Would Jabba the Hutt be Liable for the Contract Killings in Star Wars: Battlefront?

December 14, 2016

Electronic Arts recently released DLC, or downloadable content, for Star Wars Battlefront in advance of Rogue One’s premiere this month. The DLC is entitled “Rogue One: Scarif,” referencing the planet of Scarif where much of the new content (and the Rogue One movie) take place. For those unfamiliar with Star Wars: Battlefront, the game and its DLC allow the player to participate in many of the epic battles which take place in Star Wars lore as some of the series’ most iconic characters. Particularly notable about the Rogue One: Scarif DLC was the inclusion of Jyn’s Solution and Krennic’s Offense, two weapons available by completing the appropriate “Hutt Contracts” in game. The “Hutt Contracts” are offered by the incomparable Jabba the Hutt, and are completed by killing other characters with certain weapons a specified number of times. Though the in-game murders are perpetrated by the player’s character, Jabba would also be liable for the player’s criminal actions through the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

RICO states, in part, that “It is unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” Racketeering activity is defined, in part, as “any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter or dealing in a controlled substance…which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” Effectively, RICO extends criminal liability to the leaders of a crime syndicate who ordered another to commit, or assisted another in committing, the serious, specified crimes.

In order to be found guilty of violating RICO, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an enterprise existed; (2) the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity.

Jabba’s crime syndicate easily qualifies as an enterprise under RICO, which does not necessitate any sort of business entity, but merely a group of individuals associated in fact. By virtue of Jabba offering the Hutt Contracts to players, the players and Jabba are an enterprise unto themselves. Furthermore, as Jabba’s crime syndicate was substantial enough to be a primary source of wealth for Tatooine, it is safe to say that his criminal enterprise not only effected interstate commerce, but also interplanetary commerce. The Hutt Contracts, in particular, are exemplary of how Jabba’s enterprise impacts interstate commerce. Players who seek to complete the Hutt Contracts are not limited to one physical area to complete said contracts. Instead, players are able to travel from planet to planet to obtain a sufficient number of kills to satisfy the contract. As travel between planets to commit the murders is a necessary part of the gameplay, satisfaction of the Hutt Contracts necessitates an impact on interstate (and interplanetary) commerce. Association with the criminal enterprise is given in this matter, as we are aware that Jabba is the head of the crime syndicate in question by his offering of the Hutt Contracts, and the players are associated by virtue of their acceptance of Jabba’s unlawful contracts to kill people.

Lastly, the player, at the behest of Jabba, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by committing multiple murders in order to fulfill any of the Hutt Contracts. In order to establish a sufficient pattern, at least two acts of racketeering activity must be committed within ten years of each other, said activities must be related, and the activities must amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. In the matter of the Hutt Contracts, the murders are completed within a short amount of time, as one is able to complete a contract within several matches. Furthermore, the racketeering activities of the Hutt Contracts are related, as they are offered proximately to one another, have similar goals, payments, methodologies, and rely upon similar repetition of unlawful actions. The Hutt Contracts also pose a threat to continued racketeering activities by the very nature of offering many murder-for-hire contracts which are fulfilled in different ways. One cannot simply complete all of the Hutt Contracts in the same manner.

Though Jabba could have been found liable for the many unlawful activities offered in the Hutt Contracts by means of the RICO doctrine, it is important to remember that Jabba’s criminal enterprise extended far beyond murder-for-hire. Realistically, as one of the Outer Rim’s most notorious crime lords, Jabba’s exposure to potential RICO liability was sizeable. Though Jabba may have been liable for a variety of racketeering activity, he nonetheless evaded the court’s justice for prosecution under RICO. Unfortunately for Jabba, he was unable to avoid Leia.

Trainer Tips: Pokémon Go and the Law

Roger Quiles

July 17, 2016

Do you want to be the very best, like no one ever was? If you’re one of Pokémon Go’s 21 million daily active users, chances are you do. For those unaware, Pokémon Go is an augmented reality app which uses a smartphone’s GPS and camera in order to see, catch, train, and battle Pokémon in the world around us.

Effectively, the app is the closest representation to what it would be like to actually have Pokémon inhabit our world without the sporadic fires, hurricanes, and floods caused by the Pokémon themselves.

But while Pokémon trainers are wading in the tall grass in their attempt to catch ‘em all, simple missteps may actually bring those trainers into contact with Officer Jenny rather than the elusive Ditto they were searching for.

