In 2021, a bizarre legal dispute arose in the state of California. A company sued Call of Duty, claiming to have discovered copyright infringements in the story campaign of “Infinite Warfare”. The lawsuit was so far-fetched that the responsible lawyer had to compensate Activision – for not having played enough CoD.
Infinite Warfare was the Call of Duty from 2016 and took place quite far into the future. The story features outrageous scenes in space and plays with the fear of getting lost in the vastness of space.
Perhaps this was not the most original idea even at the time of its release in 2016. However, a company from the USA took it a step further. Brooks Entertainment sued Activision-Blizzard, the corporation behind Call of Duty, for damages: They claimed ideas were stolen.
This was the accusation: The suing company and their lawyer claimed that the main character of Infinite Warfare, Sean Brooks, is based on the CEO of Brooks Entertainment: Shon Brooks.
Furthermore, they claimed that ideas from two mobile games of the company were used in Infinite Warfare. According to Brooks Entertainment, they own the rights to the financial mobile games “Save One Bank” and “Stock Picker”.
The lawsuit described several situations under which they intended to assert copyright infringements.
The plaintiffs described a scripted combat scene taking place in a “High Fashion Couture” shopping mall, where they allegedly saw the CEO “Shon Brooks” in the role of the CoD character “Sean Brooks”. There were several such comparisons.
This is how the case turned out: The lawsuit was dismissed by the court. Moreover, the lawyer of Brooks Entertainment was instructed to compensate Activision-Blizzard for the unnecessary effort.
In the USA, there is the option for a defendant to file a motion for the sanctioning of the plaintiff if the lawsuit is unnecessary and based on random or false evidence (via Kotaku.com).
If this motion is approved, the subject of the proceedings cannot be brought to court again, and compensation for expenses is also possible.
Why does the lawyer have to pay? The accusation was too far from the truth, and it could have been easily verified whether copyright infringements occurred.
The court stated that the plaintiff’s lawyer should have played Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare more before filing the unfounded lawsuit. Only the first 1.5 hours needed to be completed for verification.
Thus, Sean Brooks is not actually the main character of the game, but Commander Nick Reyes. Furthermore, the character Sean Brooks was not involved in the combat scene in the shopping mall, as claimed in the lawsuit.
Additionally, Infinite Warfare was referred to by the plaintiffs as a first and third-person shooter, even though it is purely a first-person shooter.
All in all, the court saw no reason for the lawsuit and even stated that it was a waste of resources.
Leave a comment with your opinion on the topic. If you would like to read more about failed lawsuits against Call of Duty, check this out: WWE legend sues Call of Duty – Hits himself with his strongest argument
