Slip Opinion
N.D. Cal.Mar 17, 2023Background
- Plaintiff T.T., a minor, alleges he purchased "Gems" (in‑game currency) in Supercell games (Clash Royale alleged; claims extend to Clash of Clans and Brawl Stars) and seeks refunds, asserting minors can void/disaffirm such contracts under California Family Code §§ 6701 and 6710.
- Supercell’s Terms of Service state virtual items remain Supercell’s and that purchases are final/non‑refundable; plaintiff alleges those terms misled minors and prevented rightful refunds.
- Causes of action: declaratory relief (minor’s right to disaffirm and inability to contract for non‑possessed personal property), UCL (unlawful and unfair prongs; plaintiff concedes fraudulent prong), and restitution/unjust enrichment.
- Supercell moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing as to certain games, economic injury, and injunctive relief; also challenged applicability of Family Code provisions and the unjust enrichment theory.
- The court denied dismissal in large part: allowed UCL unlawful and unfair claims and unjust enrichment to proceed (finding factual disputes inappropriate at pleading stage), granted dismissal of the UCL fraudulent prong and denied injunctive relief standing; plaintiff may amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for unplayed games | T.T. asserts claims across all three games because purchases and Terms of Service are substantially similar | Supercell argues no standing for games T.T. did not play or purchase | Court: denied dismissal—similarity of purchases/terms suffices at pleading stage |
| Economic injury (UCL standing) | T.T. lost money because purchases are void/voidable and refunds were withheld | Supercell contends no cognizable economic loss or that plaintiff retained benefit from use | Court: plaintiff plausibly alleged economic injury; denial of motion |
| Injunctive relief standing | T.T. seeks injunction to remedy alleged ongoing policy and recover refunds | Supercell says no real/imminent threat since plaintiff no longer plays and future harm speculative | Court: granted dismissal of injunctive relief claim for lack of Article III standing |
| UCL unlawful/unfair prongs (Family Code §§ 6701, 6710) | T.T. alleges purchases are void/voidable under §§ 6701/6710 because virtual items not in minor’s immediate possession/control and Terms block refunds | Supercell argues virtual items aren’t "personal property" or were within minor’s control; defenses raise factual disputes | Court: denied dismissal as applicability of Family Code and factual control questions are premature |
| Restitution / unjust enrichment | T.T. alleges Supercell was unjustly enriched by retaining minors’ payments via nonrefundable policy | Supercell contends unjust enrichment requires contractual basis and is improper | Court: denied dismissal—allegations suffice to state quasi‑contractual restitution claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly plausibility principles)
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
- Vess v. Ciba‑Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud)
- Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) (who, what, when, where, how standard for fraud pleading)
- Davidson v. Kimberly‑Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (standing to seek injunction after prior deception)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (UCL standing requires loss of money or property)
- Cel‑Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (UCL prongs and scope)
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) (unjust enrichment as basis for restitution relief)