Apple Sued over Offering Loot Boxes in App Store

In recent years, in mobile games and other electronic games, corporate claims that liability for damages from "Rutbox" should be sniffed to game publishers, including game creators and platforms, have become frequent. "Rutbox" refers to an object with contingent revenue, which, in principle, is the probability that a high-probability user will receive a "normal" object and get a long or huge profit below it. In three recent cases, the defendants have disputed the statement that rutbox is actually illegal gambling in conjunction with the laws of California or Washington, and in each case, it was once reached and at the same time the results were partly for different reasons. All three cases are at the appeal stage, highlighting the opportunity given by the 9th District Federal Court of Appeals to clarify rutbox law in California and Washington.

Taylor v. Apple

In the case of Taylor v. Apple, Rebecca Taylor and it had not reached the age of majority of the descendants of Si Ti, in fact, these Irge Brawl-Star's Ratboxes suggest "illegal gambling devices" according to California law. California Penal Code Section 330B(d)(3) defines these illegal slot machines as "devices that may be taken or used by a user in the force of any drug threat or accident. The user may take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that may be used to take or use any drug threat or accident that is ... 1 The plaintiffs' claims were not satisfied in their entirety because they lacked the right to complain to Apple in concert with UCL. The alleged harm K. T. claimed was not applicable at the time when he purchased the in-game virtual currency units, on the back of which Apple derived a direct benefit. Instead, the alleged harm emerged when K. T. later used those virtual currency units to purchase Luta boxes in Brawl Stars, the court explained.

As a candidate, the court has determined that the plaintiff's appeal is not yet comfortable because Brawl Stars did not have the ability to be a gambling machine based on the California State Law. As mentioned earlier, the California Law explains that illegal gambling can effectively get valuable baggage based on the cause of the user. More than that, Article 330B (F) explains that "mainly regarded as a game of skills ... entertainment aircraft" is not included in the concept of gambling. It is not included in the concept of slot machines or equipment. " The court is 1) the virtual object in this IRGE is not considered "valuable", which is not a "real prize that can be transferred to a (game) object", but an accident in the box of Luta is 2). He concluded that Braw l-stars is not considered a gambling device because there is no possibility of being distributed from a more solid game in dexterity.

However, it is noteworthy that in fact, the court has rejected Apple's claims in cooperation with Article 230 of the Communications decision law. In accordance with Article 230, the proposed provider through online is not likely to be responsible, as if it were a content 3 publisher. The second instance has revealed that Apple has no opportunity to be exempted by Article 230.

On January 4, 2022, the court requested Apple to reject the claimant claim for a violation of the law. The court was adopted in all points (added that (existing) laws were not directly prohibited, including the refusal of Apple's defone based on Article 230). 3.

The plaintiff's appeal was made on February 7, 2022. 4 Apple asserted that it was necessary to obtain no n-consumption based on Article 230 as an application, and filed a relatively counterclaim.

Coffee vs Google

What is the day when Apple's lawsuit was submitted, and the lawyer of the same plasty submitted a timely complaint with coffee vs. Google, No 5: 20-CV-03901-BLF (n. D. Cal. June 2020 On the 12th), Google realized the same requirements for Google, as it seemed to have achieved a game with Lutboxes and received 30 % of the redemption. Plaintiff John-Coffee actually maintains $ 500 on all types of games, and plaintiff May-Lin Montanes is $ 100 for her age, Dragon Ball Z, and Dockan Battle Lutboxes He calculated that he had not reached his son and was packed.

On February 20, 2021, the Court (with Chief Justice Freeman as Chief Judge) dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, reaching substantially the same conclusion as in Taylor, but for different reasons. Unlike Taylor, the Coffee Court held that Google had immunity from Section 230 litigation because the plaintiffs had asked Google for a responsible interest in the publication of their content, i. e., permission to access the Rootbox. 5 Furthermore, the Court concluded, as in Taylor, that the plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims in Coffee were not yet comfortable because they had only purchased virtual currency units from Google and had the virtual currency units they paid for. Thus, the plaintiffs had no legal capacity under UCL and no opportunity to show resale of a product or offer because the CLRA is indistinguishable.

