N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IN R E SONY PS3 “ OTHER OS” LITIGATION ANTHONY VENTUR

A , JONATHAN HUB ER , JASON B AKER AND ELTON STOVELL, on be ha lf of the m se lve s a nd a ll thosesim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. SONY C OM PUTER

ENTER TAINM ENT AM E R IC A, INC . a

nd SONY C OM PUTER

ENTER TAINM ENT AM E R IC A LLC , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-18066 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01811-R S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Ap pe a l from

the U.S. Distric t C ourt for Northe rn C a lifornia , San Fran c isc o R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 11, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, N.R . SM ITH a nd NGUYEN, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JAN 06 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pla intiffs (Anthony Ve ntura and othe r individua ls) a

ppe a l the dism issa l of the i r First Am e nde d C onsolida te d C la ss Ac tion C om

pla int (“ FAC ” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. R e vie wing a dism issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im de novo, Zix iang Li v
. K

e rry , 710 F.3d 995, 998 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tion omitte d), we a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Fir s t Claim (B r e ac h of E xpr e ss W ar r anty ) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the first c la im

for bre a c h of a

n e xpre ss
warran ty . “ An e xpre s s wa rranty is a c ontra c tua l te rm

re l a ting to the

title , c ha ra c te r, qua lity , ide ntity , or c ondition of the sold goods.” Ble n nis v . He w le tt-Pac k ard C o. , No. C 07-00333 JF, 2008 W L 818526, a

t *2 (N.D. C a l. M ar. 25, 2008) (c iting Fogo v . C

utte r Labs., Inc

. , 137 C a l. R ptr. 417 (C t. App. 1977)). “A m anufa c ture r’ s lia bility for bre a c h

of a n e xpre ss wa

rran ty de rive s from , a

nd is m e a sure d by , the te rm s of tha

t wa rran ty .” C

ipollone v . Ligge tt Group, Inc
. , 505 U.S. 504, 525 (1992). A pla intiff m

ust a lle ge “ the e xa c t te rm s of the wa rranty .” W

illiams v

. Be e c hnut N

utrition C orp. , 229 C a l . R

ptr. 605, 608 (C t. App. 1986). Pla intiffs a lle ge tha

t De fe nda nts Sony C om

pute r Ente rta inm e n t Am e ric a Inc
. and Sony C om pute r Ente rta inm e nt Am e ric a LLC (“ Sony ” ) gav e Pla i ntiffs a n
e xpre s s wa

rran ty

— t hrough va

rious sta te m e nts m a de m ostly

in prom otiona l 2m a te ria l s—

that the othe r ope rating softwa re (“ Othe r OS” ) and Pla

y Station Ne twork (“ PSN” ) fe a ture s b oth would be ava ila ble for the a dve rtise d te n-y e ar life s pa n of the Pla

y Stat ion 3 (“ PS3” ). Howe ve r, the se dispa ra te sta te m e nts, e ve n whe n re a d toge the r, do not inc lude a ll the “ e xa c t te rm s” that would c re a te an
e xpre s s wa

rran ty tha t suc h dua l func t iona lity

would be ava ila

b le for the te n-y e ar life s pa n of the PS3. M ore ove r, Sony ’ s Sy ste m Softwa re Lic e n se Agre e m e nt (“ SSLA” ) and Te rm s of Se rvic e (“ T OS” ) e xpre ssly inform e d c onsum e rs tha

t upda te s a nd se rvic e s “ m ay

c a use som e loss of func tiona lity .” Alte rnative ly , e ve n if Pla intiffs suffic ie ntly have a lle ge d tha

t Sony gave the m an e xpre ss wa

rranty that the PS3 would ope ra t e a s a c om p ute r through its
a bility to run theOthe r OS, Pla intiffs do not ade quate ly ple a d a bre a c h of tha

t
warran ty . While Pla i ntiffs c la im tha t the y have ple a de d a

wa rran ty tha t the Othe r OS func tion would la st for te n y e ars, Sony ’ s sta te m e nts only

prom i se a te n-y e ar life s pa n for the PS3 itse l f. In a ddition, Sony ’ s writte n Lim ite d Ha rdware W arran ty

c urta ile d

“ W ARR ANTIES REQUIRED AS A M ATTER OF LAW ” to one y e ar from the origina l da

