This article examines allegations that a Call of Duty player known as “HMay” has continued to play and profit from the game after being banned, in potential violation of Activision's terms of service and federal wire fraud statutes. The analysis is based on publicly available information and statements, including video clips and social media posts attributed to HMay. It is important to note that this article presents allegations and analysis rather than definitive legal conclusions, as the full facts are not publicly known and would require investigation by relevant authorities.
Activision, the publisher of Call of Duty, maintains detailed terms of service that players must agree to in order to access the game. Key provisions relevant to this case include:
Based on public statements and video clips attributed to HMay, the following alleged actions are relevant to this analysis:
If the alleged actions are accurate, HMay's conduct potentially violates multiple aspects of the Call of Duty terms of service:
Activision's terms of service give the company broad discretion to terminate accounts and access to their services. The alleged creation of new accounts after a permanent ban appears to be a clear violation that would justify further account terminations and potentially other enforcement actions by Activision.
Beyond terms of service violations, the alleged conduct potentially implicates federal wire fraud statutes if certain elements are met. Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. ยง 1343) requires:
In this case, the following factors could potentially support wire fraud charges:
Scheme to defraud: Creating new accounts and concealing prior bans from Activision and viewers could be considered a scheme to fraudulently obtain access to the game and streaming revenue.
Use of wire communications: Online gameplay and streaming inherently involve interstate wire communications.
Intent: Statements about ban evasion and continued monetization could demonstrate intent to defraud Activision and viewers.
Materiality: Access to the game and a player's standing are likely material to viewers/donors.
Financial gain: Streaming revenue and coaching fees provide a financial motive.
However, several factors complicate potential wire fraud charges:
Unclear losses: The tangible losses to Activision or viewers are not readily apparent.
Disclosed ban: HMay has allegedly discussed the prior ban openly, potentially undercutting claims of concealment.
Common behavior: Creating alternate accounts is a widespread practice that is not typically prosecuted.
Ultimately, federal prosecutors would have to weigh multiple factors in determining whether to pursue wire fraud charges in a case like this. The specific facts, scale of conduct, and prosecutorial priorities would all factor into that decision.
Activision has made public statements indicating a hard line on permanently banned players attempting to circumvent restrictions. In a 2021 blog post, the company stated:
“Permanent suspensions for security infractions may now apply franchise wide, including future titles…any attempt to hide, disguise, or obfuscate your identity or the identity of your hardware devices may result in a permanent suspension.”
This stance suggests Activision views ban evasion seriously and may pursue further enforcement actions against players who attempt to circumvent permanent bans.
If Activision chooses to enforce its terms of service against the alleged conduct, potential consequences could include:
The company may also work with streaming platforms to suspend or demonetize channels broadcasting unauthorized gameplay.
From a criminal justice perspective, wire fraud charges appear unlikely absent evidence of a larger scheme or substantial financial losses. However, the alleged conduct could potentially violate other statutes related to unauthorized computer access or copyright infringement.
This case highlights several tensions in the gaming ecosystem:
Game publishers, players, and platforms continue to navigate these complex issues as the industry evolves.
While terms of service violations and potential fraud are the primary focus, this case also raises broader legal and ethical questions:
Property rights: To what extent should players have rights to accounts they've invested in?
Contract enforceability: Are expansive terms of service enforceable, or potentially unconscionable?
Surveillance: What are the privacy implications of game publishers monitoring players?
Ban criteria: Should permanent bans be issued without definitive proof of cheating?
Proportionality: Is ban evasion for non-cheating purposes worthy of severe punishment?
Right to play: Do publishers have an ethical obligation to allow access to mainstream games?
These questions don't have clear answers, but are important to consider as gaming becomes an increasingly significant economic and social activity.
The alleged conduct by HMay, if accurate, appears to violate multiple aspects of Call of Duty's terms of service, most notably prohibitions on circumventing permanent bans. While the conduct potentially implicates wire fraud statutes, criminal charges appear unlikely without evidence of a larger scheme or substantial losses.
Activision would be within its rights to pursue further account terminations or other enforcement actions to uphold its terms of service. However, the company must weigh the public relations impact and community response to an aggressive crackdown on a popular player.
This case highlights ongoing tensions between players' desires to monetize their skills and publishers' rights to control access to their products. As gaming and streaming grow as economic forces, clearer standards around account ownership, appropriate monetization, and proportional punishment for rule violations may be needed.
Ultimately, this situation demonstrates the complex legal and ethical landscape surrounding modern gaming. Publishers, players, and regulators continue to grapple with applying traditional legal frameworks to novel digital interactions. How these issues are resolved will shape the future of gaming as both an industry and a social phenomenon.