In the week since the app’s release, questions have been raised about user conduct as people have utilized unlawful, and dangerous, methods in their search to catch ‘em all.

Here are some helpful legal tips for any Pokémon trainer:

Pokéstops and Gyms are public places for a reason

Though your legs may be sore from the many kilometers you’ve walked to hatch your eggs, avoid entering private property as a means of getting close enough to utilize a Pokéstop or Gym. Otherwise, you may be arrested for trespassing.

In New York, a person is guilty of trespass when they knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in or upon premises. There are several aggravating factors which can escalate the severity, and criminality, of the trespass, such as if the premises is fenced or enclosed to exclude intruders, the type of premises it is (i.e. a school, residence), and whether the trespasser was in possession of a firearm or explosive.

Pokéstops and Gyms were made public places so that all trainers could enter their areas legally. However, the maps used by Niantec and Nintendo in creating Pokémon Go are slightly outdated, and there have been reports of Pokéstops and Gyms being placed on private property. Unfortunately, entering private property to access said Pokéstop or Gym would be considered trespassing, regardless of how long the player remained on the property. Additionally, there have been reports of Pokéstops being located at military bases, and even a Gym in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (which has since mysteriously disappeared). Needless to say entering into any area occupied or operated by any military entity without the proper clearance is likely unlawful, and perhaps dangerous. In essence, don’t go looking for Lt. Surge.

Stay out of other people’s tall grass

It may be tempting to enter property that does not belong to you in search of a Pokémon you’ve been tracking. However, your pursuit of that Pokémon does not allow you to enter onto that property lawfully. Some States allow for the pursuit of wild game onto another’s property in order to hunt said game. The underlying concept as to what is considered to be “wild game” is known as Ferae Naturae, which are animals that are wild by nature and by which possession is a means of acquiring title to. In those States, while in pursuit of wild game and entering onto another’s property, trespass would not be warranted. This concept also allows whoever trapped or killed the animal to obtain rightful possession of the animal, regardless of whose property it was killed or trapped on. However, as Pokémon are sadly not real, it cannot be said that Pokémon are wild by nature. The limitation of Pokémon to being trapped inside our phones and ultimately being a byproduct of code immediately removes any consideration that they would be considered wild game. Therefore, entering onto another’s property in pursuit would still be trespassing.

Trainers don’t travel by car

One of the reasons Ash never drove a car during his adventures (aside from him being a child) is that it is much easier to stop for Pokémon when you are walking or riding a bicycle. Similarly, you should not utilize the app while driving. Aside from the incredible danger that such use creates, the use of a cell phone while driving is generally unlawful.

Pursuant to section 1225-d of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, “no person shall operate a motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion.” The statute further states that a cell phone is considered an “electronic device” and that “using” includes playing games on said device.

Based on a plain reading of the statute, playing Pokémon Go while driving is unlawful. Though the potential enforcement of these laws would likely result in fines, playing Pokémon Go while driving is a serious safety concern. In fact, several car accidents have been reported as a result of users playing Pokémon Go while driving. Trainers should take the safe and legal approach of walking while playing.

Conclusion

Pokémon trainers should always engage in lawful conduct in their pursuit of catching ‘em all. As tempting as it may be to track Pokémon to another’s property or to drive instead of walk to hatch eggs, such conduct is unlawful and importantly, unsafe. Stay safe fellow trainers, and as always, be on the lookout for Team Rocket.

Pro Gamers Stuck on First Level of Immigration Due to Visa Issues

Roger Quiles

October 12, 2015

Visa issues are unfortunately prevalent in the eSports industry, as international travel is required for most top level players.

Most recently, EHOME, a team from China, had to be replaced at the ESL One tournament in New York for failing to obtain a Visa to attend the tournament.

EHOME qualified for ESL One on September 23, 2015, but due to a public holiday in China, the US embassy was closed September 26^th, 27^th, 28^th, and 30^th.

Since ESL One was scheduled for the weekend of October 3^rd, that left EHOME three days to obtain the requisite visas to attend the tournament. However, several team members failed to obtain the necessary documentation in that limited timeframe.

The EHOME players weren’t the only individuals to have difficulty obtaining visas lately to partake in eSports tournaments in the U.S. lately. On September 30^th, William “Leffen” Hjelte, a professional Smash Bros player from Sweden, was denied entry into the U.S. to attend a major tournament. The specific facts involved in his situation are unclear, although Leffen indicated that there was an issue being sponsored by a U.S. business (his team) and utilizing the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, as opposed to obtaining a visa.

