Sony responded to the lawsuits by requesting a dismissal on the grounds that "no one cared about the feature" and that the filings cite quotes from 3rd party websites, the instruction manual, the PlayStation Web site and claims they are invalid proof and that Sony can disable PSN and the other advertised features (playing games that require newer firmware, etc.) as they wish. The lawyers for the plaintiffs reviewed the request and said that this is fairly common at this stage of the process and that the case would be reviewed before a judge in November 2010. In February 2011 all claims of false advertising in the case were dismissed but the plaintiffs were allowed to appeal and amend the case and the other claims that the removal violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse act were allowed to go forward. In March 2011 the plaintiffs amended their complaint to refute Sony's claims that it was within its rights under the TOS and warranty to remove the feature adding more details to their claims including breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of several California unfair business practices laws. In April 2011 SCEA again asked that the case be dismissed and made claims that the plaintiffs refiled claim was insufficient and that they were hackers and wanted to violate Sony's intellectual property and asked the judge to grant search rights on their PS3 systems. SCEA also made claims that they were not the division solely responsible for the removal and should not be held responsible despite conflicting information to the contrary. On 18 April 2011 the plaintiffs fired back at Sony's renewed efforts to have the case dismissed by pointing out the fact that Sony had made many of the same claims before and that they had been dismissed by the court and also pointed out several legal precedents under California law that refuted Sony's claims. In December 2011 the whole case was dismissed under the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they could expect the "Other OS" feature beyond the warranty of the machine. However this decision was overturned in a 2014 appellate court decision finding that plaintiffs had indeed made clear and sufficiently substantial claims.