Original:  On October 17, 2005, before the effectivity of the challenged Act, plaintiffs Video Software Dealers Association, the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $32 billion home entertainment industry and Entertainment Software Association, a 1994 US trade association of the video game industry have filed lawsuit (D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) against the defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy, City Attorney for the City of San Jose, Richard Doyle, and County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, Ann Miller Ravel. Paul Cappuccio EVP and General Counsel of Time Warner and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals Plaintiffs' counsel, Jenner & Block's Paul M. Smith has filed a declaratory relief to invalidate the newly-enacted California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 (the “Act”), on the grounds that it allegedly violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs have submitted that "the Act unconstitutionally curtailed freedom of expression on its face based on content regulation and the labeling requirement, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated equal protection. California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children." By December 2005, both bills had been struck down as unconstitutional, by Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, thereby preventing either from going into effect on January 1, 2006. Judge Whyte has granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in "Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger," 401 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2005), and cross-motions for summary judgment, in "Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger," No. C-05-04188, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007). Similar bills were subsequently filed in such states as Illinois, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan and Louisiana have been ruled to be unconstitutional by federal courts on First Amendment grounds, according to Sean Bersell, a spokesman for the Entertainment Merchants Association. The defendants, in the instant Case No. 07-16620, have timely appealed the judgment. On October 29, 2008, the appealed case was argued and submitted to the Sacramento, California's U.S. Court of Appeals, hence, the promulgation of the instant 30 pages decision (No. 07-16620; D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sidney R. Thomas and Consuelo M. Callahan (who wrote the court's opinion), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judges. In the ban’s defense, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Zackery Morazzini has contended that "if governments restrict the sale of pornography to minors, it should also create a separate category for ultra-violent video games." , California Attorney General, has also argued that "the Court should analyze the Act’s restrictions under what has been called the 'variable obscenity' or 'obscenity as to minors' standard first mentioned in Ginsberg, 390 U.S. 629. The Court’s reasoning in Ginsberg that a state could prohibit the sale of sexually-explicit material to minors that it could not ban from distribution to adults should be extended to materials containing violence." The "Fallo" or dispositive portion of the judgment in question goes as follows: "We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," said the law's author, Sen. Leland Yee, announcing he wanted Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr., the current Attorney General and a former governor of the State of California, to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Letting the industry police itself is like letting kids sign their own report cards and that a self regulating system simply doesn't work. I've always contended that the ... law the governor signed was a good one for protecting children from the harm from playing these ultra-violent video games. I've always felt it would end up in the Supreme Court," Sen. Yee explained. "In fact, the high court recently agreed, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development," he added. According to Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, plaintiff, the Court's ruling has stressed that parents, with assistance from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play. "This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement. Entertainment Software Association members include Disney Interactive Studios, Electronic Arts, Microsoft Corp, THQ Inc, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Take-Two Interactive Software, the maker of “Grand Theft Auto” games. Judge Callahan has also reprimanded state lawyers for having failed to show any reasonable alternatives to an outright statewide ban against the ultra-violent video games. "Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content," said Bo Andersen, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Merchants Association. Andersen continues, "retailers are committed to assisting parents in assuring that children do not purchase games that are not appropriate for their age. Independent surveys show that retailers are doing a very good job in this area, with an 80 percent enforcement rate, and retailers will continue to work to increase enforcement rates even further; the court has correctly noted that the state cannot simply dismiss these efforts." California was already forced to pay $ 282,794 to the ESA for attorneys' fees, money that would've helped with the state's current budget difficulties.
Revised:  On October 17, 2005, before the effectivity of the challenged Act, plaintiffs Video Software Dealers Association, the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $32 billion and , a 1994 US of the have filed lawsuit (D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) against the defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, , Edmund G. Brown, Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy, City Attorney for the City of San Jose, Richard Doyle, and County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, Ann Miller Ravel. [[File:Paul_Cappuccio_and_Judge_Alex_Kozinski_(2319191300).jpg|Paul Cappuccio EVP and General Counsel of and Judge of the Plaintiffs' counsel, 's has filed a to invalidate the newly-enacted sections 1746-1746.5 (the “Act”), on the grounds that it allegedly violated 42 § 1983 and the and . Plaintiffs have submitted that "the Act unconstitutionally curtailed on its face based on content regulation and the labeling requirement, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated equal protection. California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children." By December 2005, both bills had been struck down as unconstitutional, by , District Judge, Presiding in the in , thereby preventing either from going into effect on January 1, 2006. Judge Whyte has granted plaintiffs’ motion for a in "Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger," 401 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2005), and cross-motions for , in "Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger," No. C-05-04188, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007). Similar bills were subsequently filed in such states as Illinois, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan and Louisiana have been ruled to be unconstitutional by federal courts on First Amendment grounds, according to Sean Bersell, a spokesman for the Entertainment Merchants Association. The defendants, in the instant Case No. 07-16620, have timely appealed the . On October 29, 2008, the appealed case was argued and submitted to the 's , hence, the promulgation of the instant 30 pages decision (No. 07-16620; D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) by , Chief Judge, and (who wrote the court's opinion), Judges. In the ban’s defense, for the State of California, Zackery Morazzini has contended that "if governments restrict the sale of pornography to minors, it should also create a separate category for ultra-violent video games." , , has also argued that "the Court should analyze the Act’s restrictions under what has been called the 'variable obscenity' or 'obscenity as to minors' standard first mentioned in Ginsberg, 390 U.S. 629. The Court’s reasoning in Ginsberg that a state could prohibit the sale of sexually-explicit material to minors that it could not ban from distribution to adults should be extended to materials containing violence." The "Fallo" or dispositive portion of the in question goes as follows: "We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," said the law's author, Sen. Leland Yee, announcing he wanted , the current and a former of the State of California, to appeal the decision to the . "Letting the industry police itself is like letting kids sign their own report cards and that a self regulating system simply doesn't work. I've always contended that the ... law the governor signed was a good one for protecting children from the harm from playing these ultra-violent video games. I've always felt it would end up in the Supreme Court," Sen. Yee explained. "In fact, the high court recently agreed, in (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development," he added. According to , president of the , plaintiff, the Court's ruling has stressed that parents, with assistance from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play. "This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement. Entertainment Software Association members include , , , , America, and Software, the maker of games. Judge Callahan has also reprimanded state lawyers for having failed to show any reasonable alternatives to an outright statewide ban against the ultra-violent video games. "Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content," said Bo Andersen, president and chief executive of the . Andersen continues, "retailers are committed to assisting parents in assuring that children do not purchase games that are not appropriate for their age. Independent surveys show that retailers are doing a very good job in this area, with an 80 percent enforcement rate, and retailers will continue to work to increase enforcement rates even further; the court has correctly noted that the state cannot simply dismiss these efforts." California was already forced to pay $ 282,794 to the ESA for attorneys' fees, money that would've helped with the state's current budget difficulties.
Edit intent: meaning-changed