te of purc ha s e . This limita tion wa s va lid, be c a

u se it is “re a sona

ble ” to
c onstrue a

one -y e ar lim it toge the r with the a lle ge d Othe r OS wa rranty , whic h ha d no te m pora l lim it. Se e C a l. C om . C ode § 2316(1). Thus, Pla intiffs’ a lle ge d Othe r 3OS warranty would ha v e e xpire d by

the tim e Sony

re le a se d Upda

te 3.21. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the dism issa l of this c la im
. Se c ond and T hir d Claim s (B r e ac h of Im plie d W a r r antie s of M e r c hantability and Fitne ss fora Par tic ularPur pose ) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the se c ond a

nd third c la im s for bre a c h of the im plie d wa rrantie s of m e rc ha

nta bility and fitne ss for a

pa rtic ula r purpose . An im p lie d wa rranty of m e rc ha

nta bility arise s whe n

a produc t is not “ fit for the ordina ry purpose s for whic h

suc h goods a

re use d.” In reFe rre ro Litig. , 794 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1118 (S.D. C a l. 2011) (c iting Haute r v . Zogarts , 534 P.2d 377 (C a l. 1975)) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d); s e e C a l . C om . C ode § 2314(2)(c ).

“ ‘ [T] he im

plie d wa rranty of fitne ss for a

pa rtic ula r purpose is a

wa rranty im plie d by la w whe n a se lle r ha s re a son to know tha t a buy e r wishe s goods for a pa rtic ula r purpose and is re ly i ng on the se lle r’ s skill a nd judgm e nt to furnish those goods.’ ” C ardinal He alth 301, Inc . v . Ty c o Ele cs. C orp. , 87 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 5, 23 (C t. App. 2008) (c ita

tion omitte d); se e C a l. C om . C ode § 2315. Pla intiffs nowhe re a lle ge tha t dua l func tiona lity

is one of the “ ordina

ry purpose s for whic h suc h goods a re use d.” Inde e d , the FAC a lle ge s tha t Sony sought to distinguish the

PS3 from the W i i a

nd Xbox ba se d on this suppose d dua l func tiona lity
. Like w ise , Pla intiffs fa il to a l le ge tha t Sony “ ha [d] re a s on to know”

4that

Pla intiffs purc ha s e d the PS3 for any “ pa rtic u la r purpose ,” whe the r dua l func tiona lity

or othe rwise . Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the dism issa l of the se c la im s. Four th Claim (V iolation of M a g nuson-M oss W ar r anty Ac t (“M M W A”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 e t se q.) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Pla intiffs’ fourth c la im for viola tion of the M M W A. “ [The ] disposition of the sta te la w wa rranty c la im s de te rm ine s the disposition of the

M a gnuson-M oss Ac t c la im s .” C le me ns v . Daimle r C

hry s le r C orp. , 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th C ir. 2008). Furthe r, the M M W A re quire s a writte n wa rranty gua ra nte e ing a produc t’ s “ spe c ifie d

le ve l of pe rform a

n c e ” to sta

te
a “ pe riod of tim e ” ove r whic h pe rform anc e is gua ran te e d . 15 U.S.C . § 2301(6);
se e In re C onAgra Foods Inc

. , 908 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1102 (C .D. C a l. 2012). B e c a use Pla intiffs fa i l to a de quate ly a lle g e a sta te wa rranty c la im , the M M W A c la im fa i ls. Furthe r, the M M W A c la i m fa ils be c a

use the re wa s no w ritte n sta te m e nt tha

t wa rrants dua l func tiona lity for the te n-y e ar life spa n of the PS3 or
any othe r spe c ific tim e pe riod. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the dism i ssa l of this c la im
. Fifth and Sixth Claim s (V iolation of the Consum e r L e gal Re m e die s Ac t (“CL RA”), Cal. Civ Code § 1770(a)(5), (7)) The distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing the fifth a nd sixth c la im s unde r Se c tion 1770(a )(5) an d (7) of the C LR A. To sta te a c la i m unde r the se two subse c tions, a pla i ntiff m

ust a lle g e : (1) a

m isre pre se ntation; (2) re l ia nc e on tha

t 5m isre pre se ntation; a nd (3) da m a ge s c a use d by tha t m i sre pre se ntat ion. Marolda v

. Sy mante c C

orp. , 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1002-03 (N.D. C a l. 2009) (c ita t ions
om i tte d). C LR

