Grand Theft Auto Gamers Fight Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging that an online feature was not immediately available after they purchased Grand Theft Auto V asked a federal judge to keep their case alive, arguing that they relied on the representations about the feature when making their purchase.

Plaintiffs alleged in their 2013 class action lawsuit that they purchased the Grand Theft Auto video game but were unaware that they wouldn’t be able to compete with other game owners online.

According to the class action, GTA’s maker Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. advertised that the game would be able to be played by up to 16 people online at a time. The class action was dismissed, but ultimately revived by the Ninth Circuit.

Take-Two asked the federal court to dismiss the case arguing that the plaintiffs hadn’t adequately relied on the ability to play with other gamers online in making their purchase.

The company said the plaintiffs’ assertion of reliance was “imaginary” and that a two week wait to play the game online did not cause the proposed Class of gamers any harm.

The plaintiffs shot back, arguing that the software company is attempting to relitigate issues already decided by the Ninth Circuit.

“The fact is that the defendants are now attempting to relitigate many of the same theories that were advanced and rejected in their first round of 12(b) attacks on plaintiffs‘ complaints by the Ninth Circuit, in an effort to clutter and confuse the reliance issue now before this court,” contended the plaintiffs in their motion. “The defendants either completely ignore the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or they are misleading and dishonest when referring to it.”

The gamers went on to assert that they had developed a “coherent, plausible theory of reliance” that they had depended on representations that they would be able to play the video game online immediately after paying a premium price. They say their arguments are sound and based on the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

“Specifically, defendants made fraudulent statements that [Grand Theft Auto V] was immediately available for online play and plaintiffs relied on these fraudulent statements at the time of purchase,” argue the plaintiffs in their motion.

According to the plaintiffs, the class action should not be dismissed because, in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, they demonstrated that they relied on representations that they would be able to play online immediately after purchase.

“Plaintiffs have unambiguously alleged that Defendants misrepresented the performance of the game for which they paid a premium price and that had they and other consumers been properly warned about the unavailability of the [Grand Theft Auto V] Online feature, they would not have purchased the game for the premium price and/or would have sought a refund from the retailer, if it were possible, which it was not,” the motion states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Lawrence of The Law Offices of Jeffrey R. Lawrence, Rex Sofonio of Sofonio & Associates and James R. Hawkins of James Hawkins PC.

The Grand Theft Auto V Class Action Lawsuit is Bruce McMahon, et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-02032, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.