2K Games, Take-Two Seek Dismissal of Virtual Currency Fraud Complaint

2K Games and Take-Two Interactive Software seek dismissal of minor J.A.’s fraud complaint for its “novel argument” that the companies have refused to refund gamers, including children, for their unused in-game virtual currency (see 2311200063), said their motion Friday (docket 3:23-cv-05961) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

J.A. alleges through his mother, Andrea Deams, that when the online game environment for an older game is retired, 2K and Take-Two “are committing conversion, theft, and an unfair business practice” because players would no longer be able to use any virtual currency purchased for use in the online version of the game, said the motion to dismiss. But 2K and Take-Two “are allowed to make business decisions about how their games operate,” the motion said.

In-game virtual currency “is a thing that exists solely within the confines of each of those games,” said the motion. Virtual currency isn’t J.A.’s property, it said. In-game virtual currency transactions “are fictions created by game publishers, subject to the publishers’ terms of service and user agreements,” it said.

J.A.’s claims to property ownership of virtual currency within the games, plus his suggestions that 2K and Take-Two have an obligation to refund unredeemed virtual currency, “are merely conclusory,” and “wholly invented,” said the motion. The complaint doesn’t identify any contract, law, term of sale or use, or any “instrument,” such as a registration of title, supporting J.A.’s “alleged property rights” to the virtual currency, it said.

Nor does the complaint identify in what ways the conduct of 2K and Take-Two “breached any of their obligations,” or how they acted in any manner “inconsistent with their published terms of service or user agreement,” said the motion. J.A. fails to allege facts sufficient to show that 2K and Take-Two “have violated any law,” and the complaint is subject to dismissal, it said.

J.A.’s failure to state a viable claim is “even more evident” in the face of the companies’ “judicially noticeable” terms of service and end user license agreement, said the motion. J.A. “wants to dictate his property rights” to virtual currency in the defendants’ games “without any reference to the terms guiding the use of the games” and defining the nature of in-game virtual currency, it said. But a complaint can’t survive a Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry “by omitting key facts that are problematic” for a plaintiff’s claims, it said.