A c la im s a

re gove rne d by

the “ re a s ona

ble c onsum e r” te st, unde r whic h a pla intiff m

ust a lle ge tha

t “ m e m be rs of the public are like ly to be de c e ive d.” W

illiams v

. Ge rbe r Prods. C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Howe ve r, “ a pla intiff ne e d not ple a d fra ud.” Marolda , 672 F. Supp. 2d a t 1003 (c ita

tion omi tte d). “ Se c tion 1770(a )(5) c o nc e rns re pre se ntations tha t the produc t ha d a

c h ara c te ristic tha

t it did not a c tua l ly

have ,” while “ Se c tion 1770(a )(7) foc use s on the produc t be ing of a diffe re nt qua lity

or gra d e tha

n re pre s e nte d.” Id. Pla intiffs ha

ve a lle ge d suffic ie nt fa c ts a s to e a c h e le m e nt of the se c la i m s. First, the y

a lle g e tha

t Sony ’ s re pre s e ntat ions a t the tim e of sa le m isc ha

ra c te riz e d the d ua l func tiona lity

of the PS3— and we re like ly to de c e i ve m e m

be rs of the public

— be c a use Sony late r re s tric te d use rs to using e ithe r the Othe r OS fe a ture or
a c c e ssing thePSN fe a ture , but not both. Se c ond, Pla intiffs a l le ge tha t the y
re vie we d Sony ’ s we bsite , re le va

nt a rtic le s on the inte rne t , a

nd the PS3 box la

be l be fore m a king the ir purc ha se s, a

nd tha t the y re lie d on Sony ’ s re pre s e ntations a bout the PS3’ s fe a ture s. Fina lly , Pla intiffs a lle g e tha t the y suffe re d da

m a ge s be c a

use the y pa id m ore for the PS3 tha n the y would ha ve othe rwise be c a

use of the 6suppose d

dua l func t iona lity
. Pla intiffs’ dam a g e s we re in the form of lost

“ pre m ium ” pa

ym e nts. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the dism i ssa l of the se c la i m s. Se ve nth Claim (V iolation of CL RA, Cal. Civ Code § 1770(a)(9)) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the se ve n th c la im unde r Se c tion 1770(a )(9) of the C LR

A. “ Se c tion 1770(a

)(9) is the only

subse c t ion tha

t re q uire s ple a ding fra

ud, sinc e it spe c ific a lly

re quire s inte nt to de fraud, whic h, in turn, im plie s knowle dge of the fa lsity .” Marolda , 672 F. Supp. 2d a t 1003. He re , Pla intiffs a lle g e tha t at the tim e of sa l e Sony be lie ve d tha t it re ta ine d the right to disa

ble , a nd the re fore c ould te rm inate , the PS3’ s dua l func tiona l ity
. Pla i ntiffs a lle ge only

tha t Sony c ould te rm inate the PS3’ s dua l func tiona lity ra the r tha n a lle ging tha

t Sony w ould te rm inate the dua l func tiona lity . Pla intiffs thus fail to a l le ge the re q

uisite “ inte nt” re quire d to sta te a c la im unde r Se c tion 1170(a

)(9). Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the dism issa l of this c la im
.

7E ighth Claim (V i olation of CL RA, Cal. Civ Code § 1770(a)(19))

Pla intiffs’ brie f only

sum m arily sta te s in a footnote tha

t Pla intiffs ple a d suffic i e nt fa c ts to show proc e dura l a n d substa ntive unc o nsc iona

bility . Thus, Pla i ntiffs wa ive d the ir unc onsc iona bility c la im unde r Se c tion 1770(a )(19) of the C LR A. Se e C ity of Eme ry v i llev . Robinson , 621 F.3d 1251, 1262 n.10 (9th C ir. 2010) (Appe lla

nt wa i ve d c la im

“ [b] y fa iling to a ddre ss the issue in its opening brie f e xc e pt in a

footnote .” ). Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the dism issa l of this c la im
. 1 Ninth Claim (V iolation of False Adve r tising L aw (“FAL ”), Cal. B us. & Pr of. Code § 17500 e t se q.) and T e nth Claim for Re lie f (V iolation of Unfair Com pe tition L aw (“UCL ”), B us. & Pr of. Code § 17200 e t se q., “Fr aud” Pr o ng) The distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing the ninth c la im

unde r the FAL a

nd te nth c la im

unde r the fraud prong of theUC L. “ [T] o sta te a c l a im unde r e ithe r the UC L or the fa lse a dve rtising la w, ba s e d on fa lse a dve rtising or promotiona l pra c tic e s, it is ne c e ssa

ry only to show tha

t m e m be rs of the public are like l y to be de c e ive d.” K

ask y v . N ik e , Inc
. , 45 P.3d 243, 250 (C a l. 2002) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d); id. (“ This c ourt ha s re c ogniz e d tha t [a ] ny viola tion of

