14.  Sony’s PlayStation 4 (“PS4”) is a home video game console designed, developed,  marketed, and sold by Defendants. The PS4 was released in North America on November 15, 2013, and  retailed for approximately $400.00.    15.  The PS4 was a massive success for Sony and, as of May 22, 2016, 40 million PS4s have  been sold worldwide.1    17.  Instead of using a standard mechanical button to eject the contents of the disc drive, the  user is required to touch a capacitive touch button located on the front of the PS4, pictured below:   18.  Capacitive buttons are based on capacitive coupling and rely on electrical currents from  the human body to detect inputs. When an individual places his or her finger on the capacitive button, it  causes a change in the capacitance and causes the preset command to be executed.    19.  Capacitive sensors rely on capacitors on a circuit board to measure the overall  capacitance and any changes to the total capacitance. Here, an individual uses their finger to touch the  capacitive eject button and the sensor converts the change in capacitance from the touch into a command  instructing the PS4 to eject the contents of the disc drive.    21.  The PS4s contain a small circuit board located directly beneath the eject button that  contains a gold plated chip. This chip is responsible for converting the capacitive touch inputs into a  software command that ejects the contents of the disc drive. A picture of this chip is located below:    22.  Unbeknownst to consumers, the gold plated chip suffers from a manufacturing defect that  causes it to misread static electricity in the air as capacitance changes that causes the disc drive to  attempt to eject the contents of the disc drive in a continuous loop.    23.  The disc drive attempts to eject the contents of the disc drive regardless of whether a disc  is in the drive. In addition, even if a disc is successfully ejected, the disc drive still continuously attempts  to eject the contents of the empty drive because the chip is misinterpreting static electricity in the air as a  change in capacitance.     24.  As noted above, when the disc drive attempts to eject the contents of the disc driver, it is  accompanied by a repeated loop of audible beeps. Since the defect causes the disc drive to eject in a  continuous loop, the audible beeping continues until the PS4 is manually shut down.   26.  Plaintiff’s experience is by no means an isolated or outlying occurrence. Indeed, the  internet is replete with examples of blogs and other websites where consumers have complained of the  exact same Disc Drive Defect.    27.  For instance, in September 2014, one of the most popular video game websites, IGN,  posted an article that “addresses the common problems of a console ejecting discs on its own or the  system beeping repeatedly even when no disc is present.”2 The article includes a link to a video created  and disseminated by Defendants that purports to outline a fix for the problem, which consists of power- cycling the PS4. A similar article was posted by Engadget, one of the world’s leading technology blogs,  that contains similar information and a link to the video.3 Unsurprisingly, power-cycling fails to remedy  the defectively manufactured hardware in the PS4.    28.  On Defendants’ own website, there are numerous posts complaining of the Disc Drive  Defect, that date as far back as November 15, 2013, the date upon which they began selling the PS4.4    29.  Through pre-release testing that evaluated the PlayStation’s durability, Defendants knew  or should have known of the Disc Drive Defect. The Disc Drive Defect is a manufacturing defect that  did or should have alerted Defendants to the fact that the capacitive sensor on the eject button suffered  from a manufacturing defect.    31.  In response to growing reports of the Disc Drive Defect, Defendants re-designed the  capacitive touch buttons and replaced them with traditional mechanical switches in subsequent versions  of the PS4. Upon information and belief, this change was implemented on the CUH-12XXX series PS4  and later versions.    32.  In the Netherlands, Sony extended the one-year warranty on the PS4s to two years for the  Disc Drive Defect.5 The warranty extension was initiated after a famous YouTube blogger experienced  the Disc Drive Defect, contacted Sony’s customer support after the expiration of the one-year warranty,  and was informed by Sony’s customer service representative that this was a common problem with the  first generation PS4, but that his only option was to pay out-of-pocket for the necessary repair.    33.  Despite its actions in the Netherlands, Defendants have refused to extend the warranty in  the United States.    34.  In many instances, consumers have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for the  diagnosis of the Disc Drive Defect and repair and replacement of their PS4s, despite such defect having  been contained in the PS4s when manufactured by Defendants.    35.  Consumers were without access to the information concealed by Sony as described  herein, and therefore reasonably relied on Sony’s representations and warranties regarding the quality,  durability, and other material characteristics of the PS4s. Had consumers known of the defect, they  would have paid less for the PS4 than the amounts they actually paid, or would not have purchased the  PS4 at all.  C.  Sony’s One-Year Warranty Period is Unconscionable    37.  As stated above, there is ample evidence that Defendants have been aware of the Disc  Drive Defect from widespread complaints since, at the very least, November 15, 2013; the day Sony  began selling the PS4.    38.  Many PS4 owners have discovered an informal “fix” that lessens the severity and  occurrence of the Disc Drive Defect. This requires individuals to open the casing of the PS4, expose the  internal circuitry, and scratch the gold plate using a knife to reduce its sensitivity. There are numerous  videos on YouTube and other websites instructing users how to complete this process.7    39.  Many individuals are hesitant to even open the casing of the PS4 because Sony contends  this voids any warranties on the PS4, despite the legality of such a position being contrary to the text of  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  Indeed, the PS4 warranties state: “THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT  42.  Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others  similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23. This action satisfies the  numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of the  provisions of Rule 23.   43.  Plaintiff seeks to represent the following “Nationwide Class”:  All persons or entities in the United States that purchased a Sony  PlayStation 4.   44.  In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following state sub-class:   All persons or entities in California that purchased a Sony PlayStation 4  for primarily personal, family or household purposes, as defined by  California Civil Code § 1791(a) (the “California Class”).   45.  The Nationwide Class and California Class will be referred to collectively as the “Class.”    46.  Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. While the exact number of Class members remains unknown at this time, upon  information and belief, there are hundreds of thousands of putative Class members throughout the  United States who are generally ascertainable by appropriate discovery.    48.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the other Class members because,  inter alia, all members of the Class were injured through the common misconduct described above and  were subject to Defendants’ unfair and unlawful conduct. Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and  legal theories on behalf of himself and all members of the Class.   49.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the Class in that he has no disabling conflicts of interest that would be antagonistic to  those of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff seeks no relief that is antagonistic or adverse to the  members of the Class and the infringement of the rights and the damages they have suffered are typical  of other Class members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex consumer class action  litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously.   