Posts

Billy Mitchell, the Former “Donkey Kong Champion” Wins Defamation Case

By Reese Sidhu on April 2, 2025

Hi everyone,

The topic I am covering today was more popular a couple years ago but is gaining traction once more. Some of you may be familiar with Billy Mitchell the “Donkey Kong Champion” who previously held world records for scores in Donkey Kong and Pacman in the Guinness Book of World Records. The records were taken away from Billy Mitchell as he came under scrutiny for cheating for those records.  Billy Michell has been notorious for suing people who called him a cheater for defamation and one of the most popular Billy Mitchell haters has been Karl Jobst.  A popular youtuber who makes videos in relation people speed running games.

For years Karl Jobst has been covering Billy Mitchell’s story, calling him a cheater, and showing very convincing evidence that Billy Mitchell did cheat in relation to his high scores. Most people keeping up with the story between the two of them have been on Karl Jobst side as Billy Mitchell was always seen as the villain. Billy Mitchell also typically has been on the losing side of the legal battles he has started with others. There has been a recent defamation case between Billy Mitchell and Karl Jobst however, unlike previous cases this one has gone in favor of Mitchell and painted Karl Jobst in a negative light.  The court has ordered Karl Jobst to pay Billy Mitchell $350,000 for defamation against Mitchell. This outcome came as a shock to the community as there is so much convincing evidence that shows Mitchell is likely a cheater, the community could not understand how Jobst could have lost the case. Well it turns out Jobst lost the case because it was never really about Mitchell being a cheater this time.

Most community members believed the case was about Jobst calling Mitchell a cheater as he had in the past, and Jobst reinforced this belief in the community. He made YouTube videos suggesting the legal battle was about the cheating allegations and even created a GoFundMe to fund his legal fees. Jobst received a lot of monetary support as the community viewed Mitchell to be the villain who was filing another strike suit against Jobst as he normally did. However, it was revealed that this case was actually about Jobst suggesting the suicide of another YouTuber name Apollo Legend stemmed from the stress arising from a settlement between Mitchell and Apollo Legend. Jobst also suggested Mitchell required Apollo Legend to pay him large amounts of money. The court found these claims were based on a fallacy and Jobst was recklessly indifferent as to whether the claims were actually true. Many community members were shocked to find out the case was about this and not just the usual cheating allegations. This has caused Jobst to come under some fire in the public eye and people worry Mitchell may use this as an opportunity to say everything Jobst has said about Mitchell was untrue, including the cheating allegations.

 

Have any of you heard of Billy Mitchell before and were you aware of the ongoing litigation between him and Karl Jobst? If you were aware of the litigation between the two did you assume it was just a case about the cheating allegations as well?

 

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/01/donkey-kong-champion-billy-mitchell-wins-defamation-case-australia-youtuber-karl-jobst-ntwnfb

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/donkey-kong-player-billy-mitchell-to-receive-over-usd218k-in-damages-from-youtube-creator-karl-jobst-following-defamation-case/

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/former-donkey-kong-champion-billy-mitchell-wins-220000-defamation-case-against-youtuber-karl-jobst/

 

Read More | 2 Comments

The End of Steam’s Arbitration Agreement – When Class Action is Preferred

By Clara on April 1, 2025

In 2024, gaming company Valve removed the mandatory arbitration clause from the subscriber agreement for its online gaming platform Steam. In a shift in legal policy, Valve now directs users to the courts to resolve disputes instead of through arbitration. The updated terms take effect either on user agreement, which includes actions like purchasing a game, or automatically on November 1, 2024, for active Steam users.

Though the reason for this change was not explicitly stated, commentaries suggest that the company may be attempting to avoid arbitration overload.

Valve has been involved in a series of legal proceedings in recent years. In 2021, 30 000 game developers filed suit against Valve in Washington, alleging antitrust violations from inflated game prices caused by Steam’s 30% commission on every game sold. The class action was certified in November and scheduled for trial in 2025. Consumers attempted to sue as a class as well but were seemingly stopped by Steam’s subscriber agreement to arbitration.