1 This c la im

fa ils e ve n if c onside re d on the m e rits. W hile Pla i ntiffs a lle ge that the SSLA and TOS c o n ta in unc o nsc iona b le provisions, the

y fa il to a lle ge any unde rly ing “ a gre e m e nt” tha t prom ise d the m dua l func tiona lity for the life spa

n of the PS3. Inde e d, the a g re e m e nts (the SSLA an d TOS) inform e d c o nsum e rs tha t upda te s “ m ay c a use som e loss of func t iona lity .” Thus, thepre m ise of Pla intiffs’ unc onsc i ona

b ility c l a im

— i.e ., a c ontra c t for dua l func tiona lity

— is m issing. 8the fa lse a dve rtising la w . . . ne c e ssa

rily viola t e s the UC L.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)); se e also Daughe rty v . Am. Honda Motor C

o. , 51 C a l. R ptr. 3d 118, 128 (C t. App. 2006) (“ Historic a lly , the te rm ‘ fraudule nt,’ a s use d in the U C L, ha s re quire d

only a showing tha

t m e m be rs of the public are like l y to be de c e ive d.” (c ita

tion omitte d)). In a ddition, “ [t] o ha v e sta nding to bring suc

h a
c la im , a pla intiff m

u st show tha

t he or she ha s ‘ suffe re d

injury in fa c t an d ha s lost
m one y or prope rty

a s a re s ult of theunfa ir c om p e t ition.’ ” Ste w a rt v
. Rolling Stone LLC , 105 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 98, 111 (C t. App. 2010) (quoting C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17204). Pla intiffs a de quate ly

have a l le ge d tha

t m e m be rs of the public we re like ly to be de c e ive d

by Sony ’ s a dve rtising a

nd prom o tiona l sta

te m e nts a bout the PS3’ s dua l func tiona lity

and te n -y e ar life s pa

n. In a ddition, a s disc u sse d a b ove , Pla intiffs suffe re d injury

in fa c t in theform

of lost “ pre m ium ” pa

y m e nts. Se e

, e .g. , K w ik se t

9C

orp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 246 P.3d 877, 885-87 (C a l. 2011). Ac c ordingly , we
re ve rse the dism issa l of the se c la im s. 2

T w e lfth Claim (V iolation of UCL , “Unfair ” Pr ong) The distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing the twe lfth c l a im

unde r the unfa ir prong of the UC L. “ The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt ha s not e sta blishe d a de finitive te st to de te rm ine whe the r a busine ss pra c tic e is ‘ unfa ir’ in c o nsum e r c a se s.” Bias
v . W e lls Fargo &

C o. , 942 F. Supp. 2d 915, 933 (N.D. C a l. 2013) (c i tations
om i tte d). Unde r one of C a lifornia ’ s thre e e xisting te sts for unfa irne ss, “ ‘ unfa ir’
c onduc t re quire s tha

t: ‘ (1) the c onsum e r injury m ust be substa

ntia l; (2) the injury
m ust not beoutwe ighe d by any c ounte rva iling be ne fits to c onsum e rs or
c om pe tition; a

nd (3) it m

ust be an injury

tha t c o nsum e rs the m s e lve s c o uld not
re a s ona bly have avoide d.’ ” Id. (c ita

tions omitte d); s e e also Dav is v . Ford Motor C re dit C o . , 101 C a l . R

p t r. 3d 697, 706-10 (C t. App. 2009) (discu ssing thre e te sts).

2 Like wise , the distric t

c ourt e rre d in dismi ssing the e le ve nth c la im unde r the unla wful prong of theUC L. “ Se c tion 17200’ s ‘ unla wful’ prong borrows viola tions of othe r la

ws . . . a nd m ake s those unla

wful pra c tic e s a c tiona

ble unde r the UC L.” K le in v . C he v ron U.S.A., Inc
. , 137 C a l. R ptr. 3d 293, 326 (C t. App. 2012) (c ita tion and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). “ [A] viola

tion of the C LR

A, whic h de c la

re s num e rous pra c tic e s in the sa le of goods or se rvic e s to c onsum e rs to be unla wful m ay form the pre dic a t e ‘ unla

w ful a c t’ for the purpose s of a UC L c la im .” Id. at 327 (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). B e c a

use Pla intiffs a de quate ly a lle ge c la im s unde r the C LR A, the y ne c e ssa rily a lle ge a c la im unde r the unla

wful prong of the UC L. Ac c ordingly , we re v e rse the dism issa l of this c la im
. 1 0Pla intiffs suffic ie ntly a lle ge tha

t Sony c a use d the m substa

ntia l injury

by
c ha rging a pre m i um for the PS3’ s dua l func tiona lity and the n disc ontinuing a c c e ss to both the

