In re Sony PS3 Other OS Litigation
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141295
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- PS3 introduced in 2006; plaintiffs allege Sony promoted features including Other OS beyond capabilities of prior consoles.
- Firmware Update 3.21 (2010) disabled the Other OS feature, allegedly to save costs but with security/IP protection rationales.
- Install choice: users could decline the update but would lose PSN and related benefits if they did.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action; most counts were dismissed with leave to amend prior to this ruling.
- FAC maintained CFAA claim was viable initially; court now finds no liability under CFAA as Other OS was disabled only where users installed the update.
- Court grants dismissal without leave to amend and denies motion to strike as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty? | Plaintiffs contend Sony promised continued use of Other OS. | No clear warranty that Other OS would remain or PSN would be perpetual. | Dismissed; no express warranty to retain the feature or PSN. |
| Breach of implied warranty? | Interrelated contracts create privity and implied promises. | No breach; Other OS functioned unless user updated. | Dismissed; no implied warranty breached. |
| CLRA claims? | Unfair/false advertising about PS3 capabilities and lifespan. | No obligation to refrain from restricting PSN access later. | Dismissed. |
| CFAA claim? | Disabling Other OS was unauthorized damage to a protected computer. | Update 3.21 required user consent; no liability without disclosure failure. | Dismissed. |
| Unjust enrichment? | Refunds or restitution for PSN-related prepaid monies. | Unjust enrichment not supported; terms/refunds not sufficiently alleged. | Dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must include non-conclusory factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Intern. Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (express warranty elements require basis of bargain)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards and pleading requirements)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. U.S.A., 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (fraud allegations must state who, what, where, when, how with particularity)
- McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (novel legal theories should be assessed on a fuller record)