Pecover v. Electronic Arts Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
633 F. Supp. 2d 976 (2009)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Geoffrey Pecover and Jeffrey Lawrence (together, the gamers) (plaintiffs) purchased copies of an interactive video-game-software product called Madden NFL from retailers of the game. The characters in Madden NFL were based on actual, real-life teams and players from the National Football League (NFL). Madden NFL was produced by Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) (defendant). The gamers, as class representatives, sued EA for antitrust violations. The gamers alleged in their complaint that the relevant product market was interactive football software that used the names and logos of real-life football teams and players (NFL-based video games). According to the gamers, EA entered a series of agreements with the NFL, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the Arena Football League (AFL) to obtain exclusive licensing rights to publish an NFL-based video game, which immediately “killed off” competing games and prevented competitors like Take-Two from reentering the market. The gamers alleged that consumers were not interested in purchasing a video game involving fictitious football players and that EA dramatically raised the price of Madden NFL after obtaining its exclusive rights. The complaint claimed violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act, among other laws. EA filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.