Esther Leong; v. SQUARE ENIX OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTHER LEONG; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SQUARE ENIX OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation and SQUARE ENIX, INC., a
Washington corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55776
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04484-PSG-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Esther Leong and others (“Purchasers”) who purchased and used the online
game Final Fantasy XI Online appeal the district court’s order dismissing their
action against the game’s publishers, Square Enix of America Holdings, Inc. and
FILED
DEC 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Square Enix, Inc. (“Square Enix”). Reviewing the district court’s order de novo,
see Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that
Purchasers’ claims are without merit.
Purchasers contend that they bought Final Fantasy XI Online without first
being notified that failure to pay the monthly subscription fee for more than three
consecutive months would result in the forfeiture of a user’s online game account
and game characters. However, Purchasers do not sufficiently establish that they
relied upon the nondisclosure of the forfeiture clause in making their initial
purchasing decision. Thus, the alleged harm in purchasing the game and being
unable to return it for a refund is not traceable to Square Enix’s conduct at the
point of sale. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed for lack of standing
the Purchasers’ False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law claims based on the purchase of the game. Additionally,
Purchasers’ allegations are insufficient to show that they forfeited any property or
money; the game’s user agreement, which each user must accept prior to playing
the game, states that users do not own the game software or data. See ER 42 ¶ 4.1
(stating that Square Enix “owns and shall retain all right, title and interest in and to
the PlayOnline Service, the Software and all Documentation, and will be the sole

-- 2 of 3 --

3
owner of any and all data you generate through your use of the PlayOnline
Service.”).
Purchasers also fail to state a claim as to their causes of action under
California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Civ. Code § 1671, unjust enrichment,
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for “illegal penalties,” which are all based
on Square Enix’s enforcement of the forfeiture clause.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --