron Corp.,
`656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`Balzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`No. CV 14-9779-JFW, 2015 WL 13828418 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015) ........................................24
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) .........................................................................................................9
`
`Bass v. Facebook, Inc.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .........................................................................................21
`
`Black v. Google, Inc.,
`457 Fed. App’x 622 (9th Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................................10
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Carmona v. Cnty. of San Mateo,
`No. 18-CV-05232-LHK, 2019 WL 4345973 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019)........................................5
`
`Conservation Force v. Salazar,
`646 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 14-CV-00532-LHK, 2018 WL 6308738 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) ........................................14
`
`Dell Inc. v. Sharp Corp.,
`781 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...........................................................................................23
`
`Doe v. Epic Games, Inc.,
`435 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................21, 22
`
`Evans v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 13-02477 WHA, 2013 WL 5594717 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) ...................................9, 11, 13
`
`Foreman v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`401 F. Supp. 3d 914 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................................8
`
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Free Kick Master LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 975 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................10, 11, 13, 18
`
`Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.,
`808 Fed. App’x 597 (9th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................................12
`
`Gavra v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-06547-PSG, 2013 WL 3788241 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013) .....................................10
`
`Gentges v. Trend Micro Inc., No. C 11-5574 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94714
`(N.D. Cal. June 9, 2012) ..........................................................................................................14, 21
`
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
`640 F. Supp.2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ....................................................................................10, 12
`
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
`No. C 08-2738 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) ...............................11, 13
`
`Gonzalez v. Google, Inc.,
`335 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .........................................................................................10
`
`Hackleman v. Provident Funding Assocs., LP,
`No. CV 12-6064-GHK, 2012 WL 12888841 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012) ........................................8
`
`I.B. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`905 F. Supp. 2d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...........................................................................................21
`
`Jurin v. Google, Inc.,
`695 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010)......................................................................10, 12
`
`Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.,
`886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................17, 19, 20
`
`Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Konik v. Time Warner Cable,
`No. CV 07-763 SVW, 2010 WL 11549435 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010) .........................................16
`
`Letizia v. Facebook Inc.,
`267 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .........................................................................................23
`
`Mason v. Mach. Zone, Inc.,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D. Md. 2015) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Matera v. Google Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 8200619 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) ..................................7, 14
`
`In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`293 F. Supp. 3d 888 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...........................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Peterson v. Cellco P’ship,
`164 Cal. App. 4th 1583, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316 (2008) ....................................................................23
`
`Phillips v. Double Down Interactive LLC,
`173 F. Supp. 3d 731 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .......................................................................................17, 20
`
`Reyes-Aguilar v. Bank of Am.,
`No. 13-CV-05764-JCS, 2014 WL 2153792 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014) ..........................................8
`
`Ristic v. Mach. Zone, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-8996, 2016 WL 4987943 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 19, 2016) ................................................16, 20
`
`Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC,
`No. 14-CV-05189-BLF, 2016 WL 469370 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016)............................................23
`
`Sams v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................................................................................9
`
`Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc.,
`367 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Score Family Fun Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego,
`225 Cal. App. 3d 1217, 275 Cal. Rptr. 358 (1990) ........................................................................18
`
`Soto v. Sky Union, LLC,
`159 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .......................................................................................17, 18
`
`Spy Phone Labs LLC v. Google Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-03756-KAW, 2016 WL 6025469 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016)......................................12
`
`Tidenberg v. BIDZ.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 08-5553 PSG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21916, 2009 WL 605249 (C.D.
`Cal. Mar. 4, 2009) ..........................................................................................................................14
`
`Trinkle v. Stroh,
`60 Cal. App. 4th 771, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 661 (1997) ........................................................................18
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs., Ltd.,
`No. 19-CV-07123-PJH, 2020 WL 4016812 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2020)...........................................7
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Statutes / Other Authorities
`
`Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018) ............................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..............................................................................................................1, 3, 7, 8
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) ..........................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1761 ............................................................................................................................1
`
`California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Profs. Code §§ 17200 et seq. ............................... passim
`
`California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. ............................... passim
`
`Cal. Pen. Code § 330b.................................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE ON November 19, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`
`matter can be heard, in Courtroom 3 - 5th Floor of the United States District Courthouse located at
`
`280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) will and does
`
`move the Court for an order dismissing the First, Second and Third Causes of Action in the
`
`Complaint of Plaintiffs John Coffee, Mei-Ling Montanez, and S.M., a minor by Mei-Ling Montanez
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims
`
`upon which relief may be granted. Google’s Motion to Dismiss is based upon this Notice of Motion
`
`and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and request for judicial
`
`notice contained therein, the Declaration of Teresa Michaud, the Proposed Order, and any oral
`
`argument as may be presented at the hearing, all other papers, records, and pleadings on file in this
`
`action, and on such additional evidence and argument as the Court may allow prior to and during the
`
`hearing on this motion.
`
`Relief Requested: Google respectfully requests that the Court (i) grant its request for judicial
`
`notice, and (ii) issue an order dismissing with prejudice the Complaint in its entirety under Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted and
`
`terminating this action.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs’ three state law causes of action are barred based on Google’s
`
`immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018).
`
`2.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs lack standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
`
`Bus. & Profs. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
`
`§§ 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”).
`
`3.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs have failed to allege unlawful or unfair conduct by Google under
`
`the UCL (Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code §§ 17200 et seq.).
`
`4.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs have failed to allege the purchase of “goods” or “services” from
`
`Google as those terms are defined under the CLRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1761).
`
`5.
`
`Whether Plaintiffs have failed to allege a plausible claim for unjust enrichment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`
`Google brings this Motion to Dismiss without waiver or limitation of its right to compel
`
`individual arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Complaint omits the information necessary for
`
`Google to determine whether Plaintiffs have agreed to arbitrate their claims, including any details
`
`regarding the Plaintiffs’ alleged transactions. Accordingly, Google expressly reserves its right to
`
`compel individual arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims at a later date if and when the necessary
`
`information is provided.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs John Coffee and Mei-Ling Montanez, on behalf of minor S.M. (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) ask the Court to decide for the first time that “Loot Boxes” in skill-based video games
`
`violate illegal gambling laws, even though all four federal courts that have had occasion to consider
`
`the issue have held otherwise. As the logic of those precedents applies with equal force here, the
`
`Court should reach the same conclusion and dismiss this case with prejudice.
`
`However, the Court need not even address the legality of Loot Boxes to resolve this Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion in Defendant Google, LLC’s (“Google”) favor. This is because, under section 230
`
`of the federal Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”), Google is immune from potential state
`
`law liability, as the Complaint concedes that Google (i) “does not itself create these [video] games
`
`[or] the Loot Box mechanism[s]” (Compl. ¶ 13) and (ii) acts as a passive host of a platform that
`
`“makes available to consumers various software applications . . . created by other developers.” (Id.
`
`¶ 23 (emphasis added).) Ninth Circuit courts citing Section 230 routinely reject similar efforts to
`
`hold Google liable for the content of third party developers, both on the Google Play store at issue
`
`here and on other Google platforms. Plaintiffs allege no facts to support a different result in this
`
`case.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs cannot allege multiple necessary elements of their California consumer
`
`protection law claims. First, Google is not a party to any transaction involving Loot Boxes, and
`
`Plaintiffs identify no transactions with Google at all. Moreover, the Complaint acknowledges that
`
`Plaintiffs’ only conceivable economic transaction involving Google would be the purchase of so-
`
`called “in-game virtual currency.” Even if Plaintiffs purchased virtual currency, Google has no role
`
`in what players decide to do with this in-game currency: these subsequent elective transactions, in
`
`which players may choose to obtain Loot Boxes or any other number of items on offer, take place
`
`exclusively between the game developers and players. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have no
`
`standing under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) or the Consumer Legal Remedies
`
`Act (“CLRA”)--nor a viable claim for unjust enrichment--because they have no economic injury:
`
`they would have received exactly the amount of virtual currency they bargained for (from whatever
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`source), and the Complaint does not allege otherwise.
`
`Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim also fails because virtual currency does not qualify as either a “good”
`
`or a “service” and therefore is not covered by the CLRA. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any
`
`misrepresentations by Google in connection with the purchase of virtual currency or, for that matter,
`
`with respect to Loot Boxes themselves.
