EMA v. Schwarzenegger

formerly VSDA v. Schwarzenegger ( 401 F. Supp. 2d. 1034 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2005)

  1. Assembly Bill 1179
  2. Complaint for declaratory and injunctive review filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  3. Order granting plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction
  4. Order granting plaintiff's request for permanent injunction
  5. State's Appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  6. Appellee response brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  7. State's reply brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  8. Media Coalition motion for leave to file amicus brief
  9. Media Coalition amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  10. VSDA v. Schwarzenegger state petition for certiori
  11. Amicus Curae from California Senator Leland Yee
  12. Media Coalition Amicus Brief
  13. ESA and EMA's brief in opposition to California's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court

Summary: This case is a challenge to a California video game ban.

Most recent news: On May 20th, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking the court to hear an appeal of the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that found a California law banning certain video games unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first time it has considered any of the recent spate of laws restricting or banning certain video games.  Reaction from Media Coalition and others can be found here.  The Supreme Court is still considering the petition for certiorari in this case.   The Court is not expected to announce the disposition of any pending cert. petitions until late February. 

 

History:

On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale or rental of certain video games to anyone under the age of 18. The computer and video games are classified as "violent video games" and restricted if the depictions of violence in games are offensive to the community or if the violence depicted is committed in an "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner.  Under the law, game manufacturers and distributors would be required to label games with 2" x 2" stickers displaying the numeral "18" on their front covers.  The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) [now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA)] and Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed a complaint challenging the law on October 17, 2005. 

On December 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Whyte granted a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the California video game law while the lawsuit is pending. The judge found that the law likely violates the First Amendment.

On May 12, 2006, the cross motions for summary judgments were heard.

On August 6, 2007, Judge Whyte granted a permanent injunction.  The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and that while the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors, defendants did not offer proof that video games are any different from other media, and that there is no generally accepted study to support the idea that the interactive nature of video games leads to violent behavior. 

The state appealed the granting of a permanent injunction on September 5, 2007.  The appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Briefs in the appeal were filed by the state and the plaintiffs and Media Coalition submitted an amicus brief for filing on February 13.  The amicus brief argues first: that the state's claim is contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court and Courts Of Appeal precedent and could lead to a wide array of mainstream books, magazines, movies, videos, recordings, and other material with violent content becoming subject to regulation; second, that the terms used to define a "violent video game" are unconstitutionally vague; and third, the labeling requirement is unconstitutional compelled speech and a content-based requirement.  

The state's reply brief was filed February 22, 2008.

On August 5, 2008, the State of California reimbursed plaintiffs $282,794 in attorneys’ fees. California will appeal U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s year-old decision to permanently enjoin the law; the case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.