On January 10, 2022, the Court reached a conclusion related to the amended claims and dismissed them in favor of the action. In this order, the court, in addition to Taylor, reached the conclusion that the Lutobox is not considered illegal gambling: "Based on the corresponding case law, it is not considered valuable according to the California law on gambling, and if there is a revolutionary non-availability of all case law conclusions, the court reaches the conclusion that the Lutobox is not actually considered an illegal slot machine in conjunction with the law of the State of California. 6

The plaintiff's appeal was registered on February 11, 2022. 7

G. G. v. Valve Corp.

In 2016, G. G., along with her son who has not reached the age of majority, other guardians and their adults and children, filed a lawsuit in a Washington court, stating that Valve has not complied with all kinds of laws, has illegal influence, and has sold Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:Go) with "skins" (cosmetic enhancements for game weapons) in this IRGE, and roving the box so that users can run it using the skins as casino-chips through the readers of the game site.

After being transferred to the Federal District Court (Kugenur, J.), I filed a motion to compel arbitration against Valve (based on Valve's terms of use). However, the arbitration was supposed to be a women's matter, the USA Appellation Tribunal for the Ninth District decided that the Guardian was not in fact considered to have had any opportunity to have my complaint considered in court. 8

After repeated review, the plaintiffs stated that Valve had not complied with the Washington State Act on Protection of Customer Rights and the Washington State Act on Gambling of 1973, had engaged in unjust enrichment, and was negligent.

On December 16, 2020, the court (Judge Robert) almost dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The negligence was rejected because the plaintiff could not prove that the "video game company" had a "game player parent". The request for the Washington Gaming Law was rejected because there was no private rights based on the law. 9. The claims (partially) and the claim for unfair gain on the Gaming Skin have already determined that there is no evidence to show the relationship between Valve and third party gaming sites. It became.

However, the court said that the arbitrator did not decide on this issue, and the plaintiffs designed a loot box to have a slot machine exterior, feel, and sound. Incorporated this system into CS: Go, did not disclose the possibility of getting the most valuable items in the loot box and the value of the loot box item could change. " As a result, the plaintiffs' claims on the Washington Consumer Protection Law about the loot box have been decided. 10

On January 7, 2022, the court made a ruling on Valve in the loot box litigation, assuming that the plaintiff's damage was due to fraud, based on the Washington Consumer Protection Law. I got it. The plaintiff's parents had never read the Valve statement besides the credit card statement, so they could not prove that they were misunderstood due to misunderstanding or misconduct. 11

G. G.'s "G. G. V. Valve" was sued on February 4, 2022. 12 On December 16, 2020, the court (Judge Robert) rejected the plaintiff's claim. The negligence was rejected because the plaintiff could not prove that the "video game company" had a "game player parent". The request for the Washington Gaming Law was rejected because there was no private rights based on the law. 9. The claims (partially) and the claim for unfair gain on the Gaming Skin have already determined that there is no evidence to show the relationship between Valve and third party gaming sites. It became.

However, the court said that the arbitrator did not decide on this issue, and the plaintiffs designed a loot box to have a slot machine exterior, feel, and sound. Incorporated this system into CS: Go, did not disclose the possibility of getting the most valuable items in the loot box and the value of the loot box item could change. " As a result, the plaintiffs' claims on the Washington Consumer Protection Law about the loot box have been decided. 10

On January 7, 2022, the court made a ruling on Valve in the loot box litigation, assuming that the plaintiff's damage was due to fraud, based on the Washington Consumer Protection Law. I got it. The plaintiff's parents had never read the Valve statement besides the credit card statement, so they could not prove that they were misunderstood due to misunderstanding or misconduct. 11

G. G.'s "G. G. V. Valve" was sued on February 4, 2022. On December 16, 122020, the court (Judge Robert) almost rejected the plaintiff's claim. The negligence was rejected because the plaintiff could not prove that the "video game company" had a "game player parent". The request for the Washington Gaming Law was rejected because there was no private rights based on the law. 9. The claims (partially) and the claim for unfair gain on the Gaming Skin have already determined that there is no evidence to show the relationship between Valve and third party gaming sites. It became.

