The class action accuses the maker of Second Life, Linden Research, of fraudulently inducing players to invest as much as $100 million in "virtual property" Plaintiffs claim that after they invested in the virtual property, the defendants took the properties back without just compensation. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants promoted the concept of property ownership and commerce in the Second Life video game. Launched in June 2003, Second Life enabled players to interact with one another in the game's three-dimensional world. Players are not charged a fee to play the game but may upgrade their membership to premium status to allow them to participate in the game's "market economy."
The players maintain that the defendants promised to protect the rights to virtual property and that the property owners could use the properties as if they were real properties and earn money on their investment. According to the complaint, the promises were allegedly part of a scheme by the defendants to increase the value of the company in anticipation of an initial public offering or sale of the game to another company. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants represented that players could secure property rights for land purchased from Linden. The defendants further claimed that players could retain intellectual property rights for any virtual items or content that players created. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants deceptively and covertly stripped players' ownership and intellectual property rights.
The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class of all people who are or were owners, possessors, purchasers, creators or sellers of virtual land or any other items of virtual property or items as participants in Second Life at any point between Nov. 14, 2003, and the date of class certification. Virtual property includes, but is not limited to, Second Life's in-game currency, virtual land and other virtual items.
The plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass consisting of all people whose assets including virtual property and real world personal property have been deliberately and intentionally converted, taken, frozen or otherwise rendered unusable by the defendants.
The plaintiffs seek damages for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violations of Sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code, violations of Section 1812.600 of the California Civil Code, fraud, unjust enrichment, wrongful expulsion, conversion and intentional interference with contractual relations.