Although it may be surprising, according to the Federal Government, professional video game players are also professional athletes, at least as far as immigration is concerned. Foreign players may apply for the P-1A visa, which the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services specifies is for individuals which “are coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance.”

Despite allowing eSports players to obtain P-1A visas, the visa process, in general, is notoriously complex. For example, according to the USCIS, a requirement to obtain a P-1A visa is to show documentation of at least two of the following:

Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season with a major United States sports league
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in international competition with a national team
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season for a US College or university in intercollegiate competition
A written statement from an official of a major US sports league or an official of the governing body of the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
A written statement from a member of the sports media or a recognized expert in the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
Evidence that the player or their team is ranked, if the sport has international rankings
Evidence that the player or their team has received a significant honor or award in the sport.

Given that this visa initially catered to the professional sports industry, it is easy to see how many of these requirements can be met. However, depending on the particular game, eSports teams and players cannot easily show evidence of these categories. For instance, if a player plays a game which is not team based, yet is a member of an international team, and this game does not have a professional league in the United States but occasional professional tournaments, which of the above categories could they possibly provide evidence of? Seemingly, the only available methods would be the multiple written statements, or evidence of international rankings, assuming such rankings exist. Yet, the difficulty continues, because as a nascent professional industry, which individuals would satisfy the statement requirements? Unfortunately at this time, there are not many clear answers.

Although the visa process may still be complex, at least the U.S. has recognized that eSports players are athletes for immigration purposes. However, for the eSports industry at large, immigration is a problem. Most of the major eSports tournaments do not take place in the U.S., and many countries have not yet clarified their immigration stance for eSports players. As the eSports industry grows in popularity and revenue worldwide, these immigration issues should be addressed both domestically and abroad.

The Intersection of ESports and the Law

Roger Quiles

September 3, 2015

On August 22^nd and 23^rd, Madison Square Garden hosted a sold out crowd of 11,000 sports fans (pictured above) each day. However, the fans were not present to see the Knicks or Rangers play, but to watch the top two League of Legends teams in North America do battle. For those that are unaware, League of Legends is a computer game with approximately sixty-seven million players worldwide. League of Legends is one of several games played competitively for profit, but perhaps has the greatest market share of the competitive gaming industry known as eSports. By comparison, a game that is gaining on League of Legends’ market share is Counter Strike: Global Offensive, who held a major tournament across the same two days and drew a peak of 1.3 million concurrent viewe rs online. Yes, video games are now a spectator sport.

The eSports industry has seen exponential growth in the past few years. Globally, eSports is projected to become a billion dollar industry by 2017, having currently amassed 47.7 million viewers and participants across the United States and Western Europe. However, as the industry develops, the need for eSports-related legal assistance has grown tremendously at every level. Much like the professional sports industry, eSports touches upon almost every area of law, although some legal fields are particularly prevalent.

Intellectual Property

ESports is rife with intellectual property concerns. As all gameplay and game content is the intellectual property of the developer, licensing issues arise regularly. Although some developers also act as the governing body of their game’s professional league, there are also independent companies which govern eSports professional leagues and otherwise act as a tournament provider. Therefore, developers must license their intellectual property to these independent providers in order for them to continue to operate. However, the choice of whether to license the game to certain providers remains at the discretion of the game developer since they own its intellectual property.

Additionally, licensing issues arise with individual players. With the advent of streaming services such as Twitch.tv, YouTube Gaming, and content creation through YouTube, gamers are relying on licenses from game developers to broadcast gameplay online. Developers vary wildly on how they choose to license their content to players, which can create conflict. For instance, Riot Games, the developer of League of Legends, is extremely protective of licensing its game to independent league/tournament bodies, but has a very liberal policy (which it has codified) of allowing players to use the game to stream its content and make YouTube videos. On the other hand, Nintendo is extremely restrictive with licensing its intellectual property to players. In fact, Nintendo published a list of games, excluding many of its more popular titles, which players must use to stream or otherwise create content.