However, the court said that the arbitrator did not decide on this issue, and the plaintiffs designed a loot box to have a slot machine exterior, feel, and sound. Incorporated this system into CS: Go, did not disclose the possibility of getting the most valuable items in the loot box and the value of the loot box item could change. " As a result, the plaintiffs' claims on the Washington Consumer Protection Law about the loot box have been decided. 10

On January 7, 2022, the court made a ruling on Valve in the loot box litigation, assuming that the plaintiff's damage was due to fraud, based on the Washington Consumer Protection Law. I got it. The plaintiff's parents had never read Valve's statement besides credit card statements, so they could not prove that they were misunderstood due to misunderstanding or failure. 11

G. G.'s "G. G. V. Valve" was sued on February 4, 2022. 12

As mentioned above, these three trials are currently being deliberated in the 9th District Federal Court. The court considers Kater V. Churchill Downloads Inc. 13, and the court is gambling and the sales of virtual chips lost by Churchill Downs. To the state law Violation has ruled that the user could regain the cost of the lost "chips" in the application. 14 However, these cases (taylers, coffee, jiji) in the Robel box are different from the big fish casino case. Big Fish Casino is a slot machine game, and the chips seem to be used only to play other slots. The Big Fish Casino resembled a real casino, so the ninth district has opened a conclusion and made the defendant's claim humorous. Like Captain Renault, Captain Renault, he is shocked, like Captain Renault in Casablanca. Most games can earn money using virtual currency in the game, including purchases as a small and convenient game.

Despite the fact that such a trial was not successful, the plaintiff has been claiming a group over the Luto box. On February 25, 2022, the defendant TWO reminded the plaintiff and his minor daughter, and in that, the tak e-two purchased a rat box in either tak e-t o-two games. He states that there is an obligation to compensate for damages, because these rat boxes are "gambling that players buy in defendants in defendants, and thus the New York law is illegal gambling." Ta. 15

We continue to monitor the progress of events related to rat boxes and similar functions in tak e-t o-games, including the above three reports, and provide even the latest information as needed.

If you have any questions about the lob boxes, random or other rewards of games or interactive products, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Handelman, Christopher Panevski, Brian Levy or other lawyers in the Electronic Games Group. Article 230, please contact our lawyer who specializes in Internet strategies and trials for additional information on electronic commerce, computer software, equipment, games and entertainment.

[1] Taylor v. Apple, No 3: 20-CV-03906-RS (n. D. Cal. 19 MARCH 2021), ECF No 46.

[2] с. Supreme Court, Communications Law, Judgment of California Supreme, Wilson Sonsini GOODRICH & AMP ;; ROSAMP OURT RULES THAT SECTION 230 of Communications Decents Courts from Orderine Services to Remove Negative-User-Reviews, Wilson Sonsini GOODRICH & AMP; OSATI (6 juli 2018), https: // www. -COURT-RULES-THAT SECTION-OF-COMMUNCTIONS-PREVENTS-someLine-Service-Negative-Rev IEWS. html.

[3] Apple, Inc., No. 20-CV-03906-RS, 2022 U. S. Dist. Lexis 1468 (Nd Cal. 4 Januari 2022).

[4] NR. 22-15180 (9E CIR.).

[5] с. Met "коф напот г LLC", № 20-CV-03901-BLF, 2021 U. S. DIST. Lexis 26750 (N. D. Cal. 10 Februari 2021).

[6] коф напот г LLC, № 20-CV-03901-BLF, 2022 U. S. Dist. Lexis 4791, OP *40-41 (N. D. Cal. 10 Januari 2022).

[7] nr. 22-15211 (9E Cir.).

[8] с. Door G. G. напот Valve Corp. 799 F. APP'X 557 (9E CIR. 2020).

[9] с. Door G. G. напот Valve Corp. C16-1941JLR, 2020 U. S. Dist. Lexis 236755 (W. D. Wash. 16 Dec. 2020).

[10] G. G. V. Valve Corp. 2020 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 236755, OP *23.

[11] с. G. G. Valve Corp. C16-1941JLR, 2022 U. S. Dist. Lexis 3656 (W. D. Wash. 7 JAN. 2022).