I.C. v. Zynga, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-01539
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In I.C. v. Zynga, Judge Rogers denied arbitration without prejudice but granted discovery so Zynga could investigate whether plaintiffs agreed to its terms.
The plaintiffs in the three putative class actions and Zynga Inc. The plaintiffs were ordered to provide account-identification information, while Zynga was permitted to use that discovery in deciding whether to refile its arbitration motion.
What happened
I.C., Carla Johnson, Lisa Thomas, Joseph Martinez IV, and Daniel Petro brought three proposed class actions against Zynga Inc. over a September 2019 breach of Zynga’s player-account database. They alleged violations of various state laws. Zynga argued that the plaintiffs had agreed to terms requiring individual arbitration.
Zynga alternatively asked to obtain information identifying the plaintiffs’ Zynga accounts, including associated email addresses, user IDs, or Facebook IDs. The plaintiffs opposed that discovery, arguing the information was not relevant or necessary to decide whether they accepted the terms. The court found that the available evidence was insufficient to determine which terms, if any, the plaintiffs accepted, but that the requested information could help resolve that question.
In an order dated January 6, 2021, Judge Yvonne Rogers denied Zynga’s motions to compel arbitration without prejudice and granted its motions to compel discovery. The plaintiffs were ordered to provide the requested account-identification information within 14 days. Zynga could refile its arbitration motion after the discovery.
The detailed version
- I.C. v. Zynga, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-01539
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Three proposed class actions concerned a September 2019 breach of Zynga Inc.’s database of player-account information. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and violations of various state statutes and consumer-protection laws. The opinion identifies the plaintiffs as I.C., a minor represented by a natural parent, Nasim Chaudhri, and Amy Gitre in one action; Carla Johnson and Lisa Thomas in another; and Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro in the third.
Zynga moved to compel arbitration under the mandatory arbitration provision in the applicable terms of service. It argued that the plaintiffs were required to arbitrate their claims individually. In the alternative, Zynga moved to compel discovery of the email addresses, user IDs, or Facebook IDs associated with the plaintiffs’ Zynga accounts. Zynga said that this information was needed to identify the correct accounts and verify which terms-of-service screens or notifications the plaintiffs had encountered. The plaintiffs opposed the discovery.
Court’s analysis
The Federal Arbitration Act permits discovery connected to a motion to compel arbitration when whether an arbitration agreement was made is in dispute. The court explained that Zynga’s arbitration motions depended on showing that the plaintiffs agreed to particular terms of service. Zynga’s supporting evidence was based on accounts that had not been verified as belonging to the plaintiffs, and the information then available was insufficient for the court to determine which terms, if any, the plaintiffs accepted.
Because the verified context of the plaintiffs’ interactions with the different terms of service was essential to deciding whether an arbitration agreement was formed, the court concluded that Zynga was entitled to limited discovery on that threshold issue.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers denied Zynga’s motions to compel arbitration without prejudice at that time and granted Zynga’s motions to compel discovery. The plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga’s counsel with the requested information for identifying their Zynga accounts within 14 days of the order. The parties could submit a stipulation for a revised briefing schedule and hearing if Zynga chose to refile its arbitration motion. The order terminated the specified motions in all three cases; it did not decide whether the plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.