Contracts

Leagues, tournament providers, teams, and players all require assistance with the drafting and negotiating of contracts. Unfortunately, this has been an area of law that the eSports industry, particularly at the team level, has not adopted en masse. Team owners frequently rely on oral contracts with their players, or resort to creating their player contract by copying sections of various contracts that they find online. The resulting written contract is frequently a hodge-podge of several different types of contracts resulting in a contradictory, and largely unenforceable, contract. However, as teams are becoming increasingly business savvy, some teams are beginning to seek legal counsel for contract help.

Players have the greatest need for legal assistance with contracts due to their vulnerable status, despite the fact that the industry’s product rests on their shoulders. The history of eSports has unfortunately been marred by teams taking advantage of players, particularly by failing to pay them. In one recent example, a team failed to pay its player for three months and threatened to have the player’s mother evicted should the player leave the team. Despite these well-known horror stories, the players are young and impressionable, and have knowingly accepted bad contracts as a means of starting their professional career. Additionally, there are teams that discourage players from seeking counsel during their contract negotiation. Although such behavior may be actionable, players fear for their livelihood and largely attempt to negotiate the contracts on their own, or accept them as is.

At all levels of the industry, some of the most readily encountered contracts are player-team contracts, player-league contracts, team-league contracts, and sponsorship agreements.

Mergers and Acquisitions

As the eSports industry is still developing, the teams comprising professional leagues are in a constant state of flux from one season to the next. Professional leagues have generally allowed teams to sell their spots in the league to other organizations for profit. These pro league spots are transferred in the same manner as tangible property and fetch high prices due to their scarcity. Team rosters, and entire organizations, are also acquired and sold by organizations in the same manner. As with any asset purchase, the transaction should be negotiated and formalized into a written purchase agreement by counsel to protect both parties.

Conclusion

The above examples are just a small piece of how the eSports industry touches upon different areas of law. Despite the eSports industry’s substantial legal needs, there are few attorneys who service the industry. Surely as the industry becomes more profitable, for both the eSports teams and attorneys involved, more attorneys will flock towards the industry and offer protections for businesses and individuals. However, the industry must first be aware that it needs such help before it can be accepted.

The Legal Implications of Performance Enhancing Drug Use in eSports

Roger Quiles

August 3, 2015

Performance enhancing drug (“PED”) use in eSports has long been an issue whispered about within the eSports community. These PEDs are not steroids and human growth hormone as we know from other sports, but are instead prescription drugs known as psychostimulants or neuroenhancers.

These kinds of drugs (Adderall, Ritalin, Selegiline, etc.) are abused by players as a means of enhancing focus, calmness, or to otherwise act as a stimulant.

However, due to the lack of drug testing by professional eSports leagues and tournament bodies, there have been very few instances of confirmed PED use during matches. Unfortunately, there is now an example of such drug use.

On July 12, 2015, a Youtube video was posted where professional Counter Strike: Global Offensive player Kory “Semphis” Friesen asserted during an interview that he and his team took Adderall during a major tournament hosted by ESL, the world’s largest and oldest eSports tournament provider. The relevant portion of the interview is as follows:

Friesen: “The ESL [team communications] were kinda funny in my opinion. I don’t even care, we were all on Adderall [laughs]”
Interviewer: “Really? [laughs]”
Friesen: “I don’t even give a fuck, like its pretty obvious if you listen to the [team communications]. I don’t know, people can hate it or whatever.”
Interviewer: “Everyone does Adderall at ESEA Lan right?”
Friesen: “Yea”
Interviewer: “Just throwing that out there for the fans, that’s how ya get good

In addition to the disappointing language encouraging others to violate tournament rules and abuse prescription medications, such PED use can impact the player and team’s contractual relationships.

Many contracts, especially sponsorship agreements, contain morals clauses. This type of clause allows a contracted party the opportunity to cancel their remaining obligations under the contract should the other party act in a way that is harmful or damaging to its own brand. The reasoning behind such a clause is that by cancelling the contract, a party can protect themselves from being associated with the brand damage caused by the other party. In the sponsorship context, this allows a sponsor to exit a sponsorship should the sponsee player or team be engaged in a scandal or otherwise illicit activity.

Although there has not been a reported contractual exodus in this matter like when Lance Armstrong was found to have been using PEDs, the use of PEDs in eSports can trigger a contract’s morals clause in the following ways:

The player does not have a prescription for said neuroenhancer, which is likely a criminal offense
The player illegally obtains a prescription, which is criminal
The player legally obtains a prescription which the athlete uses illicitly
The player legally obtains a prescription and distributes the PEDs to others, which is criminal

It is unknown whether or not Friesen and his team obtained the Adderall licitly and for a valid medical purpose. However, in the event that the individuals obtained the substance for an illicit purpose such as those described above, that action would likely be enough to satisfy a morals clause. Importantly, a morals clause can also be placed in a player-team contract, thus putting the players’ livelihood at stake should they utilize PEDs.