Arbitration clauses have long been a point of contention in the realm of consumer protection, as they limit the consumers’ ability to seek compensation through lawsuits. However, in this case, Valve may have abandoned its own arbitration clause because law firms and consumers have found a way to use arbitration clauses against the company by launching mass arbitration claims.

In early 2023, a law firm’s social media campaign recruited over 50 000 Steam users to bring antitrust claims against Valve in arbitration. Later that year, Valve sued the law firm, Zaiger LLC, alleging that it targeted Valve in a scheme to recruit large numbers of clients for arbitration claims to burden Valve with over $225 million in arbitration fees. The arguments in that case noted that prior to Zaiger LLC’s involvement, Valve had only 2 arbitration cases between 2017 and 2022. Now, Valve faces overwhelming financial costs due to mass arbitration claims and has cancelled its arbitration clause. Further, Valve petitioned to enjoin all pending arbitrations on the basis that there was no longer an arbitration agreement between the parties.

This may mark a turning point for the use of mandatory arbitration clauses, not just for gaming companies like Valve, but more broadly among large corporations. As mass arbitration becomes a more common tactic used by consumers, corporations may find themselves unable to handle such a caseload or its associated costs.

For example, in 2020, Comcast and AT&T faced a similar conundrum when consumers under forced arbitration banded together to file arbitration requests all at once. This tactic also saddled DoorDash with costs in the millions, resulting from 6000 claims. Amazon also dropped its arbitration clause in 2021.

If mass arbitration attempts continue, arbitration may no longer be the quicker and more cost-effective alternative to court proceedings, and companies are likely well aware of the threat this poses.

What do you think about arbitration clauses and how they can be used to help or hurt consumers? Are class action lawsuits a better way to demand compensation? Or does the removal of arbitration clauses mean that we are back where we started with broad consumer protection schemes?

Sources:

  • https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/why-gaming-company-valve-would-rather-face-consumer-class-action-than-2025-03-10/
  • https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/valve-will-see-you-in-court-no-really-steam-s-just-updated-its-subscriber-agreement-so-that-all-disputes-and-claims-proceed-in-court/
  • https://www.legal.io/articles/5540864/Valve-Removes-Mandatory-Arbitration-from-Steam-Subscriber-Agreement

 

Read More | 1 Comment

Class 10: “IP & Free Speech in Streaming” + “Violence & Video-Games” + Term Paper Advice

By Jon Festinger on April 1, 2025

Read More | No Comments

Video Game Emulators and Game Preservation – Presentation Discussion Outline

By Reese Sidhu on March 29, 2025

We have all probably experienced seeing gameplay of an old game and thinking it would be fun to play that game, only to find out how unrealistic buying the game really would be. Even trying to play an old Pokemon game from our childhoods, on its original hardware has become very difficult. As a result, people have turned to alternative means to play older games, namely emulators. 

Video games emulators are becoming increasingly commonplace as retro games are becoming harder to acquire. People scalping old games is occurring more frequently, especially after COVID, causing prices for some retro games to skyrocket. People also have to acquire the old consoles to play the retro games which only adds to the difficulty of playing retro games. With all the difficulties surrounding  playing retro games in modern times, many use emulators to experience the games they were too young to play growing up. While emulators themselves are becoming more popular, there is little discourse discussing whether emulators themselves are legal. With Nintendo taking a more proactive role in shutting down emulators, people may presume emulators themselves are illegal. 

Our presentation is going to dive into the legality of video games emulators and how emulators interact with Copyright Law and Fair Use. We will cover the Sony Computer Entertainment v Connectix Corporation (2000), 203 F.3d 596 case which directly answers the question of whether video game emulators themselves are legal, at least in the American context. 

All of this leads into the second half of our presentation which is on the critical topic of video game preservation. Video game preservation is the process of collecting, preserving, archiving, cataloging, and making available to play, older video games. As you may imagine, this task brings forth many technical challenges that need to be worked out. In addition, those working to preserve video games for future generations find themselves often sticking their hands in the hornet’s nest that is the legality of game preservation.

