Demand Real Anti-Cheat Accountability from Activision

To: Activision Blizzard / Microsoft

 

Every year, millions of players purchase Call of Duty titles based on Activision's public claims that their Ricochet anti-cheat system keeps matches clean and fair. We believe those claims are misleading, and we're done accepting it.

 

We anticipate Activision's objections. We have addressed them directly below.

 
What We Are Demanding

 

1. Independent Third-Party Audit

 

Not Activision's own data. A credibly independent auditor — with no financial relationship to Activision or Microsoft — must verify anti-cheat performance and publish findings publicly.

 

Activision will claim this exposes proprietary technology. We are not asking for source code. We are asking for outcome verification — the same standard applied to financial audits, food safety inspections, and pharmaceutical trials. Proprietary methods can remain protected while results are independently verified. Every other regulated industry does this.

 

2. Accountability for the Repeat Offender Problem

Activision must publicly disclose what systemic measures exist to prevent banned players from immediately returning. Specifically:

• What hardware-level or account-level barriers exist beyond a simple account ban?
• What is the measured re-offence rate within 90 days of a ban?
• If those measures are ineffective, what is the timeline for improvement?

We are not asking how Ricochet works. We are asking whether it works — and what happens when it doesn't.

 

3. Full Report Transparency — Without Compromising Detection

We understand that disclosing exactly how cheaters are detected would help them evade detection. We are not asking for that. We are asking for:

• A clear explanation of what "your report has been processed" actually means in plain language
• A follow-up notification confirming whether the reported player was actioned — yes or no — without disclosing methodology
• If no action was taken, a general category reason — insufficient evidence, no violation found, already under review — not a technical breakdown
• A formal appeal mechanism allowing reporting players to flag disagreement and submit additional context for re-review

Activision will claim privacy laws prevent disclosing actions against other accounts. Other platforms — including Xbox, PlayStation, and Steam — already notify reporting users when action is taken without disclosing personal data. This is a solved problem. Activision is choosing not to solve it.

 

4. Meaningful Refund Policy Tied to Advertised Performance

Players who purchase a title marketed with specific anti-cheat performance claims are entitled to recourse when those claims are not met. We are not demanding unlimited refunds. We are demanding:

• A documented refund pathway for players who experience repeated verified anti-cheat failures within a reasonable window
• Clear criteria for what constitutes an actionable failure under consumer protection standards

Activision will argue that ToS arbitration clauses waive this right. Consumer protection law in multiple jurisdictions — including the EU, UK, and several US states — has already established that blanket arbitration clauses do not override statutory consumer rights. We are asking regulators to apply those existing laws here.

 

5. Legal Accountability for Advertised Claims

Specific, quantified public claims about match integrity must be verifiable. We call on consumer protection agencies in the US, Canada, UK, and EU to investigate whether existing Activision claims about Ricochet's performance constitute false or misleading advertising under existing law.

 

Activision will argue these are aspirational marketing statements. A specific percentage claim is not aspiration — it is a factual assertion. It should be treated as one.

 
Why This Matters

 

We are not asking Activision to make a perfect game. We are asking them to stop selling us one while knowing it isn't.

 

The current model — collect full purchase price, layer microtransactions on top, ban cheaters in waves while they freely re-register within days — is not anti-cheat. It is managed negligence dressed up as consumer protection.

 

We have addressed every objection Activision is likely to raise. What remains is a company choosing profit over the experience of the players funding it.

 

A report system with no transparency is not a report system. It is a suggestion box that ends up in the trash.

 

We deserve better. Sign if you agree.