Othe r OS an d PSN fe a ture s. Spe c ific a l ly , Pla intiffs a lle ge tha t (1) the y lost m one y be c a

use the y would not ha

ve purc ha se d

or would ha

v e pa id le ss for the PS3 if the y

ha d known tha

t Sony would disa

ble or re m ove one or both of the se
a dve rtise d fe a ture s; (2) the y c ould not ha

ve re a sona

bly av oide d this injury

be c a use the y would ha ve lost a c c e ss to thePSN if the y c hose not to downloa

d the upda

te whic h disa

ble d the Othe r OS fe a ture ; a nd (3) the re are no c ounte rva iling be ne fits to
c onsum e rs or c om

pe tition tha

t outwe igh the substa

ntia l injury

to c onsum e rs. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the dism issa l of this c la im
.

T hir te e nth Claim (V i olation of Com pute rFr aud and Abuse Ac t (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 e t se q.) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the thirte e nth c la im unde r the C FAA. The C FAA re quire s tha

t a de fe nda

nt “ a c c e ss[] ” a

prote c te d c om

p ute r without
a uthoriz ation or “ e xc e e d[] a uthoriz e d a c c e ss.” Se e 18 U.S.C . § 1030(a )(4). As lowe r c ourts ha

ve re a sone d, use rs who ha d “ volunta rily insta lle d” softwa

re tha t
a lle ge dly c a use d ha rm c annot ple a d una

uthoriz e d “ a c c e ss” unde r the C FAA. Se e , e .g. , In reiPhone

Applic ation Litig. , 844 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1066 (N.D. C a l. 2012) (c iting c a se s). B e c a

use Pla intiffs volunta

rily insta lle d the re le v ant softwa re upda te ,
1 1Pla i ntiffs c annot a lle g e a c tiona b le “ a c c e ss” unde r the C FAA. Ac c ordingly , we
a ffirm the dism issa l of this c la i m . 3

Fifte e nth Claim (Unjust E nr ic hm e nt) The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the fifte e nth c la im for unjust
e nric hm e nt. “ The phra se ‘ Unjust Enric hm e nt’ doe s not de s c ribe a the o ry of
re c o ve ry , but a

n e ffe c t: the re s ult of a

fa ilure to m a

ke re stitution unde

r
c irc um s ta nc e s whe re it is e quita

ble to do so.” Me lc hior v

. N e w Line Prods., Inc

. , 131 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 347, 357 (C t. App. 2003) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks
om i tte d). “ It is sy

nony m ous with re stitution.” Id. (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). R e stitution “ will not be

give n whe n

the pla intiff’ s re m e die s at la w
are a de quate .” C

ollins v . e Mac hs., Inc

. , 134 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 588, 596-97 (C t. App. 2011) (c ita

tions omitte d ). In light of the

a de quat e le ga l re m e die s a va ila ble , Pla intiffs c annot sta

t e a
c la im for unjust e nric hm e nt. To thee xte nt Pla intiffs se e k to re c o ve r m o ne y tha t the y m ay have pre pa i d to Sony for use in c o nne c t ion with the PSN, an d whic h the y

“ lost” whe n

the y c ould no longer a c c e ss the PSN, we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt

3 W e “ will not ordina

rily c onside r m atte rs on a

p pe a l tha t a re not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly

argue d in a

ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f.” C

lark v . TimeW

arne r C able , 523 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th C ir. 2008) (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om i tte d). W e a ffirm

the dism issa l of the fourte e nth c la im for c onve rsion be c a

use Pla i ntiffs’ ope n ing brie f doe s not disc uss the dism i ssa l of this c la im
. 1 2that

“ Pla intiffs ha

ve fa ile d to sta

te a c la im for re stitution or da

m a g e s be c a

use , am ong othe r things, they

have not a lle g e d

suffic i e nt fa c ts a s to the te rm s and
c onditions on whic

h the y pa id m onie s to Sony .” Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the dism issa l of this c la im
. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

1 3