Blizzard Pushes to Keep Overwatch ‘Loot Box’ Suit Out of Court

Blizzard Entertainment Inc. asked a California appellate court Monday to keep a lawsuit over alleged gambling in one of its games out of court, arguing the plaintiff, a minor, agreed to arbitrate all claims when he downloaded and registered Overwatch.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2020 by a minor referred to as “B.D.” in San Diego Superior Court, alleges that Blizzard, through Overwatch, “engages in predatory practices enticing children to engage in gambling and similar addictive conduct.”

Blizzard profits from creating addictive behaviors in kids to generate huge revenues, most of which come from the in-game purchases known as “loot boxes” or “loot crates,” the complaint alleges. Loot boxes, purchased using real money, are randomized chances within the game to obtain desirable or helpful tools, such as better costumes.

“The Overwatch loot boxes have all the hallmarks of a Las Vegas-style slot machine, including the psychological aspects to encourage and create addiction, especially among adolescents,” the suit alleged.

In oral arguments Monday before the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Blizzard asked the justices to send the claims to arbitration, reversing a trial court’s findings that there was no conspicuous notice of an arbitration agreement and that a reasonably prudent user wouldn’t have had notice.

B.D. agreed to arbitrate no less than five times since he first began playing Overwatch in 2016, Blizzard told the court. He agreed to an End User License Agreement, containing an arbitration provision when he initially registered and downloaded the game, as well as several times when the agreement was updated, Blizzard said.

Counsel for Blizzard argued the trial court appeared to have misunderstood a screenshot of the agreement included in the game maker’s pleadings. The screenshot wasn’t the entirety of the agreement, and a scroll bar in the corner, as well as a sentence stating that there was additional text below, indicate that there was additional content for users to read and agree to, the company said.

The alternative would require Blizzard to somehow recreate all of the content of the agreement on a single screen, which is impractical and violates the requirement that arbitration agreements be placed on equal footing with all other contracts, Blizzard argued.

But B.D.'s lawyer alleged that for gamers to find the arbitration agreement, they had to navigate from the account creation page to the license agreement, and click through 16 hyperlinks to access additional documents, including the arbitration provision. It’s not reasonable to expect video game purchasers to scroll through and read all of those contracts to figure out there’s an arbitration agreement, his attorney told the panel.

Blood, Hurst & O’Reardon LLP and the Law Offices of Andrew J. Brown represent B.D. Greenberg Traurig LLP represents Blizzard.

The case is B.D. v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc., Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. D078506, 3/14/22.