Ramirez v. EA (FIFA and Madden Ultimate Team packs) (Northern District of California (San Jose)): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

Ramirez v. Electronic Arts Inc. is a proposed class action filed on 13 October 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose), docket 5:20-cv-05672-BLF. Kevin Ramirez, a FIFA player since 2011 and a Madden NFL player since 2013, sued Electronic Arts Inc.

It is the first US class action to call EA's Ultimate Team packs gambling, and it sits in the Loot Box and Video Game Gambling Lawsuits group. The theory was that the packs work as an illegal slot machine or device under California Penal Code 330(d).

The complaint pleaded three class claims: the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment.

Who is covered

The proposed class was buyers of Ultimate Team packs in the FIFA and Madden games. No class certification appears in the record, and the case ended before a court defined any class.

California readers can use the page on gambling lawsuits in California for related matters. The company page on Electronic Arts lawsuits lists the publisher's other cases.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case on the public record. The complaint sought more than USD 5 million for the class, as reported at filing, but the record shows no settlement fund, no judgment and no public arbitration award.

Filing a settlement claim is free wherever a claim exists, but none exists here. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What the court decided

On 5 March 2021 Judge Beth Labson Freeman compelled individual arbitration and stayed the case. The EA User Agreement, accepted on installation, incorporates the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Rules, and the court sent even the public-injunction argument under McGill to the arbitrator.

The parties then stipulated to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, approved on 23 February 2023. As of 14 November 2026 the case is withdrawn, and no arbitration award is public.

The court therefore never decided whether Ultimate Team packs are gambling. Dismissal without prejudice does not decide the merits.

Why it matters

Ramirez shows how a software license can move a loot box class action into private arbitration before a judge reaches the gambling question. The record rates the order as a precedent for that reason.

The guide on whether loot boxes are gambling summarizes what courts and regulators have ruled elsewhere.

Questions people ask

Did a court rule that FIFA Ultimate Team packs are gambling in this case?

No. Judge Freeman's order of 5 March 2021 compelled individual arbitration, and the case was later dismissed without prejudice on 23 February 2023. No ruling on the gambling question appears in the record.

Why was the case sent to arbitration?

The EA User Agreement, accepted on installation, incorporates the AAA Commercial Rules. The court held that this delegated even the McGill public-injunction argument to the arbitrator.

Has any court ruled on Ultimate Team packs elsewhere?

Yes. A British Columbia class action by residents who paid real money for loot boxes in 77 EA games since 2008 is certified, and Austria's OGH ruled on 18 December 2025 that FIFA Ultimate Team packs are not gambling. Both have their own pages, listed below.

Related cases

• Zajonc et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.: another case against Electronic Arts, status withdrawn.
• Sutherland v. Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts (Canada) Inc.: the British Columbia loot box class action, status certified.
• OGH, Urteil vom 18.12.2025, 6 Ob 228/24h (FIFA Ultimate Team Packs sind kein Gluecksspiel): the Austrian ruling on the same packs, status dismissed.