12.  Sony Computer Entertainment America was founded in 1994 and has become a  household name in consumer gaming technology. Sony Computer Entertainment America is a  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page3 of 29 57.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Douglas Ladore brings this action pursuant to Federal  Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated  individuals defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who purchased a copy of the  Killzone: Shadow Fall video game.  Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendant, Defendant’s agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors,  predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those  entities’ current and former employees, officers, and directors, (2) the Judge to whom this case is  assigned and the Judge’s immediate family, (3) persons who execute and file a timely request for  exclusion from the Class, (4) persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated  and/or otherwise released, and (5) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such  excluded person.   58.  Numerosity: The exact number of members of the Class is unknown and is not  available to Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable. The Class  likely consists of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Class members can be easily identified  through Defendant’s records.   59.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to Plaintiff’s claims and those of the other members of the Class, and those questions  predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common  questions for the Class include but are not limited to the following:  a)  Whether Defendant made false statements, promises, and/or descriptions  regarding the resolution capabilities of Killzone’s multiplayer mode;  b)  Whether Defendant made such false statements, promises, and/or  descriptions to deceive consumers into purchasing its product;  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page15 of 29 65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page17 of 29 85.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   86.  California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et  seq., protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial  markets for goods and services.   87.  The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. A  business practice need only meet one of these three criteria to be considered unfair competition. An  unlawful business practice is anything that can properly be called a business practice and that is  forbidden by law.   88.  As described above, Defendant has violated the unlawful prong by violating the  97.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   98.  Defendant engaged in advertising and marketing to the public, and offered the  Killzone video game for sale on a nationwide basis, including in California. Defendant publicly  represented and advertised that the Killzone video game was capable of rendering 1080p  multiplayer graphics. Defendant did so with the intent to induce Plaintiff and Class members to  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page22 of 29 Breach of Express Warranties  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  104.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  105.  Pursuant to California Commercial Code § 2313, Defendant’s sale of the Killzone  video game included express warranties created by Defendant’s affirmations of fact, made through  the statements made on the game’s physical packaging and through Defendant’s online  representations.  106.  Defendant’s express warranties included affirmations of fact and promises that the  Killzone video game would conform to the performance capabilities represented on the game’s  packaging and through Defendant’s online representations.  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page23 of 29 Fraud in the Inducement  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  114.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  115.  As detailed herein, Defendant misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts  regarding Killzone’s ability to render 1080p multiplayer graphics.  116.  Through the misrepresentations and omissions detailed herein, Defendant wrongfully  induced Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to purchase Killzone when they otherwise  would not have purchased the game or would only have agreed to purchase it at a lower price.  117.  Defendant knew or should have known that its misstatements and omissions  regarding the inclusion of 1080p multiplayer graphics in Killzone were false, misleading,  incomplete, and deceptive, and would cause Plaintiff and Class members to purchase the Killzone  video game when they otherwise would not have purchased the game or would only have agreed to  purchase it at a lower price.  118.  Defendant intended that consumers rely upon the misstatements and omissions  detailed in this Complaint in purchasing the Killzone video game.  119.  Defendant knew that consumers would rely upon the misstatements and omissions  detailed in this Complaint in purchasing the Killzone video game.  120.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class relied upon those misstatements when  purchasing the Killzone video game, and in opening the packaging (thereby making it impossible to  return the video game).   121.  In deceiving Plaintiff and the other members of the Class into believing that Killzone  was capable of rendering 1080p multiplayer graphics, Defendant has engaged in fraudulent conduct  designed to induce consumers to purchase the Killzone video game.  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page25 of 29 I.  A Brief Introduction to Sony and Killzone: Shadow Fall.   Negligent Misrepresentation  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  123.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  124.  Through its public statements and marketing materials, including its pre-release  representations and online statements, and the prominently displayed text on the game’s packaging,  Defendant represented to Plaintiff and the members of the Class that Killzone would be capable of  rendering 1080p multiplayer graphics.  125.  Those representations were false, and at the time such false statements were made,  Defendant knew or should have known of their falsity or, at the very least, Defendant acted with  negligence and carelessness in ascertaining the truth of the statements. Defendant knew or should  have known that Killzone was not capable of rendering 1080p multiplayer graphics. Defendant did  not have any reasonable ground for believing its statements to be true.  126.  Defendant intended that Plaintiff and the members of the Class rely on its  misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing the Killzone video game.  127.  Defendant knew that its affirmative statements about the inclusion of 1080p  multiplayer graphics had been widely disseminated on video game related websites and in other  publications, and further understood—and intended—that its current and future customers would  see those statements.  128.  Likewise, Defendant knew that its on-box representation that the Killzone video  game would utilize and feature unqualified 1080p graphics—including multiplayer graphics— would be seen and relied upon by the purchasing public.  129.  Defendant had a duty not to make the above-described misrepresentations, and to  take steps to correct the dissemination of such misrepresentations both before the Killzone video  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page26 of 29 Unjust Enrichment  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  133.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  134.  Plaintiff and the Class have conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of the  money Defendant collected from them for the purchase of the Killzone video game, which did not  perform as Defendant promised.  135.  Defendant appreciates and/or has knowledge of the benefits conferred upon it by  Plaintiff and the Class.  136.  Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendant should not be permitted  to retain the money obtained from Plaintiff and the Class Members, which Defendant has unjustly  obtained as a result of its deceptive and misleading advertising.  137.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class seek full disgorgement and restitution of any  money Defendant has retained as a result of the unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged herein.  Case3:14-cv-03530-JCS   Document1   Filed08/05/14   Page27 of 29 Violation of False Advertising Law  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violations of the Unfair Competition Law  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  