Hello my fellow gamers,

I'm looking into seeking restitution in a class action lawsuit against Activision/Blizzard in direct response to their shadow banning system, and failure to adequately protect gamers with their anti-cheat system. We all deserve a fair environment to play games in.  What they've provided is anything but fair play. 

Please help us get to 100,000 signatures of support.  If we reach this goal, I will find a law firm that is willing to represent us, and start the GoFundMe.com campaign after negotiations with the firm determine their fees so that we can move forward with this suit.

The Lawsuit

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Benjamin Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
vs.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Defendant

Introduction and Background
This is a class action lawsuit brought by Benjamin Perez (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who have been adversely affected by Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Defendant”) due to practices that have allegedly undermined fairness, transparency, and user trust in the operation of their online multiplayer games, including but not limited to Call of Duty: Warzone and related titles.
The Defendant’s alleged practices include the implementation of shadow banning systems, whitelist privileges for certain players, failure to ensure effective anti-cheat measures, and unfair crossplay configurations. These practices have allegedly caused direct harm to users by fostering an inequitable gaming environment.

Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court has jurisdiction under [specific law, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)], as the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and members of the proposed class reside in multiple states across the United States.
Venue is proper in this Court because Activision Blizzard conducts substantial business within this jurisdiction and the practices at issue have caused harm to consumers within this district.

Factual Allegations

Shadow Banning: Defendant allegedly employs a shadow banning system that lacks transparency and accountability, causing harm to users through unjustified restrictions on gameplay without clear evidence of misconduct or appropriate avenues for appeal.

Authentication Standards: Defendant has failed to implement stringent authentication requirements for its multiplayer and Warzone servers. Plaintiff and the Class demand the establishment of strict, uniform authentication protocols, including the use of phone numbers from recognized carriers, government-issued identification, and credit cards issued by legitimate financial institutions.

Whitelist and Anti-Cheat Policies: Defendant allegedly maintains a whitelist system, allowing certain players—such as streamers or professional gamers—to bypass anti-cheat measures and player reporting systems. This practice compromises fairness and harms legitimate players. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant allows banned players to return to lobbies without independent third-party review of infractions, prioritizing profit over integrity.

Skill-Based Damage Allegations: Through the discovery process, Plaintiff seeks to determine whether Defendant utilizes patented or proprietary systems to manipulate gameplay mechanics (e.g., damage output, recoil, hitboxes) in real-time to artificially influence outcomes. If confirmed, this practice constitutes a breach of trust and may violate consumer protection laws.

Crossplay Settings: Defendant has created an inequitable crossplay system by restricting console players’ ability to disable crossplay while allowing PC players to opt out. This discrepancy creates an unfair advantage and diminishes the quality of gameplay for all users.

Class Certification Allegations
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class includes all individuals who purchased and played Defendant’s games, including Call of Duty: Warzone, and were harmed by Defendant’s practices as described herein.

Common questions of law and fact include:
a. Whether Defendant employs shadow banning practices that lack transparency.
b. Whether the whitelist system undermines anti-cheat measures.
c. Whether Defendant uses systems to manipulate gameplay outcomes in real time.
d. Whether Defendant’s crossplay policies are discriminatory.

Legal Claims

Count I: Breach of Contract

Defendant failed to provide a fair and transparent gaming experience as implied in the terms of service.

Count II: Violation of California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

Plaintiff Benjamin Perez, individually and on behalf of the Class, alleges that Activision Blizzard, Inc. engaged in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Unfair Business Practices: The Defendant’s alleged conduct, including the operation of shadow banning systems, maintaining a whitelist system for certain players, and restricting console players’ ability to opt out of crossplay while allowing PC players the same option, constitutes unfair business practices under the UCL. The Defendant’s practices harm consumers by fostering an inequitable gaming environment, prioritizing profit over player fairness.

Unlawful Business Practices: Defendant’s actions are unlawful because they breach contractual obligations implied by their own Terms of Service, which promise a fair and equitable gaming experience. In addition, Defendant’s manipulation of gameplay mechanics, as alleged, may constitute deceptive practices in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a) (California Consumer Legal Remedies Act).

