Epic Games Moving Forward With The Lawsuit Against a 14-Year Old Cheater In FORTNITE

By  | 


Fortnite developer Epic Games is going forward with the lawsuit filed toward a minor who was found cheating multiple times in the game that completely violated its terms of service. The boy’s mother tried to have the case rejected, but it seems that Epic is not going to drop the case and will move forward with the lawsuit.

The case was brought to the attention of the media last year when Epic filed lawsuits against two Fortnite players. It was not clear whether the developer knew before that one of the people they’re going after is a minor. Epic Games PR representative said:

“This particular lawsuit arose as a result of the defendant filing a DMCA counterclaim to a takedown notice on a YouTube video that exposed and promoted Fortnite Battle Royale cheats and exploits. Under these circumstances, the law requires that we file suit or drop the claim,” Epic explained. “Epic is not okay with ongoing cheating or copyright infringement from anyone at any age. As stated previously, we take cheating seriously, and we’ll pursue all available options to make sure our games are fun, fair, and competitive for players.”

The mother of the minor spoke out and wrote a letter asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. Epic responded to the letter recently, (which you can read in full here as obtained by TorrentFreak) disputing the points presented in the mother’s letter that claimed that  Epic was unable to prove that the minor was able to modify a copyrighted game code, second, that the developer illegally disclosed the boy’s name, and third, that Epic won’t be able to prove a “profit loss” as a direct consequence of the cheating, which should be a reason enough to dismiss the case. The latest filing by Epic disputes all three points in detail.

The fourth point repeated that the boy is a minor and accepted Fortnite’s terms and conditions without parental permission which would mean that Epic cannot sue for damages. The developer argues that a pattern has already been set when another case, which involved students clicking “I Agree to the terms of the user agreement” and also used the “infancy defense.” However, the court ruled in that situation saying that “a valid contract existed between the minors and the software company” because the students agreed to the user agreement.

So, what you think about this case?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login