Fortnite Player's Mom Sues Sony After Racking Up $1K in Game Purchases in 24 Hours
The class action complaint seeks to hold Sony accountable for "bait games" that target children accountable for enhanced protections against kids making in-game purchases without parental consent.
March 11, 2020 at 04:48 PM
4 minute read
A mom of a Mississippi Fortnite player who is on the hook for $1,000 in fees in the multiplayer video game is representing a proposed class of parents who claim Sony Interactive Entertainment has failed to create effective safeguards to prevent children from making unauthorized purchases on its platform.
Brandi Crawford is suing the San Mateo, California-based company after her 10-year-old used her debit card to purchase more than $1,000 in Fortnite V-bucks within about 24 hours through a PlayStation Network account he created without her approval, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Wednesday.
Despite operating a business model with transactions that "necessarily involve entering into contracts with minors regarding property that is fundamentally not in the minors' possession or control," the complaint alleges that Sony "makes it nearly impossible for minors to obtain refunds for their transactions."
PlayStation Network's terms of service requires users to be the "legal age of majority" or have parental consent to create an account. The user agreement also states that "Funds added to the wallet are non-refundable and non-transferable except where the law requires that we take those actions. We have no obligation to reverse or refund unauthorized charges made using any payment method to fund the wallet."
Sony did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning.
Crawford is seeking monetary restitution and declaratory judgment that a parent or guardian may disaffirm a contract with Sony on behalf of a minor. She also claims the company violated California's Unfair Competition Law and the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act by promoting the games as free "with the intent to induce from minors the purchase of Game Currency."
The lawsuit follows a complaint filed in February 2018 against Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc. claiming the company targets children to profit off their lack of impulse control. The suit, which was originally filed in the Central District of California and transferred to the Eastern District, was dismissed after Epic Games offered to refund money paid by the plaintiff.
Keith Altman, of Excolo Law in Southfield, Michigan, said that the case is a minor disaffirmance problem. "In California, minors have the absolute right to disaffirm even if they've received the benefit of the transaction," Altman said.
But he said he also sees a broader issue at play. "There's this endemic problem of these bait apps," he said. "There are companies out there that function or thrive through advertising to children and getting people to spend money. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting people to spend money, but when you do it so that it's so easy that children without knowing what they're doing can run up these bills, that's a problem."
Altman said that even his own grandchildren have become addicted to these "bait games." Sony's response to parents seeking to refund these purchases has made them feel stupid, according to Altman, who said the company's representatives have allegedly asked customers, "How could you let this happen?"
Altman said he hopes the litigation will push Sony to develop better parental controls and money-back guarantees for children.
"Who would legitimately spend over $1,000 in 24 hours on these games?" he said. "Doesn't that raise a red flag that something is not quite right?"
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
© 2024 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 AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
FTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
Judge Splits Couple's Potential Recoupment of Punitive Damages Against eBay's Harassment Campaign
4 minute readGoogle expert at antitrust trial says ad-dollar competition is underestimated
4 minute readTrending 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