 (Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.)   (Breach of Express Warranty)  (on Behalf of the Class and New York Sub-Class)   (Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)  (On Behalf of the Class and New York Sub-Class)   (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose)  (On Behalf of the Class and New York Sub-Class)   (Unjust Enrichment)  (on behalf of the New York Sub-Class)   (Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,   California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)   (Violation of New York General Business Law § 349)  (on behalf of the New York Sub-Class)   (Violation of the California False Advertising Law,  California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq.)   17.  Computer games and video games are big business in the U.S.  Two-thirds of U.S.  households have members who play video games, and in 2009, for example, the computer and  video game industry generated $10.5 billion in revenue.  See http://www.esrb.org/about/video- game-industry-statistics.jsp.   18.  According to EA’s publicly available financial report for fiscal year 2012:   “Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:EA) is a global leader in digital interactive entertainment.  The  Company’s game franchises are offered as both packaged goods products and online services  delivered through Internet-connected consoles, personal computers, mobile phones and tablets.   EA has more than 100 million registered players and operates in 75 countries.  In fiscal year  2012, EA posted GAAP net revenue of $4.1 billion.  Headquartered in Redwood City,  California, EA is recognized for critically acclaimed, high-quality blockbuster franchises such as  The Sims™, Madden NFL, FIFA Soccer, Need for Speed™, Battlefield™, and Mass Effect™.   More information about EA is available at http://info.ea.com.” Press Release, EA, Electronic  Arts Reports Q4 FY12 and FY12 Financial Results (May 7, 2012), http://files.shareholder.com/ downloads/ERTS/2321231381x0x567078/a6291b84-5360-42ee-861d- f3ef67afcfc6/EA_News_2012_5_7_General.pdf 6.   19.  Despite knowing that it did not intend to allocate resources for online play for the  Products indefinitely or for a reasonable time from the release date, EA engaged in a widespread  marketing and advertising campaign to portray the Products as being enabled for indefinite  online play or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the release date.  - 6 -   20.  Defendant engaged in this misleading and deceptive campaign to charge a  premium for the Products and take away market share from other similar products.   21.  Defendant sold the Products to consumers nationwide, placing the representation  “Xbox LIVE”; “nintendo Wi-Fi connection”; and “PlayStation® Network” on the packaging for  the Products.   22.  As stated herein, such representations and the widespread marketing campaign  portraying the Products as being enabled for online play indefinitely — or, at a minimum, a  reasonable time from the release date — are misleading and deceptive to consumers because EA  only provided online support for the Products for a limited time.   23.  Consumers frequently rely on labels in making purchase decisions.  Here,  Plaintiff and the other Class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendant’s  misleading representations and omissions.  Defendant’s misleading affirmative statements about  the capability of online play for the Products obscured the material fact that Defendant failed to  disclose about the limited nature of its online support for the Products.   24.  Plaintiff and the other Class members were among the intended recipients of  Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions.  Defendant made the deceptive  representations and omissions on the Products with the intent to induce Plaintiff’s and the other  Class members’ purchase of the Products.  Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions  are material in that a reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would  be induced to act upon such information in making purchase decisions.  Thus, Plaintiff’s and the  other Class members’ reliance upon Defendant’s misleading and deceptive representations and  omissions may be presumed.   25.  The materiality of those representations and omissions also establishes causation  between Defendant’s conduct and the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and the Class.   26.  Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and omissions  are likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public, as  they have already deceived and misled Plaintiff and the other Class members.    - 7 -   27.  In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions,  Defendant knew and intended that consumers would choose and pay a premium for online- enabled software over comparable products that were not online-enabled, furthering Defendant’s  private interest of increasing sales for its Products and decreasing the sales of products that are  truthfully labeled by Defendant’s competitors.   28.  As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,  and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and the other Class  members in that Plaintiff and the other Class members:  a. paid a sum of money for Products that were not as represented;  b. paid a premium price for Products that were not as represented;   c. were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Products they purchased  were different than what Defendant warranted;  d. were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Products they purchased  had less value than what was represented by Defendant;  e. did not receive Products that measured up to their expectations as created by  Defendant;  f. were denied the benefit of truthful software labels; and  g. were denied the benefit of online play as promised.   29.  Plaintiff and the other Class members all paid money for the Products.  However,  Plaintiff and the other Class members did not obtain the full value of the advertised Products due  to Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions.  Plaintiff and the other Class members  purchased, purchased more of, or paid more for, the Products than they would have had they  known the truth about the limited nature of online play for the Products.  Accordingly, Plaintiff  and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result  of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.  - 8 -   30.  Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and  omissions, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have been injured.  Among other  things, they would not have been denied the benefit of the bargain.  They would not have  suffered the other injuries listed above.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members have  suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.  31.