United States: Baker v. Microsoft Corporation: Game Companies Beware, Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision May Make It More Difficult To Defeat Class Actions

A Quick Overview

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court's decision to strike the class action allegations of a putative class action against Microsoft.1  The Ninth Circuit's decision means that the district court must reconsider whether to allow the case to proceed as a class action.  Because the decision as to whether to certify a class generally determines whether a class action will proceed, the Ninth Circuit's decision is an important one for game companies, which are often confronted with class action lawsuits.

The Baker lawsuit alleged that a design defect in Xbox 360 video game consoles caused the consoles to malfunction and scratch game discs―although only 0.4% of Xbox console owners reported such problems.2  The majority opinion held that the district court misapplied the law and should have followed an earlier Ninth Circuit decision rejecting the notion that individual manifestations of a defect preclude resolution of claims on a class-wide basis.3  Rather, the majority held, where a lawsuit presents issues as to whether a defect exists and whether the defect breached an express warranty that are common to all of the would-be members of the class, proof that the alleged defect caused any damages to any individual in the class is not necessary for a class action to be certified.4

The takeaway for game companies?  The Ninth Circuit's decision in Baker v. Microsoft isn't a road map for obtaining class certification in defective product cases, but it may smooth the path to certification in such cases, and thereby encourage more class actions.  On the other hand, companies may give greater attention to limiting or disclaiming warranties, in order to avoid the kind of claims that the decision addresses.

If you want a more detailed explanation of the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, and the concurring judge's suggestion that the Ninth Circuit needs to take on the issue of "comity" and what it means for class action lawsuits, read on.

The Gory Details

The district court's decision to strike the class action allegations was based on two prior district court decisions that denied class certification in similar cases.  In Gable v. LandRover N. Am., Inc.,5 the putative class action plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's vehicles had a defect in their alignment that caused uneven and premature tire wear.  The district court denied class certification because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the purported defect manifested in a majority of vehicles.  In In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litigation,6 a 2009 case with claims very similar to those in Baker, the district court relied on the Gables decision to deny class certification on the basis that individual issues of fact and law predominated over common issues of fact and law.  As was the case in Gable and Baker, the alleged defect manifested in fewer than one percent of the total number of Xbox consoles purchased.  The district court ruled that the need to consider damages on an individual basis and the lack of any uniform manifestation of the common design flaw prevented class certification in both Gable and Scratched Disc Litigation.

In Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,7 however, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Gable decision and held that proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification in cases asserting a diminution in the value of a product as the result of a breach of warranty.  In Wolin, the Court decided that, regardless of when the premature tire wear was experienced, all class members at some point experienced the same injury due to the same defect.  The Court rejected the notion that differences in individual manifestations of the defect precluded resolving the claims on a class-wide basis, because all prospective class members alleged the same injury from a defective alignment in their vehicles and sought recovery under the same legal theories.

The district court in Baker nevertheless determined that Wolin did not undermine the analysis set forth in Scratched Disc Litigation, and that comity required deferral to the earlier order in that case denying class action certification.8  Comity, in this context, means the respect or deference one court may give to the decision of another court in a related proceeding.  The district court in Baker noted that no Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent articulated the mechanism by which comity was to operate. It therefore adopted a rule proposed by the American Law Institute (an influential legal research institution that publishes summaries of common law principles known as "restatements"), providing that a different district judge ruling on the same subject matter be given a rebuttable presumption of correctness, and determined that the presumption (that class certification should be denied) had not been rebutted.9

The majority of the Ninth Circuit panel of judges who heard the appeal disagreed, concluding that Wolin was controlling because, as in Wolin, the Baker district court erred in finding that the individual issues of causation predominated over the common questions of whether there was a defect and whether that defect breached the express warranty.10  The Court found that although the timing and extent of the disc scratching resulting from the alleged defect might vary from one consumer to the next, the complaint alleged that the game consoles were sold with a defective disc system that breached Microsoft's express warranties for the Xbox 360.11  The Ninth Circuit also rejected the defendant's argument that the defect did not manifest in the vast majority of its products, finding that it had no bearing on whether the action could proceed on a class-wide basis.12  As in Wolin, the plaintiffs in Baker alleged that the design defect breached an express warranty and thereby diminished the value of their purchase.13 The Ninth Circuit held that because these allegations were common to all potential members of the class, and because it was not necessary to show any "manifestation" of the alleged defect (i.e., any harmful result) to individual class members, the district court erred when it struck the class action allegations from the complaint.14]

Notably, the Ninth Circuit's decision only determined that the district court misapplied the law in striking the class action allegations from the complaint.15  The decision expressly disclaimed any determination of whether the issues would be best decided on a class-basis or whether class certification should be granted.16  Moreover, it asserted that it was not establishing a rule requiring class certification in all product defect cases.17

In a concurring opinion, Judge Bea argued that the case should have instead been decided on principles on comity.18 Summarizing his proposed framework, Judge Bea suggested that a district court's ruling to deny class certification for a similar class should create a rebuttable presumption that the litigation is not amenable to class action treatment – but that the presumption was rebutted in this case with the change in law by Wolin.19

Judge Bea recognized the importance of class certification from a practical perspective, noting that "the decision whether or not the class is certified is usually the most important ruling in such a case; once a class is certified, plaintiffs who brought claims of even dubious validity can extract an 'in terrorem' settlement from innocent defendants who fear the massive losses they face upon an adverse jury verdict."20  Because filing a class action requires only minimal costs, members of a putative class could file similar lawsuits, with different plaintiffs and in different jurisdictions, until a judge grants class certification.21

Judge Bea suggested that district courts adopt his approach to comity to resolve (or at least reduce) the possibility of repeated certification efforts by a putative class of plaintiffs, while ensuring that putative class members who have new evidence or law in favor of certification not be foreclosed by the failed efforts of their predecessors.22

Possible Impacts

The Ninth Circuit's decision could encourage class actions based on breach of warranty claims.  Although it denies that it is establishing a per se rule that such actions are appropriate for class treatment, the Court's holding that plaintiffs need not show that product defects were manifest and resulted in individual damages appears to make it significantly easier to obtain class certification.  On the other hand, if the Ninth Circuit takes up the approach to comity advocated by the concurring opinion, that approach could limit repeated attempts to certify a class based on related allegations.  In any event, as noted above, companies may be motivated to provide fewer and more restrictive warranties for their products.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Baker v. Microsoft can be accessed here.


1 Baker v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-35946, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2015).

2 Id. at *1-4.

3 Id.

4 Id., at *16.

5 No. CV07-0376, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82996 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), rev'd Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168,  1176 (9th Cir. 2010).

6 No. C07-1121, 2009 WL 10219350 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009).

7 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010).

8 Baker, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 at *9.

9 Id. at *9-10.

10 Id. at *16-17.

11 Id. at *14, *17.

12 Id. at *17.

13 Id.

14 Id. at *20.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id., at *19-20.

18 See id. at *21-22 (Bea, J., concurring).

19 Id. at *22, *29.

20 Id. at *30-31.

21 Id. at *31.

22 Id. at *33.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
3 Dec 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

National Contract Management Association’s Government Contract Management Symposium

20 Feb 2019, Seminar, Orange, United States

The annual seminar addressing changes and developments in state and federal wage and hour laws is a unique one-day program and hundreds of California employers, personnel managers, controllers, attorneys, payroll managers, and supervisors attend each year.

21 Feb 2019, Seminar, Orange, United States

The seminar is designed to provide a guide to Human Resource Officials, Personnel Specialists, Consultants, Supervisors and other management officials through the ever-increasing maze of state and federal employment discrimination laws.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions