Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Michael Garcia and others filed a putative class action on behalf of California residents who used Microsoft and Mojang AB's Minecraft websites, applications, and online services. They alleged that Defendants instrumented Minecraft properties with tracking technologies—including session replay, keystroke and mouse-movement logging, device fingerprinting, telemetry collection, and embedded analytics and video integrations—that intercepted, recorded, and transmitted the contents of users' communications and detailed behavioral data in real time, in violation of various California laws.
During briefing on a motion to compel arbitration, the Court raised concerns sua sponte regarding whether Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged Article III standing and ordered them to show cause. Plaintiffs responded insisting they had standing; Defendants contended they had not.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to plead facts plausibly supporting Article III standing. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent in Popa v. Microsoft Corp., 153 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court held that Plaintiffs' generic allegations did not identify what specific information was tracked or shared, nor did they allege the sharing of information analogous to an actionable common-law tort such as intrusion upon seclusion or disclosure of private facts. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish Popa by referencing plaintiff Ms.
Dart's allegations concerning communications, personal information, payment-related information, and device data, finding that the complaint never specified what information was actually intercepted. The Court also rejected a benefit-of-the-bargain or overpayment theory of economic injury under McGee v. S-L Snacks, 982 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2020), because Plaintiffs did not allege Defendants made any misrepresentations regarding privacy or tracking. The Court denied Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, reasoning that Plaintiffs must know what information they shared when interacting with Minecraft. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint by November 20, 2026, without new plaintiffs or claims absent further leave.
Key Takeaways
- Generic allegations of tracking technologies (session replay, keystroke logging, device fingerprinting, etc.) are insufficient to establish Article III standing without specific factual allegations identifying what private or sensitive information was actually collected.
- To allege a concrete privacy injury under TransUnion and Popa, plaintiffs must plausibly allege harm 'remotely similar' to a 'highly offensive' interference or disclosure actionable at common law, such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts.
- The fact that plaintiffs are minors does not automatically confer standing; specific allegations about what information concerning the minors was tracked are required.
- A benefit-of-the-bargain or overpayment theory of economic injury requires allegations that the defendant made misrepresentations about the product; mere allegations that tracking violated privacy are insufficient.
- Courts may deny jurisdictional discovery where plaintiffs, as the parties who interacted with the defendant's services, are in the best position to know what information they shared.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the heightened pleading standard for Article III standing in privacy class actions within the Ninth Circuit following Popa v. Microsoft Corp.
It clarifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on boilerplate lists of tracking technologies or broad categories of data (e.g., 'communications,' 'personal information,' 'payment-related information') without specifying the actual content collected and explaining why its collection constitutes a concrete harm akin to a traditional tort. The decision also underscores that economic injury theories require affirmative misrepresentations, not merely undisclosed data practices. The denial of jurisdictional discovery signals that plaintiffs bear the burden of pleading specific facts from their own knowledge at the outset.