2-Year Call of Duty False Permanent Ban Reversed by Court Case

Very interesting read.<p>I don&#x27;t play video games, but I do play online chess, and in online chess, there is a huge epidemic of cheating. Many cheaters are banned by chess.com. Some of these bans go unnoticed, but in other cases, the cheaters passionately insist that they were not cheating. And I don&#x27;t believe them.<p>In a minuscule number of cases, chess.com has been known to reverse a ban. But chess.com does not provide the details of their anti-cheating technology.<p>So in the arena of chess, I do side with the provider, because as a practical matter, I believe they are almost always (&gt;99.9%) correct. Of course, they still suffer from false negatives, because intermittent cheating is virtually impossible to prove.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what lessons to draw from the article.

&gt; Activision explained that the burden of proof should be on me as “there is no requirement for Activision to prove that I had cheated” and “any burden rests on the Claimant” (me). The Judge agreed with this so I had the task of providing evidence that I didn’t cheat.<p>This doesn&#x27;t make sense to me - if I bought a book, paid, and never got it, then sued, would I be expected to prove they never delivered the book? That seems nuts, I&#x27;d expect the court would say &quot;show the courier&#x27;s receipt&quot;.<p>&quot;The burden of proof is on the accuser&quot; - I&#x27;d expect the required proof here to be the proof that they were banned (which should be trivial: the emails).<p>&gt; A combination of the evidence I submitted... and lack of evidence submitted by Activision led to this decision.<p>So in the end the burden of proof wasn&#x27;t on @mdswanson?<p>Stuff like this is an ever-present threat so I&#x27;d like to know what was effective in case it ever happens to me.<p>Here&#x27;s what I don&#x27;t get:<p>- At the start the blog says that Activision&#x27;s case fell apart because they gave a reason - does this mean that if they said &quot;we banned him for no reason at all&quot; he&#x27;d have no case?<p>- Couldn&#x27;t Activision have said &quot;well, he got 37 hours of gameplay, we don&#x27;t owe him any more&quot;? There&#x27;s no monetary damage - so how was damage actually determined here? Was there a defamation angle or something?<p>What laws did the Judge cite making this decision?

Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn&#x27;t quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.

Could a case have been made for defamation, as their actions had caused Steam to falsely label them as a cheat?

I can&#x27;t even prevent people from stealing my identity &#x2F; using my SSN lol OP out here going to court for a video game and beating cases

2 years? Jeez. All for a crapfest game haha. Kudos to you for going through with that. I guess they have a streaming platform so reputation was on the line, but I would not have put this much effort. Did you use AI to generate legal documents?