GameStop is the defendant in a proposed class action filed by a consumer who alleges the video game retailer has illegally profited from a number of “unfair, illegal, and fraudulent practices,” including failing to refund customers for products not delivered. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in mid-May and removed to California’s Central District on July 19, the lawsuit alleges defendants GameStop Corp. and GameStop, Inc. have failed to refund customers for returned items and for products that were already paid for but never delivered.
The plaintiff says that he bought a video game console and several games online from GameStop in April 2017 for which he paid extra for one-day shipping. According to the suit, GameStop charged the plaintiff’s credit card, including tax and shipping, yet delivered only some of the products he ordered, not including the console. The case stresses that the games the plaintiff did receive were “useless” without the console to play them on.
Moreover, GameStop failed to refund the plaintiff for tax and shipping for the items not delivered, as well as refused to refund the man for the “useless” games after he returned them, the lawsuit says.
The plaintiff repeatedly complained to GameStop’s customer service department, who the lawsuit says repeatedly told the man the products he ordered would be shipped. The assurances were false, the case alleges, as GameStop apparently never sent the plaintiff what he ordered. Further, GameStop supposedly informed the plaintiff in writing that he would be refunded if he returned the products he did receive. After returning the products, however, the plaintiff never received any refund, the lawsuit claims.
The complaint argues that the above-described instance is part of a larger pattern of conduct on the part of GameStop that goes beyond mere mistakes or miscommunications:
“Rather they are part of a scheme, pattern, and practice engaged in company-wide online and at their stores to cheat customers out of their money and make misrepresentations to customers.”
The case and its notice of removal can be read below.