Video game preservation is the final boss of video game law and intersects with most of the legal issues already discussed in this course including end-user agreements, copyright, licensing, and fair use/dealing exemptions. For the purposes of our presentation, we focused on a single recent development, an attempt by organizations who are trying to attain an exemption under 17 U.S.C 1201 of the Copyright Act to be able to circumvent copyright protection systems for the legitimate purpose of saving, protecting, and distributing video games for research purposes.

In the course of our presentation we will explain the position of both sides of the debate and discuss the Register’s decision (which can be found here if you would like to see it before class: https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/2024_Section_1201_Registers_Recommendation.pdf , see pages 191-192 for the Register’s decision). 

Finally, we will explore if anything could be done differently through evaluating the proposed exemption from the perspective of Canadian law. Our presentation focuses on the unique provision for Orphan Works in section 77 of the Copyright Act and the SCC position on fair dealing for educational purposes, in particular Justice Abella’s obiter comments from York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) 2021 SCC 32 (at paras 87-106), where she explains that any assessment of fairness in a fair dealing case cannot ignore user’s rights in its analysis. 

Read More | No Comments

The EU is Taking Action Against Virtual Currencies in Video Games

By Reese Sidhu on March 28, 2025

We have all probably come across virtual currencies in video games before. Fortnite has V-Bucks, League of Legends has RP (Riot Points) and Call of Duty has COD Points. Since microtransactions have become so prevalent in modern gaming, many companies have come up with their own in-game currency that players have to use in order to purchase premium items. However, these virtual currencies can often times make it unclear just how much you are spending on an item.

An investigation into a game called Star Sable Online (which appears to be an online horse raising, racing and adventure game), has lead the European Commission to combat the potential harms these virtual currencies can pose to children. Star Stable Online appeared to be engaging in practices regarding virtual currencies that were particularly harmful to children.

Some of the specific harms were:

  • direct appeals to children in the advertisements, urging them to buy, or persuade adults to buy for them, in-game currency or items;
  • the use of pressuring techniques such as ‘purchase through time-limited practices’ to unduly influence children to purchase in-game virtual currency or in-game content;
  • a lack of clear and transparent information, adapted to children, about buying and using in-game virtual currency, leading consumers to spend more than they intend to;
  • failure by the company to ensure that the influencers promoting their products clearly disclose commercial content and do not unduly influence children with their marketing techniques.

 

In response to the investigation, the European Commission decided to create guidelines that will create a safer gaming environment for children. In doing so the European Commission, created key principles that form the basis for the guidelines. The key principles are as follows:

  • clear and transparent pricing and pre-contractual information;
  • avoiding practices hiding the costs of in-game digital content and services, as well as practices forcing consumers to purchase virtual currency;
  • respect of consumers’ right of withdrawal;
  • respecting consumer vulnerabilities, in particular when it comes to children;

These principles result in game companies being unable to use virtual currencies to hide the actual prices of items purchasable in-game. While virtual currencies will likely remain in games, companies will have to post that actual price of the items that are being purchased alongside the virtual currency price. It should be noted that these are only guidelines and have not been written in law, so it would appear companies can choose to not follow the guidelines if they do not want to.

Discussion Questions:

Do you think the practice of using virtual currencies is harmful to children and does it really result in people spending more than they were intending to? Do you think that these key principles should be made into law instead of just being guidelines in the EU? Should Canada create similar guidelines?

 

Sources:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_831

https://www.thegamer.com/european-union-guidelines-combat-predatory-microtransactions-virtual-currencies/

This is the game that lead to the guidelines being made: https://www.starstable.com/

 

Read More | 2 Comments

Consumer Protection in Video Games

By kmm24 on March 27, 2025

The world of video games is vast, with a multitude of genres to entertain any member of society who wishes to delve into them. This vastness, however, allows for games including violent, crude, and destructive content to be widely available. While it could be argued that this is a positive, allowing for those who wish to engage with said content to do so with ease, these games are broadly marketed and thus can fall into the hands of those not suitable to see such material (such as children). 

