In a lawsuit involving Activision's Infinite Warfare title, a lawyer earned the disapproval of a jude for not playing enough Call of Duty.

It's safe to say most people assume that playing video games would have very little impact on proceedings in a courtroom. However, this specific lawsuit involving Activision and game developers Brooks Entertainment proves that with a little more Call of Duty experience embarrassment could have been avoided.

https://charlieintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/call-of-duty.jpeg

Of course, embarrassment is not the only thing that could have been avoided as there's no doubt Brooks Entertainment spent a lot of time and money when they decided to sue Activision in 2021.

According to legal intelligence news site JD Supra, The lawsuit involved a Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare character who primarily appeared in the game's campaign by the name of Sean Brooks. Brooks Entertainment alleged the likeness between Sean Brooks and their character Shon Brooks went beyond just similarly sounding names.

They claimed that "Shon Brooks and Sean Brooks both had unlimited resources and missiles; they bring thieves to justice; they traveled to Mars, and both games had scripted game battle scenes take place in a high fashion couture shopping center mall."

Demonstrating a clear understanding of their source material, it didn't take long for Activision to point out that several of the claims made in regards to the characters' likeness were factually misrepresented.

https://charlieintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/infinite-warfare.jpg

After an Activision lawyer played through Infinite Warfare's campaign they declared: "it was immediately apparent to me that many (if not virtually all) of the factual allegations in the Complaint were not accurate."

For starters, they pointed out that Sean Brooks is not the main character of Infinite Warfare as Brooks Entertainment alleged, and neither do they share any physical similarities. Furthermore, Sean Brooks does not take part in a scripted battle scene inside of a shopping mall as the plaintiffs suggested.

On July 12, 2022, the judge eventually agreed with Activision's statement and dismissed the lawsuit. To make matters worse the judge also, "ordered the plaintiff's counsel to reimburse Activision for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that it incurred in the litigation."

In a humiliating turn of events, the judge claimed that the "Plaintiff's counsel could have easily verified these facts prior to filing the factually baseless Complaint, just as the Court easily verified them within the first hour and a half of playing the game."

Click here for full article