Mai v. Supercell Oy
648 F.Supp.3d 1130
N.D. Cal.2023Background
- Plaintiffs (California residents Mai and Niño) allege Supercell’s in‑game “loot boxes” (Clash Royale and Brawl Stars) are unlawful gambling and that they were induced to buy them using real money or in‑game “gems.”
- Plaintiffs asserted UCL (unlawful and unfair), CLRA, and unjust enrichment claims; complaint was amended after a prior dismissal with leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs allege economic injury from purchasing virtual currency and loot boxes and assert loot box prizes have monetary and non‑monetary value (including resale on gray markets).
- Court took judicial notice of Supercell’s Terms of Service, which prohibit sale/transfer of accounts, virtual currency, and in‑game items.
- Court held plaintiffs lacked UCL and CLRA standing because they received what they paid for, virtual currency is not a CLRA good, and loot box items are not “things of value” under California gambling statutes given the ToS prohibition on transfer.
- Court dismissed the FAC with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCL standing (economic injury) | Plaintiffs: spent real and virtual money and thus lost money/property | Supercell: no economic injury — plaintiffs got what they paid for; virtual currency not cognizable | Dismissed for lack of standing; no economic injury |
| CLRA standing (damage; goods/services) | Plaintiffs: virtual currency, loot boxes, and service are unlawful goods/services causing damage | Supercell: virtual currency is not a CLRA good; no damages pleaded | Dismissed for lack of CLRA standing |
| Are loot boxes unlawful gambling ("thing of value") | Plaintiffs: prizes have monetary/subjective value and can be resold, so they are "things of value" | Supercell: items lack real‑world transferable value; ToS prohibit transfer; not gambling devices | Loot boxes are not illegal slot machines/controlled games under Penal Code; not "things of value" |
| UCL unfair prong & unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs: loot boxes are addictive/predatory and thus unfair | Supercell: alleged unfairness overlaps with unlawful theory and cannot stand if unlawful theory fails | Unfair‑prong claim fails; unjust enrichment dismissed; policy remedies are for legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (UCL requires economic injury/loss of money or property)
- Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) (virtual items are not "things of value" where provider's ToS prohibit transfer)
- Cel‑Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (limits on using UCL unfair prong to condemn legislatively permitted conduct)
- Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 45 Cal.4th 634 (2009) (CLRA requires consumer to show actual damage)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (futility standard for denying leave to amend)
- Hawkins v. Kroger Co., 906 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018) (UCL standing requires economic injury)