Swift v. Zynga

Last updated
Swift v. Zynga
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameSwift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc. et al
Docket nos.3:09-cv-05443

Swift v. Zynga is an ongoing class action lawsuit filed in 2009, based on allegedly deceptive ads that ran in Zynga games on Facebook. [1] [2] A motion by Zynga to dismiss the case was denied by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2010. [3]

Contents

Factual background

Zynga is a developer of popular online games such as FarmVille , Mafia Wars , Yoworld and ZyngaPoker. [4] These games allow players to spend virtual currency to take in-game actions and purchase virtual goods. Currency is metered out through the game itself, and additional currency can be purchased directly, or earned by completing special offers with Zynga and its business partners. [5]

The plaintiff, Rebecca Swift, alleges that she played Zynga games and participated in multiple special offers run by Zynga's partner Adknowledge. In April 2009 she allegedly provided her cell phone number as requested by one of these offers, in order to be texted a code redeemable for YoCash, in-game currency in Zynga's YoVille! game. She subsequently received four charges of $9.99 billed to her cell phone from April 16, 2009, onward, without her knowledge or consent. [6]

Additionally, on June 14, 2009, Rebecca signed up for a second special offer, a "risk-free Grean Tea Purity Trial." The offer promised YoCash in exchange for participation in the risk-free trial, and stipulated that the trial could be cancelled anytime within 15 days of sign-up. Rebecca provided her debit card number and was charged an initial $5.95 for shipping and handling. Ten days later she sent an email asking to cancel the subscription, after receiving a shipment of green tea pills and tea bags. On July 4 Rebecca received an email indicating she would be charged an additional $79.95, despite her request to cancel. She was unable to contact the sender by telephone, and on July 6 was billed for the $79.95 plus a foreign transaction fee. On July 20, she was billed again, resulting in total charges of $176.56. [6]

Procedural background

Rebecca Swift filed a putative class action on November 19, 2009, claiming Facebook, Zynga, and AdKnowledge profited from "highly misleading" ads. [6] Outside experts initially voiced the opinion that both Facebook and Zynga would be immune to legal action under provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). [7] Swift withdrew her action against Facebook in January 2010, though court records showed that the case was dismissed without prejudice and could in theory be re-filed. [8] A First Amended Complaint was filed by Swift on February 10, 2010, which claimed violation of the Unfair Competition Law, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment.

Both Zynga and AdKnowledge separately moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Swift’s claims are barred by the CDA, but the motion was denied by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in a November 3rd, 2010 ruling. [9]

AdKnowledge separately claimed that Swift failed to sufficiently identify AdKnowledge's role in the alleged fraud. AdKnowledge also argued that Swift's unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed. Finally, AdKnowledge moved to strike Swift's class allegations. AdKnowledge's claim and both motions were denied.

Court's reading of CDA immunity and reaction

In evaluating Zynga's motion to dismiss, the court looked to the Roommates.com ruling (521 F.3d at 1161-1162). Through the lens of that ruling, the court determined that Swift's allegations could, if proven, support the conclusion that Zynga was responsible for creating or developing the content at issue. Specifically, Swift asserts that the virtual currency offered in the ads is the most important "content" found within them, and that Zynga further contributed to their development by specifying the design, layout, and format of the offers. [10]

When evaluating AdKnowledge's immunity claim, the court found that it was unable to determine whether it is entitled to CDA immunity, an evaluation which it judged to be a fact-based inquiry.

Several law blogs have remarked on the failure to dismiss for CDA immunity as a potentially far-reaching shift in the law, claiming that it marks a departure from standard case law and could require websites to take extra steps to ensure their immunity. [11] [12]

Changes by Zynga

Zynga reacted to the broader "scam ads" controversy by removing all "offer" based advertising from its site in 2009. [13] This action was taken after Swift experienced the allegedly fraudulent ads, but before the original complaint in Swift v. Zynga was filed. In January 2010, Zynga reinstated these offer-based promotions. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zango (company)</span>

Zango,, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar, was a software company that provided users access to its partners' videos, games, tools and utilities in exchange for viewing targeted advertising placed on their computers. Zango software is listed as adware by Symantec, and is also labeled as a potentially unwanted program by McAfee. Zango was co-founded by two brothers: Keith Smith, who served as the CEO; and Ken Smith, who served as the CTO.

Strickland v. Sony was a court case that focused on whether violent video games played a role in Devin Moore's first-degree murder/shooting of three people in a police station. In August 2005, former attorney Jack Thompson filed the lawsuit against Sony.

<i>Hepting v. AT&T</i>

Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974, was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the personal communications of American citizens, including AT&T customers, whose communications were routed through AT&T's network.

Tatto Media is an affiliate marketing advertising network based in Boston.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zynga</span> American social game developer

Zynga Inc. is an American developer running social video game services. It was founded in April 2007, with headquarters in San Mateo, California. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games".

<i>FarmVille</i> 2009 video game

FarmVille is a series of agriculture-simulation social network games developed and published by Zynga in 2009. It is similar to Happy Farm and Farm Town. Its gameplay involves various aspects of farmland management, such as plowing land, planting, growing, and harvesting crops, harvesting trees and raising livestock. The sequels FarmVille 2 and FarmVille 3 were released in September 2012 and November 2021, respectively.

