## Facts

- L’Marc Turner purchased a Sony-manufactured video-game device (the pleadings concerned the PlayStation 5 and DualSense controllers) and later alleged it was defective.
- Turner brought a putative consumer class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC.
- Turner alleged Sony breached express warranties that the device was of “high quality,” would “work properly,” and would be “suitable for gameplay.”
- Turner also alleged Sony expressly warranted it would “repair or replace” device defects “free of charge.”
- Sony argued that none of the quoted express-warranty terms alleged by Turner appeared in Sony’s written warranty document for the product.
- Turner additionally alleged Sony breached the implied warranty of merchantability—i.e., that the device was not fit for its ordinary use.
- Sony relied on language in the written warranty that, in all-capital letters, disclaimed implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability, in standard UCC-style wording.
- Sony moved to dismiss the express-warranty and implied-warranty claims; the court’s written order addressed those two warranty claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Turner stated a claim for breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code § 2313 when the complaint did not allege the exact terms of an express warranty that Sony actually made and instead relied on generalized descriptions (e.g., “high quality,” “work properly,” “suitable for gameplay,” and “free” repair/replacement).
2. Whether Turner stated a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability where Sony’s written warranty contained an all-caps, UCC-style disclaimer expressly addressing merchantability.

## Decision

- The court granted Sony’s motion to dismiss the breach of express warranty claim.
- The court concluded the complaint did not plead the express-warranty theory with the required specificity, including the exact terms of an affirmation of fact or promise that formed part of the basis of the bargain.
- The court granted Sony’s motion to dismiss the implied warranty of merchantability claim.
- The court held the written warranty’s all-caps disclaimer of implied warranties (including merchantability) was effective at the pleading stage and barred the implied-warranty theory as alleged.

## Legal Principles

- To plead breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code § 2313, a plaintiff must allege a specific affirmation of fact, promise, or description of the goods that became part of the basis of the bargain, and must plead the exact terms of the alleged warranty and how it was breached.
- Generalized assertions that a product is “high quality,” will “work properly,” or is “suitable” are not, without more, pleaded with enough specificity to establish an actionable express warranty.
- Under UCC principles applied through California law, implied warranties (including merchantability) may be disclaimed where the disclaimer is conspicuous and expressly references “merchantability.”
- When a written warranty includes a clear implied-warranty disclaimer, a plaintiff must plead a viable basis to avoid that disclaimer; otherwise, an implied-warranty claim may be dismissed at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Turner’s express-warranty claim because the complaint did not identify and plead the exact terms of any express warranty Sony actually made, and it dismissed the implied warranty of merchantability claim because Sony’s written warranty contained a conspicuous, all-caps disclaimer expressly addressing merchantability that barred the implied-warranty theory as pleaded.


Turner v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, 2021 WL 5177733 (2021)