Sixth Circuit dismisses lawsuit over gaming computer performance

The gaming industry is increasingly becoming the target of consumer class action lawsuits as plaintiffs’ attorneys scrutinize the marketing and performance claims of gaming PCs and accessories. However, gaming companies are not helpless. Recent court decisions show that courts are willing to dismiss cases where plaintiffs do not provide concrete facts to support their claims. For example, Judge Paul L. Maloney of the Western District of Michigan dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Lenovo that alleged the computers did not perform as advertised in resource-intensive applications such as gaming and graphic design. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, Judge Maloney found that the plaintiff “essentially … strung together a few marketing phrases … to imperfectly simulate fraud.” Dinwiddie v. LenovoCase No. 2:22-cv-00218 (WD Mich. March 27, 2024).

The plaintiff claimed the computer was marketed with advanced features such as an “Intel Core i5 2.90 GHz processor (that) delivers solid performance” and “an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Super graphics card for gaming and graphic design (to provide an) optimal visual experience.” The plaintiff claimed these claims conveyed that the computer would “perform reliably, not freeze or crash, and run smoothly under normal use.” The plaintiff claimed Lenovo’s advertising was misleading because he and other users frequently experienced freezes and crashes while using their computers. He attached to his complaint a handful of anonymous internet posts purporting to be from people who owned this computer and had similar problems.

The court was not convinced. Critically, the court found that nowhere had the defendant actually promised that the product would “not freeze or crash,” “operate reliably,” or “run smoothly”; these conclusions were based on the plaintiff’s own assumptions. The court also found that Lenovo’s “solid performance” advertising claim was too general and vague to sustain a claim for misrepresentation. The court compared the plaintiff’s claims with those previously made in Vivar v. Apple Inc.No. 22 Civ. 0347 (SDNY, September 12, 2022), a similar case brought by the same plaintiff’s attorney, where the court dismissed fraud claims that were also based on “general advertisements.” In VivarThe court also found that although Apple advertises that its earphones offer “up to 9 hours of playback time” and are “equipped with the Apple H1 chip” and have “dual audio controls,” it never guarantees that the earphones are defect-free.

This decision is an important reminder that deception theories based solely on a plaintiff’s unfounded assumptions must be dismissed. A lawsuit alleging harm based on alleged false advertising claims must have a foundation in the text of the advertisement itself. Companies in the gaming industry facing similar legal challenges can rely on Proskauer’s extensive expertise in the sector. Our class action defense team has extensive experience defending gaming companies against claims related to performance advertising, both under consumer protection laws and the Lanham Act. We understand the unique challenges of the gaming market and provide tailored legal strategies to effectively counter unsubstantiated allegations, ensuring the protection of your business interests and brand reputation.