`
`Ultimately, rather than alleging facts supporting their own claims, Plaintiffs have filled their
`
`Complaint with copious references to third-party video game reviews, politicians’ statements, social
`
`psychology analysis, and descriptions of video games that, based on the Complaint, neither Plaintiff
`
`has ever even played. If Plaintiffs’ intention is to wage a general public policy debate, they have
`
`chosen the wrong forum. Because Section 230 bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Google, and because
`
`Plaintiffs have not and cannot state facts giving rise to a plausible claim for relief under the UCL or
`
`CLRA or for unjust enrichment, Google respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and
`
`dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
`
`14
`
`II.
`
`ALLEGED FACTS
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A.
`
`Google Does Not Develop Video Games Or Create Loot Boxes
`
`Plaintiffs’ quarrel in this lawsuit is with the practice by many video game developers--not
`
`Google--of creating and featuring in their products a game play feature generally known as a “Loot
`
`Box.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) Loot Boxes1 dispense virtual gameplay items randomly according to a
`
`probability algorithm set by individual video game developers. (See id. ¶ 41.) Some Loot Box items
`
`may be purely cosmetic (e.g., a squire’s bright colored tunic, often referred to as a “skin”) while
`
`others may enhance gameplay (e.g., a powerful weapon, a faster car). (See id. ¶ 4.) Google does not
`
`develop any of the video games at issue, does not create or manage the in-game Loot Boxes, and
`
`does not select or control the items Loot Boxes dispense in the third-party developers’ video games.
`
`(See id. ¶ 13.) Instead, it hosts the “Google Play” store, a platform where developers offer their
`
`games for download. (Id. ¶ 23.)
`
`
`
`1 For clarity, Google uses the term “Loot Box” throughout this memorandum, although particular
`
`games may use different names, such as “Pipes” (Compl. ¶ 44) or “Summonses” (id. ¶ 67).
`
`4
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Players May Choose To Acquire Loot Boxes or Many Other In-Game Items
`From Developers Using Virtual Currency
`
`Although Plaintiffs allege in passing that they have played a number of video games (see id.
`
`¶¶ 14-16), the Complaint describes only two that Plaintiffs allegedly downloaded from the Google
`
`Play store: Final Fantasy Brave Exvius (“Final Fantasy”) and Dragon Ball Z Dokkan Battle
`
`(“Dragon Ball Z”). (See id. ¶¶ 66-71 (describing Final Fantasy), ¶¶ 72-76 (describing Dragon Ball
`
`Z).) Both games are entirely free to download and entirely free to play for as long as a player may
`
`desire. (See id. ¶¶ 66, 72.)
`
`The developers of both games offer an in-game virtual currency feature. (Id.) Players have
`
`two options for obtaining such virtual currency. First, they can collect it for free through normal
`
`gameplay. (See Compl. ¶¶ 68, 74.) Alternatively, players can expedite their accrual of in-game
`
`currency by purchasing it in varying quantities. (See Compl. ¶¶ 67, 74.)
`
`Under these circumstances, then, consumers do not purchase Loot Boxes or other in-game
`
`items using real money. (See id. ¶¶ 34-35, 45, 50, 59, 62, 67, 70, 73.) Despite the Complaint’s
`
`single general allegation to the contrary (Compl. ¶ 31), each and every one of the games discussed in
`
`the Complaint confirms that the Loot Boxes are acquired from the developer exclusively with virtual
`
`currency. See Carmona v. Cnty. of San Mateo, No. 18-CV-05232-LHK, 2019 WL 4345973, at *9
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) (“[G]eneral, conclusory allegations need not be credited . . . when they
`
`are belied by more specific allegations of the complaint.”). In addition, players have several options
`
`for spending their virtual currency in a particular game: Loot Boxes are one choice among many
`
`options offered by the video game developers. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 59 (noting that Robux in-game
`
`currency can be used for “various products,” not simply Loot Boxes), ¶ 18 (alleging that Plaintiff
`
`S.M. has spent funds on “in-game purchases including [but apparently not limited to] Loot Boxes”)
`
`(emphasis added).) Indeed, the Complaint does not dispute that while players may choose to collect
`
`in-game items in a randomized fashion by exchanging virtual currency for Loot Boxes, they may
`
`also usually acquire the same items directly at set rates (e.g., a battle-axe for 500 rubies, a dwarf
`
`warrior for 200 gems, etc.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`C.