51.  The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff and the Class make  the use of the class action device a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford relief to  Plaintiff and the Class for the wrongs alleged because Defendants would necessarily gain an  unconscionable advantage since they would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of  each individual Class member with superior financial and legal resources; the costs of individual suits  could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be recovered; proof of a common course of  conduct to which Plaintiff were exposed is representative of that experienced by the Class and will  establish the right of each member of the Class to recover on the cause of action alleged; and individual  actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be unnecessary and duplicative of this  litigation.   52.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed class and  subclasses before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate and as the parties engage in  discovery.   53.  The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Because of the number and nature of common questions of fact and  law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve the interest of judicial economy.   55.  Notice of a certified class action and of any result or resolution of the litigation can be  provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, or publication, or such other methods of notice as  deemed appropriate by the Court.   56.  Plaintiff does not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this litigation.  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   58.  Defendants are persons as that term is defined in California Civil Code § 1761(c).   59.  Plaintiff and the Class are “consumers” as that term is defined in California Civil Code  § 1761(d).   61.  Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in Defendants’ trade  or business and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing public.   62.  Defendants knew that the PS4 was defective, prone to failing for its essential purpose,  and would become useless as a result of reasonable and foreseeable use by consumers.    63.  Defendants were under a duty to Plaintiff and the Class members to disclose the defective  nature of the PS4 because:  a.  Defendants were in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the  Disc Drive Defect in the PS4;   b.  Plaintiff and the Class members could not reasonably have been expected to learn  or discover that the PS4 was defective and not in accordance with Defendants’  advertisements and representations;   c.  Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the Class members could not reasonably have  been expected to learn or discover the Disc Drive Defect in the PS4; and   d.   Defendants actively concealed and failed to disclose the Disc Drive Defect from  Plaintiff and the Class.   64.  In failing to disclose the Disc Drive Defect at the time of sale, Defendants have  knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached their duty not to do so.    65.  The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiff and the Class members  are material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them to be important in deciding  whether to purchase Defendants’ PS4 or pay a lesser price. Had Plaintiff and the Class known about the  Disc Drive Defect in the PS4, they would not have purchased the PS4 or would have paid less for it.   67.  Plaintiff and the other Class members’ injuries were proximately caused by Sony’s  fraudulent and deceptive business practices.   68.  Therefore, Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to equitable relief under the  69.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   70.  The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits acts of “unfair competition,”  including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or  misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.    71.  Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent  business practices by the conduct, statements, and omissions described above, and by knowingly and  intentionally concealing from Plaintiff and the Class members the Disc Drive Defect (and the costs and  diminished value of the PS4 as a result of Defendants’ conduct). Defendants should have disclosed this  information because they were in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Disc Drive  Defect, and Plaintiff and Class members could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the true  facts related to the Disc Drive Defect.    73.  The injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the Class members are greatly outweighed by any  potential countervailing benefit to consumers or to competition, nor are they injuries that Plaintiff and  the Class members should have reasonably avoided.   74.  Defendants’ acts and practices are unlawful because they violate California Civil Code  §§ 1668, 1709, 1710, and 1750 et seq., and California Commercial Code § 2313.   75.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin further unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices by  Defendants, to obtain restitutionary disgorgement of all monies and revenues generated as a result of  such practices, and all other relief allowed under California Business & Professions Code § 17200.  76.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   77.  California Business & Professions Code § 17500 states: “It is unlawful for  any . . . corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property . . . to  induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be  made or disseminated . . . from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other  publication, or any advertising device, . . . or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the  Internet, any statement . . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise  of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.”   79.  Defendants have violated section 17500 because the misrepresentations and omissions  regarding the functionality of their PS4, as set forth in this Complaint, were material and likely to  deceive a reasonable consumer.   80.  Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered an injury in fact, including the loss of  money or property, as a result of Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices. In purchasing  the PS4, Plaintiff and the other Class members relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of  Defendants with respect to the reliability of the PS4. Defendants’ representations were untrue because  the PS4 was manufactured and sold with the Disc Drive Defect. Had Plaintiff and the other Class  members known this, they would not have purchased their PS4s and/or not paid as much for them.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members overpaid for the PS4 and did not receive the benefit  of their bargain.   81.  All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred in the conduct of Defendants’  business.   82.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, requests that this Court  enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to Plaintiff and the other Class members  any money Defendants acquired by unfair competition, including restitution and/or restitutionary  disgorgement, and for such other relief set forth below.  A.  Sony’s PlayStation 4 and the Disc Drive Defect   VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (“CLRA”)  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, on Behalf of the California Class)  (Against All Defendants)   VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, on Behalf of the California Class)  (Against All Defendants)   VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, on Behalf of the California Class)  (Against All Defendants)   purposes of this Limited Hardware Warranty and Liability, "factory  recertified" means a product that has been returned to its original  specifications.6  