Blizzard permanently closes Overwatch accounts using broad accusations such as “Cheating” or “Unapproved Peripherals.” However, affected players are frequently not told what was allegedly detected, when it occurred, which match or session was involved, or what specific rule they supposedly violated.

When these players appeal, many receive repeated template responses stating that the evidence was reviewed and the closure was upheld. That is not a meaningful appeal. A player cannot challenge an accusation without knowing the specific conduct being alleged.

We support removing players who are actually using prohibited software or devices to gain an unfair advantage. However, a permanent account closure should require reliable, account-specific evidence and a genuine human review.

Player reports must not be treated as proof of cheating. Players sometimes report opponents because they are frustrated about losing, mistake skilled gameplay for cheating, or have a personal grievance against another player. Reports can also be coordinated by a group. Receiving multiple accusations does not make those accusations independently verified evidence.

Reports may reasonably trigger an investigation, but Blizzard should never permanently close an account based solely or primarily on the number of reports received. Report volume is not technical proof. Any reports used in an enforcement decision must be corroborated through reliable gameplay or technical evidence.

For every disputed permanent account closure, Blizzard should provide the affected player with the following information:

The exact policy or rule that Blizzard believes was violated.
The date and approximate time when the alleged activity occurred.
The match, game mode, or account session associated with the detection.
The platform and session on which the alleged violation occurred.
The specific category of conduct detected, such as unauthorized software, automated inputs, macros, input conversion, hardware manipulation, account activity, or another clearly defined category.
Whether the decision was based on gameplay analysis, device or client telemetry, player reports, account-access information, pattern detection, or a combination of evidence.
If reports contributed to the decision, confirmation that the accusations were independently corroborated and were not accepted as proof by themselves.
Whether the closure resulted from one alleged incident or a pattern involving multiple identified incidents.
Confirmation that the evidence and explanations submitted by the player during the appeal were individually considered.
A meaningful appeal must be conducted by a human reviewer who has access to the underlying account information and the authority to overturn the original decision. The reviewer should examine the specific flagged sessions instead of simply confirming that the enforcement system produced a result. The response should address the player’s actual questions and evidence rather than repeat the original accusation.

Blizzard should also provide a reasonable method for players to submit relevant evidence concerning their controller, hardware, platform, login history, or other circumstances connected to the identified session. If activity from different sessions or platforms contributed to the decision, each session should be examined separately and accurately attributed.

We are not asking Blizzard to publish anti-cheat source code, reveal confidential detection algorithms, disclose security thresholds, or provide information that would help cheaters avoid detection. Blizzard can protect those systems while still telling a player what category of conduct was detected and when the alleged violation occurred.

Permanent closure removes years of account progress, earned items, purchased content, statistics, and connections to the Overwatch community. Such a severe decision should not rest on unexplained accusations, unverified player reports, or an appeal process that only repeats the original result.

If Blizzard cannot identify a reliable and independently verified basis for a permanent closure, or if a genuine human review determines that the available evidence does not sufficiently establish a violation, the affected account should be restored.

We ask Blizzard Entertainment to implement specific, evidence-based enforcement notices, meaningful human appeals, safeguards against false or malicious reporting, and restoration of Overwatch accounts that were permanently closed without sufficiently reliable proof.