Additionally, the immense saturation of video games in the market forces developers to become aggressive with their marketing strategies, drawing the player’s interest in a game. There are instances where this is done through inaccurate representations of what the game truly is, to the detriment of the purchaser. 

This thus begs the question: is the video game industry growing at the expense of the consumer? If so, how can the consumer/player be protected? Or do they even need protection from the video game industry? 

Through this presentation we will delve into the world of consumer protection in the video game industry, discussing whether the methods, legislation, and case law presently available sufficiently protect the video game consumer or not.

-Keely McConnell & Brooklyn Fowler

Sources to check out:

-Timothy Law & Anastasia Reklitis, “No Cheat Codes Here – Deceptive Gameplay Marketing in Mobile Game Advertising” (5 May 2021), online (blog): <competitionchronicle.com> [https://www.competitionchronicle.com/2021/05/no-cheat-codes-here-deceptive-gameplay-marketing-in-mobile-game-advertising/]

-Sydney L. Forde, Erika Solis, & Yasemin Beykont, Address (Paper at the 2023 Annual CCA Conference at York University) [unpublished], [https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2023fordsolisbeykont.htm].



Read More | No Comments

Video games and Children : The Roblox case

By Lynn on March 26, 2025

Although video games are played by both children and adults and there are many video games that are solely for adults, you could be forgiven as a parent for presuming a video game that your child is playing won’t include sexual content. This is especially prevalent as a lot of age-inappropriate video games at the very least appeal to children (think bright colours, cartoon-like customisable characters, the abundance of video games that ARE okay for children) , if not actually market to them.

An example of this is the Roblox case. Roblox is overwhelmingly used by minors yet parents argued that they were deceived as to its appropriateness for their children, and that their children were being exposed to nude avatars, avatars engaging in intercourse and virtual strip clubs. Roblox responded to one of the lawsuits by saying “[w]e have an expert team of thousands of people dedicated to moderation and safety on Roblox 24/7, and we act swiftly to block inappropriate content or behavior when detected, including sexual content which violates our Community Standards.”

Given the sheer amount of complaints regarding this subject, it doesn’t seem like this safety measure is effective. Do you think the blame is being rightfully placed on video game companies, or is inappropriate behavior within the game something that’s out of their control? Additionally, do video games (including adult content games) actively or inherently market themselves towards children and is this avoidable?

Sources :

https://mashable.com/article/roblox-lawsuit-inappropriate-content?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20231107766120/en/Multiple-Families-Sue-Roblox-Corporation-for-Exploiting-Children-Online

Read More | No Comments

AI and Ethics: the SAG-AFTRA Strike

By Clara on March 25, 2025

AI has become a rising topic in many industries in recent years. Video games and entertainment are no exception. However, as companies eagerly explore this novel technology, workers and artists who created the content that AI trains on have begun to fight back.

On June 26, 2024, SAG-AFTRA, a US union representing around 160,000 artists, including voice actors, began a strike against video game companies for their refusal to offer clear protection for its members against abuse and exploitation using AI. The strike was authorized with a 98.32% vote from SAG-AFTRA members after over a year and a half of negotiations without a deal, beginning in October 2022. Companies at the table included Disney, EA, WB Games, and Activision, among many others (the “bargaining group”). The union members demanded AI transparency, fair compensation and the right to informed consent for the AI use of the artist’s face, voice, and body.

Nearly a year later, the strike continues. In a recent message on March 11, 2025, SAG-AFTRA states that though some proposals have been agreed on with the bargaining group, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental AI protections for all performers. For one, the bargaining group would like to use all past performances and any performance from outside a specific contract without informed consent or payment, which the union finds unacceptable. On a more positive note, other video game employers from outside the bargaining group have given much more favourable responses to the union, with over 160 games now signed on to the union’s interim and independent agreements.

