State of Survival False Bargains in In-Game Purchases Class Action

State of Survival (SOS) is a survival strategy mobile-app game with a zombie, post-apocalyptic theme. This class action brings suit against the companies responsible for it, FunPlus International AG and KingsGroup Holdings, alleging that the companies engage in false reference pricing or similar deceptive practices to encourage players to make in-app purchases.

The Global Class is all persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations, bought False Strikethrough Packs, False Percentage Packs, False Limited Time Availability Packs, or any packs in which they were double-charged, or other such subclasses the court may deem appropriate. California and Ohio Subclasses have been defined for persons in the above class who are in California and Ohio, respectively.

SOS is an enormously popular game that has been downloaded from app stores over 100 million times as of 2021. The download is free, but the complaint alleges players need to make in-app purchases in order to timely advance in the game and maintain their strength against other players. Purchases are most frequently bought in bundled groups called packs, which range in price from 99 cents to $99.99.

Many apps sell players only cosmetic or inessential items, but the complaint alleges that the SOS packs are necessary to advance in the game.

The complaint alleges, “In order to progress past a certain level in the game, it is necessary to purchase in-app ‘packs’ that contain the required items to level up one’s account in the game. These essential items require spending real money, as they are otherwise only available in insufficient amounts through in-game labor alone.” Prices of these packs increase during play, the complaint says, with higher-level purchases costing progressively more.

In order to pressure players to buy these packs, the complaint alleges the companies make false “special offers” and engage in a number of false or unfair tactics.

• False strikethrough pricing: Ads for packs may contain a “former” price, shown with a strikethrough and a different “sale” price, the complaint alleges, to claim that the pack is currently discounted.
• False percentages: Ads for packs may display a percentage, the complaint alleges, falsely indicating that the pack contains an increase in resources over the usual pack.
• False limited availability: Ads may show clock countdowns for availability or indicate “Only 1 remaining!” to increase the player’s sense of urgency, the complaint claims.

The complaint claims that the strikethrough prices, the percentages, and the limited availability are all false. In addition, the complaint alleges the companies have two other unfair tactics for getting money out of players and seeing that they don’t complain>

• Double charging: Players may be charged for buying packs they have already bought at an earlier date, the complaint alleges.
• Purchase banning: If players complain about the double charging and insist on getting refunds, the complaint alleges, they may be prohibited from making any future purchases in the game, thereby preventing progress.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, False Reference Pricing, Fraud, Making False Representations