Battlefield 4 class action suit never fires first shot
This is sure to increase the Electronic Arts legal teams gamer score: An attempted class action lawsuit against the company for Battlefield 4 problems has stalled.
February 28, 2014 at 06:06 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is sure to increase the Electronic Arts (EA) legal team's gamer score: An attempted class action lawsuit against the company for problems surrounding the release of Battlefield 4 has stalled before it could ever get off the ground.
In December, securities law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a complaint in U.S. district court that claimed EA willfully misled purchasers into buying the game despite knowing that it had multiple issues upon release. The game launched on Oct. 29 with a number of bugs, and the game's servers were hit with a DDOS attack in November that hampered customers' ability to play even further.
But now, Gamespot reports that all mention of the lawsuit has been scrubbed from the law firm's website. In addition, the firm has not responded to any request for comment from the gaming website, whether through voicemail or email.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd had 60 days after the initial complaint for a lead plaintiff to come forward in order for the case to proceed as a class action lawsuit. However, it seems that lead plaintiff never actually materialized. As such, the case is now functionally dead.
At the time of the initial complaint, EA told Gamespot that the accusations were “meritless” and that “We intend to aggressively defend ourselves, and we're confident the court will dismiss the complaint in due course.”
The attempted class action lawsuit claimed that EA CEO Peter Moore had willfully misled customers by claiming in a July 23, 2013, conference call that “[w]e couldn't be happier with the quality of the games our teams are producing or the early reception those games are getting from critics and consumers.” The suit had planned to include plaintiffs who had purchased EA stock between the following day, July 24, and Dec. 4, 2013.
In January, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein also announced a similar proposed class action lawsuit against EA. The law firm's website claims that it accepted applications for lead plaintiff until Feb. 18, 2014, but there is no word whether the move was successful.
For more on securities litigation, check out these InsideCounsel articles:
SCOTUS will allow fraud victims to sue all entities involved with Stanford Ponzi scheme
Wells Fargo decreases expected litigation expenses by $50 million
Morgan Stanley could pay $275 million financial crisis settlement to SEC
Western Union under investigation for possible connection to fraud
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
