L.S. Ex Rel. P.S. v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., 673 F. App'x 100

Background

In 2009 appellant (a minor at the time) bought a video game from GameStop.com and, during checkout, entered personal data on an embedded Webloyalty enrollment page that advertised a $20 GameStop coupon and referenced GameStop repeatedly.
The Enrollment Page requested his name, email verification, and last four digits of his debit card; GameStop transmitted full billing info to Webloyalty (a "data pass").
After a 30‑day free trial, Webloyalty debited $12 monthly fees from appellant’s account ("free‑to‑pay conversion"); debits continued several months and appellant claims he never received the $20 coupon or benefitted from membership.
Appellant sued alleging fraud, CUTPA violations (against Webloyalty, GameStop, and Visa), and EFTA violations (against Webloyalty and Visa); the district court dismissed all claims and this appeal followed.
The Second Circuit reviewed the Enrollment Page as integral to the complaint, affirmed dismissal of fraud and some EFTA/CUTPA claims, vacated dismissal on other CUTPA and one EFTA claim, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud: whether plaintiff pleaded actionable fraud with Rule 9(b) particularity	L.S. says Enrollment Page and site design deceptively induced unauthorized enrollment	Webloyalty/GameStop say Enrollment Page disclosed the offer and plaintiff implicitly authorized charges; plaintiff failed to plead specific false statements or reliance	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead fraud with the required particularity and did not adequately allege reliance
CUTPA: whether alleged practices state an independent unfair/deceptive claim	L.S. contends data pass and free‑to‑pay conversion were deceptive and caused consumer injury	Defendants argued CUTPA claim rises and falls with fraud allegations	Reversed in part — CUTPA claim against Webloyalty and GameStop survives because allegations about data pass and free‑to‑pay conversion can independently support a CUTPA claim; CUTPA claim against Visa properly dismissed
EFTA — unauthorized transfer: whether transfers were unauthorized under 15 U.S.C. §1693e(a)	L.S. argues debits were unauthorized and hence unlawful under EFTA	Webloyalty argues plaintiff gave written authorization via the Enrollment Page disclosures	Affirmed dismissal — transfers were authorized by plaintiff’s written authorization on the Enrollment Page
EFTA — copy of authorization: whether Webloyalty failed to provide required written copy of authorization	L.S. claims he never received a copy of the written authorization as required by EFTA	Webloyalty pointed to an email and affidavits it says supplied the copy	Vacated dismissal and remanded — district court relied on extra‑pleading documents without converting to summary judgment; claim requires further proceedings or proper summary judgment process

Key Cases Cited

Schlessinger v. Valspar Corp., 686 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review and pleading inferences on dismissal)
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (when courts may consider documents integral to a complaint)
Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 783 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2015) (Rule 9(b) particularity elements)
Willow Springs Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Seventh BRT Dev. Corp., 717 A.2d 77 (Conn. 1998) (CUTPA does not require proof of common‑law fraud)
Associated Inv. Co. Ltd. P’ship v. Williams Assocs. IV, 645 A.2d 505 (Conn. 1994) (distinguishing CUTPA from common‑law claims)
Weinstein v. Weinstein, 882 A.2d 53 (Conn. 2005) (fraud requires reliance element)
De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 849 A.2d 382 (Conn. 2004) (CUTPA substantial injury standard)
DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment vs. motion to dismiss when court considers outside materials)
Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2000) (when conversion to summary judgment is required)