Fraudulent Business Practices: Defendant’s marketing and operation of their games, including Call of Duty: Warzone, mislead players into believing they are participating in a fair gaming environment. This deception is actionable under the UCL because it is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Relevant Precedent: Under Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180, the California Supreme Court clarified that an “unfair” practice under the UCL must be tethered to specific legislative policy or be substantially injurious to consumers. Here, Defendant’s practices harm consumers by creating systemic inequity, undermining the principles of fair competition, and fostering distrust in their services.
Substantial Consumer Injury: As established in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 326-27, plaintiffs must demonstrate an economic injury as a result of the unfair practice. Plaintiff and Class members suffered monetary harm through the purchase of Defendant’s products and in-game services, which were rendered unfairly unusable or unenjoyable due to Defendant’s deceptive and discriminatory practices.
Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein is substantially injurious to consumers, without sufficient countervailing benefits, and is in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

Count III: Negligence

Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in implementing effective anti-cheat measures and maintaining equitable gameplay conditions.

Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Benjamin Perez, individually and on behalf of the Class, respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Certify this action as a class action.
2. Require Defendant to implement strict authentication protocols as outlined herein.
3. Eliminate whitelist privileges for all players and mandate third-party review of all anti-cheat infractions that are deemed "False Bans."
4. Provide transparency into the use of any skill-based damage systems.
5. Allow both PC and console players the option to disable crossplay.
6. Award compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees as appropriate. 
7. Grant any other relief deemed just and equitable by the Court.

Legislation

I will be contacting Senators and House members hoping for one of them to sponsor a bill for "The Video Game Fair Play and Security Act."  Which would make it a crime to create cheating software or use it similar to the laws of South Korea.  The Legislation is provided below:

If this petition also receives 100,000 signatures in the next 30 days, I will be sending this to WhiteHouse.gov, where they are required to respond to this directly.

Proposed Legislation:

Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the "Video Game Fair Play and Security Act.

Section 2: Findings and Purpose

Findings:

a. The video game industry contributes significantly to the U.S. economy, generating billions in revenue and supporting millions of jobs.
b. The use of unauthorized cheat software undermines the integrity of online gaming environments, harms developers, and negatively impacts players' experiences.
c. Such activities may also facilitate other unlawful actions, including theft of digital assets and unauthorized data access.

Purpose:
a. To prohibit the creation, distribution, and use of cheat software or hardware designed to exploit video games.
b. To establish penalties for violations while protecting lawful activities under the U.S. Constitution.
c. To encourage fair competition and protect the rights of players, developers, and publishers.

Section 3: Definitions

For purposes of this Act:
a. Cheat Software: Any program, script, code, or modification intended to provide an unfair advantage in a video game, including but not limited to aimbots, wallhacks, and automated bots.
b. Video Game: Any electronic game played on a computer, console, mobile device, or other digital platform.
c. Developer/Publisher: The entity that creates, maintains, or distributes video games.
d. Unauthorized Use: Any action not permitted by the end-user license agreement (EULA) or terms of service (TOS) of the game.

Section 4: Prohibited Activities

Creation and Distribution of Cheat Software:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly design, develop, produce, sell, or otherwise distribute cheat software or devices for unauthorized use in video games.

Use of Cheat Software:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use cheat software in a manner that disrupts the integrity of a video game or provides an unfair advantage in multiplayer environments.

Unauthorized Access and Exploits:
It shall be unlawful for any person to access game servers or systems without authorization, including by exploiting vulnerabilities or bypassing security measures. 

Section 5: Exceptions

This Act does not apply to:
a. Activities conducted with the explicit written consent of the video game developer or publisher, including quality assurance testing or security research.
b. Modding and user-generated content creation, provided such activities comply with the EULA or TOS of the game.

Section 6: Penalties

Civil Penalties:

a. A violator may be subject to a fine not exceeding $500,000 for creators/distributors of cheat software and $10,000 for individual users.
b. Developers and publishers may pursue additional damages through civil litigation.

Criminal Penalties:
a. A person found guilty of willfully violating Section 4 may be subject to imprisonment not exceeding five years for creators/distributors or one year for individual users, or both, depending on the severity of the violation.

Restitution:
Courts may order violators to pay restitution to affected developers, publishers, or players for demonstrable damages.

Section 7: Enforcement and Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction:
This Act shall apply to any person or entity operating within the United States or affecting commerce within the United States.

Enforcement Authority:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall have primary authority to enforce this Act in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Section 8: Constitutionality

First Amendment Compliance:
This Act does not restrict the lawful creation or use of software unrelated to unauthorized exploitation of video games. Modding, game development, and independent research are protected activities.

Due Process:
No person shall be penalized under this Act without a fair trial or opportunity to contest allegations.

Equal Protection:
The provisions of this Act shall apply equally to all persons, regardless of status, and shall not target specific games, platforms, or developers.
 

 Section 9: Severability
If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

 

Hopefully you all see the merit in my arguments, and sign my petition.  Thank you all for your time, and hope to see you in game.