<i>Goddard v. Google, Inc.</i>

Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, is a case in which Jenna Goddard ("Plaintiff") alleged that she and a class of similarly situated individuals were harmed by Google ("Defendant") as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services ("MSSPs"). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

A social network game is a type of online game that is played through social networks or social media. They typically feature multiplayer gameplay mechanics. Social network games were originally implemented as browser games. As mobile gaming took off, the games moved to mobile as well. While they share many aspects of traditional video games, social network games often employ additional ones that make them distinct. Traditionally they are oriented to be social games and casual games.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facebook Credits</span>

Facebook Credits was a virtual currency that enabled people to purchase items in games and non-gaming applications on the Facebook Platform. One U.S. dollar was the equivalent of 10 Facebook Credits. Facebook Credits were available in 15 currencies including U.S. dollars, pound sterling, euros, and Danish kroner. Facebook was hoping eventually to expand Credits into a micropayment system open to any Facebook application, whether a game or a media company application. Facebook deprecated Credits in favour of users' local currencies.

<i>Lane v. Facebook, Inc.</i>

Lane vs. Facebook was a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California regarding internet privacy and social media. In December 2007, Facebook launched Beacon, which resulted in users' private information being posted on Facebook without the users' consent. Facebook ended up terminating the Beacon program and created a $9.5 million fund for privacy and security. There was no monetary compensation awarded to Facebook users affected negatively by the Beacon program.

<i>Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC</i> US legal case

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, is case in which the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Roommates material development test for limiting immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones, formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben–Gals cheerleader, against Dirty World, LLC, operator of the celebrity gossip web site TheDirty.com, concerning two postings on TheDirty.com that Dirty World refused to remove.

<i>Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.</i>

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) rules that Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party. Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes made claims arising out of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.'s alleged failure to honor promises to remove offensive content about the plaintiff posted by a third party. The content consisted of a personal profile with nude photos of the Plaintiff and her contact information. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had dismissed Barnes' complaint.

<i>Young v. Facebook, Inc.</i>

Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110, is a pro se internet law case in which the plaintiff sued the social network Facebook following the termination of her user account. In her original complaint, the plaintiff, Karen Beth Young, alleged violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fraud. In the U.S. District Court of Northern California, Facebook moved to dismiss the claim, and on October 25, 2010, presiding Judge Jeremy Fogel granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Redirecting her complaint, Young alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws on disability, as well as breach of contract and negligence. Again, Facebook moved to dismiss, and Judge Fogel dismissed the case without leave to amend.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backpage</span> Defunct classified advertising website

Backpage.com was a classified advertising website founded in 2004 by the alternative newspaper chain New Times Inc./New Times Media as a rival to Craigslist.

The Ville is a defunct game by Zynga released on June 30, 2012 in which the object was to earn experience points by building a house and talking with neighbors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Bachman</span> American entrepreneur and investor

Andrew Bachman is an American entrepreneur and investor. He is the founder of several companies, including Game Plan Holdings; after being charged with mobile cramming by the Federal Trade Commission, he resigned as president, chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chairman of Game Plan Holdings on February 11, 2014. He later agreed to a settlement with the FTC that includes a monetary judgment of more than $97 million. The judgment was partially suspended based on Bachman’s inability to pay the full amount, after he turned over nearly all of his assets.

Chartboost is a San Francisco-based mobile game in-app programmatic advertising and monetization platform. Chartboost SDK enables developers to monetize on their mobile apps and connect advertisers to global in-app inventory. Chartboost's platform allows video game developers to create customized interstitial and video ads to promote new games. Developers have direct access to game data derived from Chartboost-enabled games. As of 2016, Chartboost had been integrated into more than 300,000 games with 40 billion game sessions per month.

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".

Meta Platforms, formerly Facebook, Inc., has been involved in multiple lawsuits since its founding in 2004.

References

  1. "Complaint, Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc. et al" (PDF). PacerMonitor. PacerMonitor. Retrieved 16 June 2016.
  2. Lawsuit says ads in social games are scamming players. From USA Today. Retrieved on March 03, 2011.
  3. Judge Denies Zynga's Request to Dismiss Scam Suit. From Gamasutra. Retrieved on March 03, 2011
  4. Zynga Games. From Zynga. Retrieved on March 03, 2011
  5. Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem of Hell. From TechCrunch. Retrieved on February 26, 2011.
  6. 1 2 3 Swift V Zynga, No. C 09-05443 SBA (N.D.C. November 17, 2009). From Archive.org. Retrieved on March 03, 2011
  7. Experts Say Facebook, Zynga Have Defense To 'Scam' Ads from MediaPost. Retrieved February 27, 2011
  8. 'Scamville' Lawsuit Against Facebook Dropped from MediaPost. Retrieved February 27, 2011
  9. Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. From Justia
  10. Swift V Zynga, No. C 09-05443 SBA (N.D.C. November 11, 2010). From Archive.org. Retrieved on March 03, 2011
  11. Website Immunity Under the CDA §230 in the 9th Circuit: Veering Toward Uncertainty from woodfordiplaw.com. Retrieved on February 27, 2011
  12. Ad Networks Can't Get 47 USC 230 Defense on Motion to Dismiss--Swift v. Zynga from Eric Goldman's Technology and Law Marketing Blog. Retrieved on February 27, 2011
  13. Zynga: We're Banning All Offers From Games from Business Insider. Retrieved March 02, 2011
  14. Zynga to Bring Back Offers for In-Game Money!. From Unigamesity. Retrieved on March 03, 2011