Additionally, the team itself could face legal backlash over its players’ PED use from sponsors, as sponsorship agreements routinely contain morals clauses. Depending on how the morals clause is drafted in the team’s sponsorship agreements, the actions of all players (or even a substantial number of them) may be sufficient to trigger the morals clause and permit the sponsor to cancel the sponsorship agreement. As Friesen’s admission has caught the attention of many people in the eSports industry at large, time will tell if there is any sponsor backlash.

Although sponsors have yet to take action, the ESL has already begun to establish an anti-doping program in the wake of Friesen’s statements. The tournament organizer announced a partnership with the Nationale Anti Doping Agentur and the World Anti Doping Agency to help create an anti-PED policy and to implement and enforce said policy. However, unlike professional sports where such policies are collectively bargained between the leagues and the players unions, the ESL policies are being imposed upon the players as they are not unionized. The lack of player input raises the potential for serious players’ rights violations. Although little information has been shared publically about what ESL’s policies will entail, enforcement is to begin at the ESL One Cologne tournament this month. At the very least, one tournament provider is taking steps towards eliminating PED use in eSports.

Time will tell if ESL’s anti-doping program has an effect on eliminating, or limiting, the use of PEDs in the eSports industry while still respecting players’ rights. However, in order to more substantially limit the use the PEDs in the industry, other tournament providers will also have to implement anti-doping policies and procedures. Regardless of the policies in place, teams should keep in mind that any PED use can impact the sponsorships that they have worked hard to obtain, and thus discourage any PED use by its players. No team or player would want to lose their contracts because a morals clause was triggered in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. Even worse, potential sponsors or teams may be hesitant to sponsor or employ a player and/or their team due to past PED use. Statements referring to taking Adderall as how you “get good” are not only irresponsible for encouraging activities that may cost players and their teams contracts, but also because they effectively encourage criminal behavior.

(Photo used under Creative Commons from chrisjtse)

Termination of Streamers’ Employment Raises Contract Questions

Roger Quiles

June 27, 2015

Following the recent League of Legends East Coast Convention, eight streamers were fired from the popular group of live-streamers known as Team2G. For those unaware, live-streamers are individuals who stream themselves playing video games online for profit through services like Twitch.tv. The terminated streamers had allegedly violated their contracts by failing to attend the entirety of the convention and for “excessive partying.” However, many of the circumstances surrounding the streamers’ termination are unclear. Allegedly, the streamers had never signed an employment contract and were only informed that such a contract existed upon termination, when the team manager stated that she had signed the contracts on their behalf. If true, such actions raise questions as to whether the terminations were appropriate and whether valid contracts actually exist.

Most states treat employment as “at will,” meaning that an employer can terminate an employee at any time and for almost any reason. The employer cannot terminate the employment of an employee on the basis of membership to a protected class, like race, sex, national origin or age. However, the terms of an employment contract can specify the circumstances by which an employee may be terminated. Should such language exist in an employment agreement, then any deviation from the specified circumstances would be improper. Although the manager for Team2G cited contractual violations as a reason for termination, the very existence of an employment contract, and its terms, could be questioned.

The streamers allege that they have never seen, much less signed, an employment agreement with Team2G and that they were only verbally instructed as to how many hours they were required to stream per month. In order for a valid contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, acceptance, and mutual assent to the contract’s terms. Such a discussion about hours of work may lead to a valid oral contract, assuming that consideration was also discussed. Performance of the verbal obligations would further exemplify the existence of said verbal contract. Yet, the streamers were allegedly informed that written employment agreements did exist and that they were signed by the manager on their behalf.

If Team2G’s manager did sign the streamers’ contracts on their behalf, then it is likely that no valid written employment agreement actually exists. Concerning the written contract, the offer would be the opportunity to work for Team2G and the consideration would be the stated payment for the streamer’s services. Normally, acceptance and mutual assent are exemplified by signing a contract after reading and understanding the contract’s terms. Assuming that the manager signed the contracts on behalf of the streamers without their explicit consent, and the streamers had no knowledge of the existence of the contract or its terms, it likely cannot be argued that the streamers accepted the contract and assented to its terms. Due to those defects, it would be difficult to uphold the alleged written contract as valid. Therefore, the oral contract between the streamers and Team2G would likely govern. As the oral contract does not contain restrictions on termination other than that provided by Federal and State law, Team2G would likely be able to legally terminate the streamers’ contracts.