The strike and the impacts of AI has had many ripple effects in the industry, including non-union members taking a stand in solidarity, as well as entire voice casts refusing contracts over AI clauses.

The core of the issue is not that the union is anti-AI but that companies refuse to provide fair compensation and transparency in the use of AI. For example, in October 2024, SAG-AFTRA signed a contract with AI company Ethovox to ensure consent and fair compensation for its members who participate in Ethovox’s foundational voice model. The agreement included ongoing payments for actors for the life of the model. Statements from SAG-AFTRA and Ethovox reveal their stance that AI should be a choice and that voice actors should be protected from AI misuse and exploitation through informed consent and fair compensation.

What are your thoughts on the stances of both sides? Should a voice actor’s past performances be automatically available as “training data” or should there be compensation for the use of their voice in AI? What do you think the results of the strike will be?

Sources:

https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-members-who-work-video-games-go-strike

https://www.sagaftra.org/contracts-industry-resources/contracts/interactive-media-video-game-strike

https://www.sagaftra.org/member-message-video-game-strike-update

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/zenless-zone-zero-voice-actors-quietly-recast-following-sag-aftra-action

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/french-apex-legends-voice-cast-refuses-contracts-over-unacceptable-ai-clause

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/sag-aftra-announces-agreement-with-ai-voice-company-ethovox

Read More | 1 Comment

Class 9 Video & Slides – “Right of Publicity: The Use of Real People in Video Games” & Dr. Kim Voll

By Jon Festinger on March 25, 2025

Read More | No Comments

License to Stream

By Hannah Goertzen on March 24, 2025

Ethan Geist, Hannah Goertzen, and Kiaan Bondy sit down for a conversation on copyright and video game streaming, while setting up their own stream. In our “Twitch Stream”, we go through three main topics:

The Current State of Streaming

  • Twitch started in 2011 and in its first full year, 200 million hours of content was watched. This skyrocketed in 2020. In 2019, users viewed 11 billion hours of content. In 2020. that nearly doubled – to 18 billion hours. Last year, 20.8 billion hours were viewed (source). With such a big rise in a new form of media, legal challenges are inevitable
  • Twitch encourages all its streamers to abide by their regions copyright laws, telling them to get permission from developers and other copyright holders before playing content. If they fail to, and the copyright holder complains, they’ll be hit with a “DMCA Notification” and be sent to “Copyright School”. 
  • Who is asking for the removal of content? Not developers! In fact, many developers (including Nintendo) either explicitly allow streaming and encourage it through early-releases to famous streamers. This is likely because it serves as good marketing for them. 

Copyright Content and Fair Dealings 

  • Video games are bundles of copyrighted content – from the characters, to music, to voices. Developers could go after streamers for ‘public performance’ of their copyrighted work (Copyright Act, 1985 c C-42). Storied content is seen by the industry as less allowable to stream.
  • Streamers may be able to claim that they have changed the content enough to be considered ‘fair dealings’ if they can show that their work was used for ‘education’ or ‘review’. 
  • Streamers’ biggest risk to have their content be taken down is the background music they play, or if they stream watch-alongs of tv shows or movies because those industries are more litigious.

Banned players and free speech 

  • There’s a big debate about whether social media, including Twitch should be highly regulated or allow freedom of speech protection.
  • In Canada, for expression to be protected, it has to be in the ‘public space’ (Charter s. 2b). Some groups have argued that social media sites are a modern ‘town square’ and should be considered an online equivalent to government property (BC Civil Liberties Association). On the other side of the coin, Twitter has been considered a ‘public forum’ in order to prosecute someone for hate speech online (R v. Elliott). 
  • Twitch regulates itself, banning users for language use or inciting negative actions, including banning a user for saying people should ‘kill’ a senator, and banning a user for inciting an insurrection. Twitch uses live moderation and an AutoModerator to track individual imagery and speech. 

We hope you enjoyed the conversation around streaming! Thanks for tuning in — like and subscribe to our channel 🙂 

We’ll share the slides after class as we don’t want any spoilers!

Read More | No Comments



Creative Commons License