McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.

Background

Antonio McKinney and Clint Sundeen alleged that Corsair Gaming, Inc.’s packaging and advertisements for computer-memory products made deceptive and misleading statements. They asserted common-law claims and claims under California and 43 other states’ consumer-protection laws. The plaintiffs alleged that Corsair labeled certain Vengeance and Dominator memory products with specific megahertz speeds, but that the products did not operate at those advertised speeds under ordinary conditions.

After the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, Corsair renewed its motion to dismiss and motion to strike. The renewed motion challenged omission claims, claims concerning products the plaintiffs did not purchase, national and multistate class claims, and breach-of-express-warranty claims.

Omission Claims

The court dismissed the omission claims without leave to amend. Under the court’s prior ruling, the plaintiffs had to allege either an unreasonable safety hazard or a defect that was material and central to the product’s function, along with one of the required circumstances supporting a duty to disclose.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the memory’s lower-than-advertised speed was a defect central to the product’s function. Allegations that speed was the most important measure of memory performance and a major factor in price did not establish that the product was incapable of use at a lower speed. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had previously been given an opportunity to amend these allegations and had not done so.

The court stated that the plaintiffs’ separate misrepresentation allegations were not challenged by this motion and were plausibly pleaded. The ruling therefore addressed the omission theory, not the unchallenged misrepresentation allegations.

Products the Plaintiffs Did Not Purchase

The court denied Corsair’s motion as to unpurchased DDR-4 products. A plaintiff may pursue claims involving products the plaintiff did not purchase when the claims are substantially similar to the injuries involving purchased products. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged this similarity for DDR-4 products because both plaintiffs purchased DDR-4 memory advertised at 3200 megahertz, both alleged that the products operated by default at 2133 megahertz, and both alleged that attempts to reach the advertised speed caused their computers to crash.

The court granted Corsair’s motion as to unpurchased DDR-5 products. Neither plaintiff had purchased DDR-5 memory, and the complaint did not allege a standard DDR-5 speed, that every DDR-5 product operated by default at 4800 megahertz, or facts showing that DDR-4 and DDR-5 products were substantially similar. The court dismissed the DDR-5 claims without leave to amend because the plaintiffs had already had an opportunity to amend.

National and Multistate Class Claims

The court granted the motion to strike the national and multistate class allegations. Corsair argued that California’s choice-of-law rules required the court to apply the laws of the states where class members made their purchases. The court applied California’s governmental-interest test, which compares the relevant laws, the states’ interests, and which state’s interests would be most impaired if its law were not applied.

The court found meaningful differences among the consumer-protection laws of California and the other states, including differences in statutes of limitations, notice requirements, and whether class actions are allowed. It also found a true conflict because the other states had interests in regulating purchases made within their borders. The court concluded that those states’ interests outweighed California’s interest in applying its law to those transactions. It struck the national and multistate class claims without leave to amend.

Express-Warranty Claims

The court granted Corsair’s motion to dismiss the express-warranty claims because the plaintiffs had not specified which state’s law applied. The court allowed amendment so the plaintiffs could clarify that the claims were brought under California law.

The court separately concluded that the claims would survive a motion to dismiss under California law. An express warranty is a specific statement or promise about a product that becomes part of the bargain. The plaintiffs alleged that Corsair’s packaging and product pages made unqualified statements identifying particular memory speeds and that consumers would reasonably understand those statements to mean the memory would run at those speeds.

The court held that these allegations plausibly identified an explicit guarantee of memory speed. It therefore granted leave to amend the express-warranty claims to plead that they were brought under California law.

Disposition

The court granted Corsair’s motion to dismiss as to the omission claims, unpurchased DDR-5 products, national and multistate class allegations, and express-warranty claims. It denied the motion as to unpurchased DDR-4 products. The plaintiffs could file an amended complaint within 21 days. Leave to amend was denied for all other dismissed claims.