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following nationwide class (the “Class”):  all persons in the United States who purchased Defendant’s Products (as  defined herein) from March 1, 2007, to the date of certification of the  Class (the “Class Period”); excluded from the Class are officers and  directors of Defendant; members of the immediate families of the officers  and directors of Defendant; Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs,  successors, or assigns; and any entity in which they have or have had a  controlling interest.   32.  Additionally, Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a sub-class of:  all New York residents who purchased Defendant’s Products (as defined  herein) in New York during the Class Period (the “New York Sub-Class”).     33.  At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members of the Class or  New York Sub-Class; however, given the nature of the claims and the number of retail stores  selling Defendant’s Products, Plaintiff believes that members are so numerous that joinder of all  of them is impracticable.     34.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved in this case.  Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class that  predominate over questions that may affect individual members include:  a. Whether Defendant labeled, marketed, advertised, and/or sold the Products to  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using false, misleading, and/or  deceptive statements or representations, including statements or representations  concerning the nature and/or quality of the Products;  - 9 -  b. Whether Defendant omitted and/or misrepresented material facts in connection  with the sales of the Products;  c. Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course of conduct  complained of herein; and  d. Whether Defendant’s labeling, marketing, advertising, and/or selling of the  Products as online-enabled constitutes an unfair or deceptive consumer sales  practice.   35.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff, like all  members of the Class, purchased Defendant’s Products bearing the online-enabled  representations in a typical consumer setting at a premium price and sustained damages from  Defendant’s wrongful conduct.   36.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  retained counsel that is experienced in litigating complex class actions.  Plaintiff has no interests  that conflict with those of the Class.    37.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.   38.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive or equitable relief  pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) are met, as Defendant has acted or refused  to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive  or equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.   39.  The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk  of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.  For  example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas  another might not.  Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the  Class or the New York Sub-Class, even though certain members of the Class or the New York  Sub-Class are not parties to such actions.   40.  Defendant’s conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiff  seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole.  As such, Defendant’s  - 10 -  systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole  appropriate.  41.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   42.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the California Consumers Legal  Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. (the “CLRA”), on Plaintiff’s behalf and on  behalf of the Class.   43.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are “consumers,” as the term is  defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d), because they bought the Products for personal,  family, or household purposes.   44.  Plaintiff, the other members of the Class, and Defendant has engaged in  “transactions,” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1761(e).   45.  The conduct alleged in this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition  and unfair and deceptive acts and practices for the purposes of the CLRA, and the conduct was  undertaken by Defendant in transactions intended to result in, and which did result in, the sale of  goods to consumers.   46.  As alleged more fully above, Defendant has violated the CLRA by falsely  representing to Plaintiff and the other Class members that the Products were enabled for online  play for an indefinite period or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the release date when, in  fact, Defendant intended to stop supporting online play after a definite time period.   47.  As a result of engaging in such conduct, Defendant has violated California Civil  Code § 1770(a)(5), (a)(7), and (a)(9).   - 11 -   48.  Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(a)(2) and (a)(5), Plaintiff seeks an order  of this Court that includes, but is not limited to, an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to  engage in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices or any other act prohibited by law –  for example, by requiring that Defendant provide support for online play for the Products.   49.  Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages as allowed under the CLRA.   50.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class may be irreparably harmed and/or  denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted.   51.  The unfair and deceptive acts and practices of Defendant, as described above,  present a serious threat to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.   52.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  53.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   54.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to California’s False Advertising Law,  California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq. (the “FAL”), on Plaintiff’s behalf and  on behalf of the California Class.   55.  Such acts of Defendant, as described above, and each of them constitute unlawful  business acts and practices.   56.  At all material times, Defendant engaged in a scheme of offering the Products for  sale to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by way of, inter alia, commercial marketing  and advertising, the World Wide Web (Internet), Product packaging and labeling, and other  promotional materials.  As described more fully herein, Defendant’s portrayal of the Products as  enabled for online play was misleading and deceptive because Defendant did not intend to  provide online support for the Products indefinitely or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the  release date.  