Bobby Kotick Suing G/O Media [Mar 15, 2025, 11:59 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Courthouse News reports that former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick is suing G/O Media over the inclusion of some uncomfortable details in stories about Kotick's interest in buying TikTok (thanks Aftermath). In reporting the news, both Kotaku and Gizmodo made reference to a 2021 lawsuit against Activision Blizzard by the California Civil Rights Department over allegations of sexual harassment of female employees. The suit was settled in 2023 for $47 million. But despite the big payout, there was no admission of wrongdoing. The settlement stated "no court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations" about "systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard." Both reports cited in the suit do mention the lawsuit was settled, so the bone of contention in Kotick's lawsuit appears to be that neither characterized the case as having been "dismissed.":
Despite this, Kotick noted, G/O Media published two articles on March 11, 2024 — one on video game website Kotaku and one in science and tech outlet Gizmodo — about Kotick that repeated the since-dismissed claims of widespread workplace misconduct without ever mentioning they had been dismissed.
“Neither article had anything to do with Activision,” Kotick says in the complaint. “Both were about rumors that Kotick was interested in buying TikTok. Yet, Kotaku and Gizmodo went out of their way to include withdrawn, false allegations relating to workplace issues which G/O Media knew had been conclusively disproven by numerous investigations … purely for the malicious purposes of causing further harm to Kotick.”
According to Kotick in the complaint filed Tuesday, he and his representatives repeatedly wrote to G/O Media demanding corrections to the articles, including removal of a headline that originally called Kotick a “disgraced” CEO and a note that the California Civil Rights Department voluntarily withdrew its claims.
Gizmodo subsequently removed the word “disgraced” from its headline, and both publications revised their articles with details of the settlement. Still, Kotick claims, the articles continue to “mischaracterize” the agreement.
Kotick seeks damages to be determined at trial.
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [ 1 ] Older
Newer [ 1 ] Older
The problem is that G/O has little money, and Kotick has lots of money.
G/O only exists because Peter Thiel sued Gawker out of business. Much like Musk is threatening to do to anyone not advertising on Twitter.
We've hit the point of wealth inequality that billionaires can weaponize civil lawsuits into a war of attrition that no one else can afford.
G/O only exists because Peter Thiel sued Gawker out of business. Much like Musk is threatening to do to anyone not advertising on Twitter.
We've hit the point of wealth inequality that billionaires can weaponize civil lawsuits into a war of attrition that no one else can afford.
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Overon wrote on Mar 15, 2025, 16:46:
Since Kotick is a public figure, not only would he have to prove that they are writing is false by preponderance of the evidence, but also since Kotick is a public figure he has to prove "the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement."
Good luck with that second one. This lawsuit is just a strategic lawsuit against public participation. And I think Kotick is a scumbag and so do thousands of other people.
they covered anything and everything he did and it's borderline retarded to think they didn't have all the facts, especially as they frequently posted excerpts from court cases. they had their own agenda and pushed it. honestly wouldn't be surprised to see this settled out of court.
Kosumo wrote on Mar 16, 2025, 02:26:It wasn't a criminal investigation. So " guilty" or "not guilty" do not apply. It's a civil investigation where "liable" or "not liable" apply. Rich people can pay millions to make civil cases with embarrassing evidence go away. After all in a civil case all you can get as a plaintiff is money and that's what the rich person is offering you as a settlement, money so that the case never reaches trial or embarrassing reports get published about what occured which damages their reputation.Prez wrote on Mar 16, 2025, 01:14:
Legally speaking, I doubt that Kotick has a case here. I say that not being completely in the know about the details, but unless I am mistaken, they are not required to mention that the allegations were legally dismissed. Given that they are not just pulling this out of thin air, I don't see him having a leg to stand on. Probably should have been less of a garbage person, Bob. You weren't found innocent of anything there champ. They just agreed to stop investigating.
So he was also not found guilty of anything then?
Kosumo wrote on Mar 16, 2025, 02:26:Prez wrote on Mar 16, 2025, 01:14:
Legally speaking, I doubt that Kotick has a case here. I say that not being completely in the know about the details, but unless I am mistaken, they are not required to mention that the allegations were legally dismissed. Given that they are not just pulling this out of thin air, I don't see him having a leg to stand on. Probably should have been less of a garbage person, Bob. You weren't found innocent of anything there champ. They just agreed to stop investigating.
So he was also not found guilty of anything then?
Rich people are rarely found guilty of something hard to prove. They offer a life changing settlement, like $47M, attached to a withdrawal of the claim. They literally buy the accusations away.
What would you be willing to say never happened for $47M?
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Prez wrote on Mar 16, 2025, 01:14:
Legally speaking, I doubt that Kotick has a case here. I say that not being completely in the know about the details, but unless I am mistaken, they are not required to mention that the allegations were legally dismissed. Given that they are not just pulling this out of thin air, I don't see him having a leg to stand on. Probably should have been less of a garbage person, Bob. You weren't found innocent of anything there champ. They just agreed to stop investigating.
So he was also not found guilty of anything then?
Legally speaking, I doubt that Kotick has a case here. I say that not being completely in the know about the details, but unless I am mistaken, they are not required to mention that the allegations were legally dismissed. Given that they are not just pulling this out of thin air, I don't see him having a leg to stand on. Probably should have been less of a garbage person, Bob. You weren't found innocent of anything there champ. They just agreed to stop investigating.
"The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
The one-time slander feels appropriate.
"Listen, Peter... with great horsepower comes... the sickest drifts..." - source
So anyway, Kotick was in Epstein's little black book.
El Pit wrote on Mar 15, 2025, 13:09:
I think he should join Ubi to support the Guillemots. I think they would get along just great! MUGA! Make Ubisoft Great Again!
They really would be the perfect pairing.
Since Kotick is a public figure, not only would he have to prove that they are writing is false by preponderance of the evidence, but also since Kotick is a public figure he has to prove "the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement."
Good luck with that second one. This lawsuit is just a strategic lawsuit against public participation. And I think Kotick is a scumbag and so do thousands of other people.
This comment was edited on Mar 16, 2025, 09:47.
Good luck with that second one. This lawsuit is just a strategic lawsuit against public participation. And I think Kotick is a scumbag and so do thousands of other people.
This comment was edited on Mar 16, 2025, 09:47.
If i had a swimming pool full of money; i would for sure add a hot bitch's room onto the house, all I have is this music studio.
Pretty sure MS didn't buy them in order to eject Kotick, but it was a nice bonus. Apparently he got bored swimming in his pool of money.
“If you think adventure is dangerous, try routine. It is lethal". -- Paulo Coelho
I think he should join Ubi to support the Guillemots. I think they would get along just great! MUGA! Make Ubisoft Great Again!
...we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
He took the golden parachute, but the internet will never forget.
Fuck that sleazeball.
Good on MSFT for buying them out, there was literally no other way that prick would have ever been ejected out of there.
Fuck that sleazeball.
Good on MSFT for buying them out, there was literally no other way that prick would have ever been ejected out of there.
Heartwarming: The worst people you know are fighting
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [ 1 ] Older
Newer [ 1 ] Older
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 24 April 2025, 02:22.