throbber
Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`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 . .

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket