Call of Duty, legal case won: the prosecution should have played more, for the judge

Activision-Blizzard And Rockstar Games have won a lawsuit regarding Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. The judge found Brooks Entertainment’s accusation baseless, according to which the two video game companies would have exploited the features of CEO Shon Brooks to create a futuristic shooter character.

In November 2021, Brooks Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar Games, claiming the two companies had “robbedthe likeness of Brooks Entertainment CEO Shon Brooks for the character of Sean Brooks in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. The lawsuit claims that Brooks Entertainment “had presented and was discussing a pitch with Blizzard, Activision and Rockstar Games, Inc. to create a game” and to have had “many meetings and e-mail exchanges” with people like Rockstar President Sam Houser, but also Gordon Hall, Activision Blizzard Mobile’s chief creative officer, and former Rockstar HR manager Sarah Shafer.

Brooks would have presented to Activision Blizzard and Rockstar the proposals of two pitches for video games. One of these games included a fictionalized version of Shon Brooks that “he had missiles, unlimited resources, he sailed through rich and action-packed places” and they were present “war scenes that took place in a high fashion mall”. All elements that Activision and Rockstar would have stolen for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and its “main character” Sean Brooks.

First of all Rockstar has no connection with the Call of Duty series, published only by Activision Blizzard. Sean Brooks is also not the main character in the game, and although the game features a gunfight in a shopping mall, there are no similarities with the description of the cause. In a motion filed in March 2022, Activision’s defense claimed that he is “immediately evident that the prosecutor did not play Infinite Warfare and filed the complaint in good faith “. Activision argued that the lawsuit was frivolous to the point of asking for penalties under Section 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that “the factual disputes have evidential support”.

Brooks objected to this, stating that the article in question does not require you to play all 6 hours of the Infinite Warfare campaign. The judge, however, had to disagree, stating that the lawyer who took the defense of the company he should have played COD Infinite Warfare more.

“[L’avvocato di Brooks] he could easily have verified these facts before filing the groundless complaint, just like the court easily checked them within the first hour and a half of play. Brooks Entertainment will now have to reimburse Activision Blizzard’s legal fees and court costs.

Speaking of Call of Duty, Raven Software has today released a new update of COD Warzone with which the H4 Blixen submachine gun has been weakened.

Call of Duty, legal case won: the prosecution should have played more, for the judge