Said advertisements and inducements were made within the State of California and  - 12 -  nationwide and come within the definition of advertising contained in the FAL in that such  promotional materials were intended as inducements to purchase Defendant’s Products and are  statements disseminated by Defendant to Plaintiff and the other Class members that were  intended to reach Plaintiff and the other Class members.  Defendant knew, or in the exercise of  reasonable care should have known, that these representations were misleading and deceptive.   57.  In furtherance of said plan and scheme, Defendant has prepared and distributed  within the State of California and nationwide – via commercial marketing and advertising, the  World Wide Web (Internet), Product packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials –  statements that misleadingly and deceptively represent the Products as being enabled for online  play.  Consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class members, necessarily and reasonably  relied on these materials concerning Defendant’s Products.  Consumers, including Plaintiff and  the other Class members, were among the intended targets of such representations.   58.  The above acts of Defendant, in disseminating said misleading and deceptive  statements throughout the State of California to consumers, including Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class, were and are likely to deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff  and the other members of the Class, by obfuscating the nature and/or quality of the Products, in  violation of the “misleading” prong of the FAL.   59.  The business practices alleged above are unlawful under the CLRA, which forbids  misleading and deceptive advertising.   60.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have suffered injury in fact and have  lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FAL.    61.  As a result, Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class.  Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to California Business and  Professions Code § 17535, are entitled to an order of this Court enjoining such future conduct on  the part of Defendant, and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge  Defendant’s ill-gotten gains and restore to any person in interest any money paid for its Products  as a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant.  - 13 -   62.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  63.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   64.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law,  California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”).    65.  By committing the acts and practices alleged herein, Defendant has engaged in  deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices in violation of the UCL.    66.  Defendant has violated the UCL’s proscription against engaging in unlawful  conduct as a result of its violations of (i) the CLRA, as alleged above, and (ii) the FAL, as  alleged above.   67.  As more fully described herein, Defendant’s misleading marketing, advertising,  packaging, and labeling of the Products is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.  Indeed,  Plaintiff and the other Class members were unquestionably deceived regarding the characteristics  of Defendant’s Products, as Defendant’s marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling of the  Products misrepresented and/or omitted the true nature and/or quality of the Products.   Defendant’s portrayal of the Products as enabled for online play was misleading and deceptive  because Defendant did not intend to provide support for online play for the Products indefinitely  or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the release date.   68.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class who purchased the Products suffered  a substantial injury by virtue of buying a product they would not have purchased and/or paying a  premium that they would not have absent Defendant’s unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair  marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling.   69.  There is no benefit to consumers or competition from deceptively marketing and  labeling products as being enabled for online play indefinitely or, at a minimum, a reasonable  - 14 -  time from the release date when that is not, in fact, true.  Indeed, the harm to consumers and  competition is substantial.   70.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class who purchased the Products had no  way of reasonably knowing that the Products they purchased were not as marketed, advertised,  packaged, and labeled.  Thus, they could not have reasonably avoided the injury each of them  suffered.   71.  The gravity of the consequences of Defendant’s conduct as described above  outweighs any justification, motive, or reason therefor, particularly considering the available  legal alternatives which exist in the marketplace, and such conduct is immoral, unethical,  unscrupulous, offends established public policy, or is substantially injurious to Plaintiff and the  other members of the Class.   72.  Defendant’s violations of the UCL continue to this day.     73.  Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff and the  other members of the Class seek an order of this Court that includes, but is not limited to, an  order enjoining such future conduct on the part of Defendant and such other orders and  judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendant’s ill-gotten gains and to restore to any  person in interest any money paid for Defendant’s Products as a result of the wrongful conduct  of Defendant.   74.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  75.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   76.  Defendant provided Plaintiff and other members of the Class with written express  warranties including, but not limited to, warranties that its Products were enabled for online play,  as set forth above.  - 15 -   77.  Defendant breached these warranties.  This breach resulted in damages to Plaintiff  and other members of the Class, who bought Products but did not receive the goods as  warranted, in that Defendant did not intend to, and has not, provided support for online play for  the Products indefinitely or for a reasonable time from the release date.   78.  As a proximate result of the breach of warranties by Defendant, Plaintiff and the  other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial in that,  among other things, they purchased and paid for Products that did not conform to what was  promised as promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled by Defendant, and they were  deprived of the benefit of their bargain and spent money on Products that did not have any value  or had less value than warranted, or Products that they would not have purchased and used had  they known the true facts about them.   79.