## Facts

- A minor player created an account for the video game Fortnite and was presented with an end user license agreement (EULA) containing a forum-selection clause and a unilateral amendment provision.
- Fortnite was free to download but offered in-app purchases using “V-Bucks,” obtainable through gameplay or purchase; many in-game items were nonrefundable.
- The minor made multiple in-app purchases using gift cards.
- The minor later accepted an amended EULA that added a binding arbitration clause and a class action waiver.
- Through counsel, the minor sent pre-suit communications seeking to disaffirm the transactions and contract terms on the ground of minority and then filed a putative class action on behalf of similarly situated minors.
- The complaint asserted declaratory relief and California statutory and common-law claims arising from the in-app purchase system.
- The defendant moved to compel arbitration (or alternatively transfer venue), to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and to require the plaintiff and guardian to proceed under their real names.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor’s disaffirmance under California law voided the EULA provisions requiring arbitration and waiving class actions.
2. Whether the defendant could enforce the EULA’s forum-selection clause to transfer venue after the minor’s disaffirmance.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under California consumer-protection and contract theories and unjust enrichment.
4. Whether the plaintiff and guardian could proceed under pseudonyms despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a).

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, holding the minor validly disaffirmed the EULA, including the arbitration clause and class action waiver.
- The court denied the alternative request to transfer venue, concluding the disaffirmance also defeated the forum-selection clause.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing some claims while allowing others to proceed.
- The court granted the motion to compel compliance with Rule 10(a), requiring the plaintiff and guardian to be named.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, a minor may disaffirm a contract, rendering it voidable at the minor’s election, and the disaffirmance can extend to embedded arbitration and forum-selection provisions.
- Clear repudiation (including pre-suit communications and the filing of suit) may be sufficient to effect disaffirmance of online terms.
- A counterparty may not selectively enforce arbitration or forum-selection clauses from a contract that has been validly disaffirmed by a minor.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) presumptively requires parties to be named; anonymity is an exceptional remedy requiring a specific, adequate justification.

## Conclusion

The court held that the minor’s disaffirmance barred enforcement of the EULA’s arbitration, class waiver, and forum-selection provisions, allowed the case to proceed in court (subject to partial pleading-stage dismissals), and required the plaintiff and guardian to litigate under their real names.


Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020)