`
`Players Cannot Exchange Virtual Currency or Loot Box Items for Real Money
`
`The only time that players ever engage in a transaction involving Google is when they decide
`
`to make optional purchases of in-game virtual currency, rather than collect such currency through
`
`normal gameplay. (See Compl. ¶¶ 27-28.) To be clear, Google does not itself offer virtual currency
`
`for sale, and does not set the prices for such virtual currency transactions; all of that remains within
`
`the exclusive province of the developer, and the Complaint does not allege to the contrary. Instead,
`
`Plaintiffs generically allege that Google facilitates virtual currency sales for the developers and takes
`
`a percentage of the amounts paid. (See id. ¶ 26.)
`
`The Complaint also concedes that virtual currency can never be refunded or otherwise
`
`exchanged for real money within the game itself or through Google. (See id. ¶ 6.) Part of the reason
`
`is that, as noted, players can acquire virtual currency both through direct purchase and for free
`
`during game play; these gems, rubies, Robux and other virtual commodities therefore defy any
`
`consistent real world valuation. Although they suggest that players may buy and sell individual
`
`game items for real money, Plaintiffs concede that any such transactions take place in “gray
`
`market[s]” on the web, not within the video games themselves and certainly not through the Google
`
`Play store. (See id.) Google’s Terms of Service, of which the Court may take judicial notice (as set
`
`forth below), explicitly prohibit such transactions. (Declaration of Teresa Michaud in Support of
`
`Request for Judicial Notice (“Michaud Decl.”) Ex. A (Google Play Terms of Service) § 4 (Rights
`
`and Restrictions).) Plaintiffs do not allege that they have ever engaged in any such gray market
`
`sales, nor do they allege any intention to do so in the future.
`
`D.
`
`Google Play Is Only a Platform For the Third Party Games Described In the
`Complaint
`
`Plaintiffs allege few facts about their own gameplay activity, and even less about their
`
`interactions with Google (as opposed to various video game developers). Plaintiff John Coffee
`
`downloaded Final Fantasy through the Google Play store. (Id. ¶ 14.) Mr. Coffee alleges that he was
`
`generally “induced” to acquire Loot Boxes “[i]n the course of playing Final Fantasy,” but identifies
`
`no representations by Google that he claims were responsible for such inducement. (See id.) In fact,
`
`he does not allege having seen or read any representations by Google at all. Instead, since Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Coffee alleges the purported inducement occurred during gameplay itself, any images, game
`
`animations, sounds, or statements he might have encountered would have been made by Final
`
`Fantasy’s developer, not by Google. (See id. ¶¶ 66-67, 70.)
`
`Plaintiff S.M. downloaded Dragon Ball Z from the Google Play store. (Id. ¶ 16.) He
`
`similarly alleges he was “induced” to buy Loot Boxes “[i]n the course of playing Dragon Ball Z” (id.
`
`¶ 17), but also fails to identify any specific method of such inducement. His admission that the
`
`alleged inducement occurred in the course of playing the game similarly confirms that any
`
`conceivable means of inducement is attributable solely to Dragon Ball Z’s developer, and not to
`
`Google.
`
`III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) and this Court’s Standing Order re Civil
`
`Cases § IV(G), Google requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Google Play Terms of
`
`Service, which is publicly available online, and the contents of which are not subject to reasonable
`
`dispute. A court may judicially notice “factual information from the internet as long as the facts are
`
`not subject to reasonable dispute.” WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs., Ltd., No. 19-CV-07123-PJH,
`
`2020 WL 4016812, at *12 n.4 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2020) (judicially noticing online terms of service);
`
`see also Matera v. Google Inc., No. 15-CV-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 8200619, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`
`12, 2016) (finding Google’s publicly available terms of service were proper subjects of judicial
`
`notice). The Complaint also references the Google Play Terms of Service. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Judicial
`
`notice is proper here to show that the Google Play Terms of Service exist and state that users may
`
`not “sell . . . [or] transfer . . . any Content to any third party . .