According to GamePolitics' analysis of , the argument is that Linden Labs encouraged users to create and buy virtual land and items in Second Life under the belief that they owned the items in real life. The plaintiffs allege that these items have real life value for which they were not compensated when Linden Labs banned them. Together, the four are seeking at least $5 million in damages for the property.
Linden Labs declined to comment on this story, citing a policy of not discussing pending litigation.
What's interesting is Linden Labs' dependence on "ownership" in Second Life. As this lawsuit points out, the game is unlike other massively multiplayer online games because it doesn't discourage and actively encourages players to make and sell items in-game. Following a where a banned player sued Linden Labs for dissolving his virtual assets without compensation, the plaintiffs allege that the use of the word "ownership" was removed or altered in Second Life advertising. This is proof, they say, that Linden Labs knew it was tricking players and that they really don't allow you to own what you buy in Second Life.
So, if you don't "own" property in Second Life, is there really anything special about the game anymore...?
Source: [GamePolitics]