Two prominent figures in the esports world, Hector “H3CZ” Rodriguez and Seth “Scump” Abner, have ignited a legal firestorm by filing a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, the powerhouse behind the popular Call of Duty franchise. The lawsuit, filed in February 2024, accuses Activision of creating a monopoly in competitive Call of Duty, stifling competition, and engaging in unfair business practices that have harmed both OpTic Gaming, the esports organization they represent, and individual players.
At the heart of the lawsuit lies the claim that Activision, through its acquisition of Major League Gaming (MLG) and the subsequent creation of the Call of Duty League (CDL), has established an ironclad grip on the competitive Call of Duty scene. The lawsuit alleges that Activision’s refusal to grant licenses to other tournament organizers effectively eliminated alternative pathways for players and teams, forcing them into the CDL with its hefty $27.5 million entry fee and a 50% revenue share requirement. This, according to the plaintiffs, creates an unfair advantage for Activision, allowing it to dictate terms and extract exorbitant fees, while simultaneously restricting competition and stifling innovation.
H3CZ, the founder and CEO of OpTic Gaming, further claims that Activision’s monopolistic practices extend beyond financial constraints. The lawsuit alleges that Activision pressured him to relinquish control of OpTic Gaming, forcing him to partner with billionaire investors and cede a significant portion of his ownership stake to participate in the CDL. This, according to H3CZ, constitutes a form of coercion and financial exploitation, leveraging his passion for the game and his desire to remain competitive against his will.
Scump, a retired professional Call of Duty player and current content creator for OpTic Gaming, joins the lawsuit with accusations of his own. He claims that Activision’s monopoly extends beyond active players, restricting the revenue opportunities of retired players like himself. The lawsuit alleges that Activision’s control over the Call of Duty ecosystem limits the ability of retired players to capitalize on their skills and brand recognition through sponsorships, merchandise, and other avenues.
Activision, unsurprisingly, paints a different picture. The company vehemently denies the allegations, calling the lawsuit “meritless” and accusing H3CZ and Scump of attempting extortion. They claim that the lawsuit is an attempt to distract from the success of the Call of Duty League and the positive impact it has had on the competitive scene.
However, the accusations raised by H3CZ and Scump have ignited a broader conversation about the potential anti-competitive practices within the esports industry, particularly concerning the dominance of large publishers like Activision.
As the case unfolds, the legal battle between OpTic Gaming and Activision is likely to have significant implications for the future of competitive Call of Duty and the esports landscape as a whole.