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  80.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   81.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased Defendant’s Products,  which were promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled as being enabled for online  play, as set forth above.  Pursuant to these sales, Defendant impliedly warranted that its Products  would be merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used and  would conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made in the Products’ promotions,  marketing, advertising, packaging, and labels.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class  relied on Defendant’s representations that the Products had particular characteristics, as set forth  above, and, at or about that time, Defendant sold the Products to Plaintiff and the other members  of the Class.  By its representations regarding the reputable nature of the company and related  entities, and by its promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling of the Products,  - 16 -  Defendant warranted that the Products were enabled for online play, as set forth herein.  Plaintiff  and the other members of the Class bought the Products relying on Defendant’s representations  that the Products were enabled for online play, when, in fact, Defendant did not intend to, and  has not, provided online support for the Products indefinitely or for a reasonable time from the  release date.   82.  Defendant breached the warranty implied at the time of sale in that Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class did not receive goods that were as represented and, thus, the  goods were not merchantable as fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used or as  promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, labeled, or sold.   83.  As a proximate result of this breach of warranty by Defendant, Plaintiff and the  other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial in that,  among other things, they purchased and paid for Products that did not conform to what was  promised as promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled by Defendant, and they were  deprived of the benefit of their bargain and spent money on Products that did not have any value  or had less value than warranted or Products that they would not have purchased and used had  they known the true facts about them.   84.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  85.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   86.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased Defendant’s Products,  which were promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled as being enabled for online  play.  Pursuant to these sales and by its promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, and  labeling, Defendant impliedly warranted that it would support online play for the Products  indefinitely or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the release date as set forth above.   - 17 -  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class bought the Products from Defendant relying on  Defendant’s skill and judgment in furnishing suitable goods as well as its representation that the  Products were enabled for online play, as set forth above.  However, Defendant did not intend to  provide, and has not provided, online support for the Products indefinitely or for a reasonable  time from the release date.   87.  Defendant breached the warranty implied at the time of sale in that Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class did not receive Products that were as represented, and thus the  goods were not fit for the purpose as promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, labeled, or sold.   88.  As a result of this breach of warranty by Defendant, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial in that,  among other things, they purchased and paid for Products that did not conform to what was  promised as promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled by Defendant, and they were  deprived of the benefit of their bargain and spent money on Products that did not have any value  or had less value than warranted or Products they would not have purchased and used had they  known the true facts about them.   89.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  90.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs of this Class Action  Complaint as if set forth herein.   91.  Defendant engaged in false and misleading marketing concerning its Products.   92.  As fully alleged above, by advertising, marketing, distribution, and/or selling the  Products to Plaintiff and other members of the New York Sub-Class, Defendant engaged in and  continues to engage in deceptive acts and practices.   93.  Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class further seek to enjoin  such unlawful deceptive acts and practices as described above.  Each of the New York Sub-Class  - 18 -  members will be irreparably harmed unless the unlawful actions of the Defendant are enjoined in  that Defendant will continue to falsely and misleadingly advertise the healthy nature of its  Products.  Towards that end, Plaintiff and the New York Sub-Class request an order granting  them injunctive relief as follows:  an order requiring Defendant to provide support for games it  marketing as available for online play so that consumers, can, in fact, play these games online  with one another.   94.  In this regard, Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, section 349 of the  New York General Business Law (GBL), which makes deceptive acts and practices unlawful.   As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of GBL § 349 as described above,  Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class have suffered damages in an amount  to be determined at trial.   95.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  96.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   97.  As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading labeling,  advertising, marketing, and sales of the Products, Defendant was enriched at the expense of  Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class through the payment of the purchase  price for Defendant’s Products.   98.  Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to  permit Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits that it received from Plaintiff and the other  members of the New York Sub-Class, in light of the fact that the Products purchased by Plaintiff  and the other members of the Class were not what Defendant purported them to be.  Thus, it  would be unjust or inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without restitution to Plaintiff  - 19 -  and the other members of the New York Sub-Class for the monies paid to Defendant for such  Products.   99.  THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 