Unfortunately, the Team2G situation is not atypical. Many individuals in the gaming industry work as players, streamers, and content creators without valid, written contracts. The lack of contracts, and knowledge of one’s legal rights pertaining to oral contracts, has allowed professional gamers to be taken advantage of by scrupulous business owners. In the Team2G situation, a written contract may have offered the streamers some protection by defining the scenarios where they may be terminated. Despite its sizeable industry, professional gaming is still in its infancy and has yet to embrace the legal standards that other industries take for granted. Until professional gaming adopts the basic legal standard of utilizing contracts for employment agreements, and ensures that said contracts are legal, professional gamers will continue to be taken advantage of.

Roger Quiles is an attorney from New York City with a practice focusing in business, entertainment, and eSports law. A die-hard gamer since Super Mario Bros., Roger now represents professional gamers, tournament producers, and the businesses that serve them. Up, up, down, down, left, right, left right, B, A, Start.

(Photo used under creative commons from Eurritimia)

Blizzard Bans Bots: 100,000 Accounts Suspended for Violating Terms of Use in WoW

Roger Quiles

May 18, 2015

Blizzard Entertainment, creator of World of Warcraft (“WoW”), banned over 100,000 accounts for violations of the game’s Terms of Use. These accounts were engaged in “botting,” which is the practice of using third party programs to automate gameplay. Although botting had always been present in WoW, and similar such games, it had become a substantial issue of late. Bots were reportedly being used for repetitive, mundane tasks and also to farm player vs. player “honor points” in order to purchase better equipment. The botting problem was so prevalent in farming “honor points” that player vs. player arenas were reportedly filled with these bots, making the game very frustrating for actual players attempting to gain “honor points” legitimately. Fortunately, Blizzard has confronted botting before, and has established protective measures in its Terms of Use agreement.

WoW’s Terms of Use specifically states “You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: (A) use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience.” Additionally, Blizzard expressly reserved the right to ban accounts for any reason. However, the Terms of Use states that “most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of the Terms of Use.” Such clear language in the Terms of Use easily grants Blizzard the authority to take action as necessary when players are found to be botting. Although it is safe to assume that most gamers do not read the Terms of Use for the games they play, it is well known within the WoW community, and gaming community at large, that the use of bots could result in an account ban.

Blizzard has long opposed botting, and has even taken legal action against companies that make botting software used in its games. In 2006, MDY Industries LLC, the creator of a WoW botting software, sought a declaratory judgment against Blizzard that it did not infringe on Blizzard’s copyrights (2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53988). However, Blizzard asserted counterclaims under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and tortious interference with contract. Although Blizzard’s counterclaims were successful at the district court level, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Ultimately, after five years of litigation, the case was settled in favor of Blizzard.

Blizzard recently attempted to sue the creator of Honorbuddy, a popular third party botting software, in Germany. However, Blizzard was unsuccessful in this case, and withdrew its application for an injunction earlier this month. Honorbuddy had prided itself on being undetectable by Blizzard. However, it is thought that the very recent failure in Court against Honorbuddy was the motivation behind finding a method of detecting the botting software, and the subsequent, massive ban of many Honorbuddy users. With the ban of a substantial number of its users and narrowly escaping litigation, the creator of Honorbuddy has effectively shut down the application for the time being.

Apparently, Blizzard’s mighty ban hammer may be enough to stem the tide of botting villainy. Although 100,000 accounts is a substantial number to ban by any means, WoW maintains a subscriber base of 7.1 million people. Banned accounts will be able to access the WoW servers in six months, so the countless hours that players have put in to creating their characters will not all be for naught. Hopefully these players have learned that violations of WoW’s Terms of Use will result in punishment, and not seek to gain a competitive advantage through any illicit means.

Roger Quiles is an attorney from New York City with a practice focusing in business, entertainment, and eSports law. A die-hard gamer since Super Mario Bros., Roger now represents professional gamers, tournament producers, and the businesses that serve them. Up, up, down, down, left, right, left right, B, A, Start.