Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
1:24-cv-01508
| D. Colo. | May 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Colton John Harris, proceeding pro se, sued Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., parent of Rockstar Games, alleging wrongful access and appropriation of his digital assets from a FiveM account related to Grand Theft Auto V.
- The dispute stems from Take-Two's acquisition of FiveM's parent company, after which plaintiff claims his account/data were accessed without authorization and digital assets appropriated, in violation of various federal and state laws.
- Plaintiff asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), breach of privacy, and federal antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton Acts).
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state any plausible legal claim, and attached relevant user agreements.
- The court also addressed multiple related motions from both parties, often concerning procedure, document authenticity, and evidence exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust Enrichment | Take-Two unjustly profited from Plaintiff's user-generated content | Plaintiff's UGC use is governed by express contracts consenting to such use | Dismissed: Express contracts preclude unjust enrichment claim |
| CFAA Violation | Data in a Keymaster account was accessed without authorization | No "protected computer" was accessed, access was under terms of service | Dismissed: No plausible CFAA claim; Keymaster account is not a protected computer |
| Breach of Privacy | Unauthorized access to account/data was offensive and intrusive | Platform terms negate privacy expectation, and authorized account access covered by terms | Dismissed: No reasonable privacy expectation, no plausible tort claim |
| CCPA Violation | Misrepresented Keymaster's security, harming the public | Allegations are conclusory, harm is personal, and no public impact sufficiently alleged | Dismissed: Insufficient facts; harm is not public but personal |
| Antitrust (Sherman/Clayton Acts) | Acquisition lessened competition, harmed digital asset market | Plaintiff has no antitrust standing; harm is individual, not to competition/consumers | Dismissed: No antitrust standing; only individual injury alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6) require more than conclusory statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state plausible facts, not just recite elements)
- Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Div., 179 P.3d 998 (unjust enrichment requires benefit at plaintiff's expense and unjust retention)
- McAuliffe v. Vail Corp., 69 F.4th 1130 (express contract precludes unjust enrichment claim)
- Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120 (Rule 12(b)(6) standards—allegations taken as true, but must be sufficient)
--- The magistrate judge recommended the motion to dismiss be granted in full and the case dismissed with prejudice, finding all legal claims legally insufficient in light of the contracts and pleaded facts.