Doping & Cheating
Blizzard Cracks Down on Cheat Software in a $8.5 Million Dollar Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Introduction
Over the past decade, the monetisation of cheating in online video games has evolved into a transnational industry. Cheat developers now operate commercial enterprises, offering subscription-based software products, customer support, and regular updates designed to circumvent anti-cheat systems. This commercialisation has altered how major game publishers respond to cheating. Yet, relying solely on in-game bans or community moderation, companies have increasingly turned to intellectual property law and cross-border litigation as enforcement mechanisms.
One of the most prominent examples of this shift is Blizzard Entertainment against Bossland GmbH, a German company specializing in automation tools and cheats for Blizzard’s online games. This dispute became widely known after Blizzard sought 8.5 million dollars in damages in U.S. federal court.1[1] The proceedings reveal the limits of the legal system: rather than decisively suppressing cheat software, they function as part of a multi-jurisdictional enforcement patchwork.[2]
Blizzard’s legal claims reframed cheating not merely as unfair gameplay but as unlawful interference with protected software systems. In its complaint, Blizzard alleged that Bossland’s sale and distribution of cheat software in the United States caused the company to lose substantial revenue and suffer damage to its goodwill and reputation.[3] Additionally, Blizzard contended that the cheat programs bypassed anti-cheat technology and violated the terms of its end-user license agreements, allowing users to circumvent technological measures that control access to Blizzard’s games.[4]
Protecting Esports Integrity with Copyright
In the world of esports, cheating poses a serious threat that extends beyond individual players, jeopardising the integrity of competitive tournaments and the economic ecosystem surrounding professional gaming. Tools that provide unfair advantages, such as automated aiming systems or visibility enhancements, can compromise fairness and destroy confidence among both participants and spectators.[5] The stakes in esports are high: results can influence sponsorship, prize pools and audience trust, meaning that any advantage from illicit software can have wider-reaching consequences.
Primarily, cheating in video game publishers confronted cheating through in-game technical countermeasures, account bans, and community moderation, often relying on end-user license agreements (EULAs) to bar unauthorised tools. These contracts typically prohibit the use of third-party programs that alter or automate game mechanics, a term that Blizzard’s EULAs reaffirm explicitly in their competitive rulesets to preserve fairness in sanctioned tournaments.[6] However, EULAs bind only users, not the independent developers who create and distribute cheat software for profit, leaving a gap in regulatory reach and deterrence.
Blizzard Entertainment’s litigation against Bossland exemplifies how publishers are required to bridge this gap by reframing cheating as a statutory intellectual property violation rather than a mere contractual breach. In the US complaint, Blizzard highlighted that Bossland’s bots and hacks for titles like Overwatch, World of Warcraft, and others amounted to contributory and inducement copyright infringement because the software enabled users to interact with Blizzard’s copyrighted game in unauthorised ways.[7]
In addition, Blizzard invoked the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201[8], claiming that Bossland’s software was designed to bypass Blizzard’s cheat-detection and access-control technologies. “[T]hey advertises these uses by offering advice on its online forums on how to avoid Blizzard’s detection of a player’s Buddy Bots usage and how to use the Buddy Bots most effectively.”[9] This liability for trafficking in circumvention devices can arise even absent direct copying, provided the defendant knowingly markets tools primarily for evading technological protection measures.
The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions were originally designed to address digital piracy, targeting the unauthorised bypass of technological protections on copyrighted content. By applying to cheat software that simply modifies gameplay raises questions about how far the law should extend. The case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America (1991),[10] illustrates caution in extending copyright protection to devices that alter game behaviour without copying expressive content, highlighting the limits of traditional copyright claims. Nevertheless, courts have consistently upheld anti-circumvention claims when the bypass of technological safeguards is clear and unauthorised access to protect software creates competitive harm.
Tackling Cheat Software and Game Automation in European Markets
The Blizzard litigation against Bossland illustrates an important contrast in how copyright remedies are approached in Europe and the UK, especially in cases involving foreign defendants and online software. While the cheat software in question was distributed globally, European and UK courts maintained a clear focus on territoriality, proportionality, and compensation, rather than punitive or deterrence-based models.
In Germany, courts have addressed the legality of cheat software directly, and the results reflect this remedial culture. The Federal Supreme Court of Germany found that the distribution of bot programs such as Honorbuddy and Gatherbuddy violated both competition law and Blizzard’s contractual rights under the World of Warcraft license.[11] The Supreme Court confirmed that the sale and distribution of such automation software was unlawful.
It held that the distribution of bot software that automates gameplay interferes with fair game conditions and is incompatible with Blizzard’s terms and conditions[12] and the German Act Against Unfair Competition.[13] Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited Bossland from continuing to sell the bots, reinforcing that such conduct cannot be tolerated as a lawful business practice under domestic law. These German decisions highlight the practical limits of enforcing large U.S. statutory damage awards in Europe. German courts have made clear that foreign awards with a predominantly punitive or deterrent character may conflict with domestic public policy if they exceed what is necessary to compensate actual harm within the jurisdiction.[14]
This emphasis on proportionality, which is measured in the UK proceedings. In Blizzard Entertainment SAS v. Bossland Gmbh (2019), the High Court ordered an account of profits limited strictly to UK-based sales, emphasising that remedies must be legally coherent and tied to the market.[15] The court required Blizzard to prove a direct causal link between the infringing activity and profits within the UK, illustrating the careful reliance on evidence to shape remedies that are accurate. Broader deductions for global costs were rejected, ensuring that the award reflected only the enrichment attributable to the wrongful conduct.
The litigation illustrates a wider trend in European and UK law: remedies are principled and evidence-based rather than punitive. Both the German and UK systems prioritise legitimacy and enforceability over mere financial magnitude. For companies and lawyers navigating the global gaming market, this means that claims need to be precise, evidence-based, and enforceable. Therefore, right holders can protect their work effectively without overreaching or risking their remedies being dismissed.
Distinguishing Cheating Software from Legitimate Game Modifications
The Blizzard v Bossland case is a great example to use when clarifying the legal boundaries between unlawful cheating tools, permissible player modification, and legitimate third-party innovation. In digital games, where user creativity, technical experimentations, and community-driven modification are common, courts face the difficult task of distinguishing harmful interference from lawful engagement.
Essentially, the dispute was not merely the existence of third-party software, but its function and effect. Bossland’s products automate gameplay, allowing users to gain advantages without active participation. German courts treated this automation as fundamentally different from cosmetic or creative modifications. The Federal Supreme Court of Germany held that bot software such as Honorbuddy interfered with the normal operation of the game and undermined fair competitive conditions, placing it squarely outside the realm of permissible innovation.[16] This reasoning focused on the disruption of the gameplay, rather than the act of modifying software.
Contractual obligations played a central role in reinforcing this distinction. Blizzard’s End User Licence Agreement prohibited automation and manipulation of gameplay mechanics. German courts accepted that these terms were enforceable and that systematic violation of them through commercial bot distribution constituted unfair competition under the German Act Against Unfair Competition.[17] Additionally, this does not criminalise all forms of modding; it targets commercial tools designed to bypass core game rules, suggesting that the law turns on purpose, scale, and impact of the product.
The account of profits remedy was tied to the commercial exploitation of cheating tools, not to non-commercial player experimentation or modding. This distinction reflects a broader reluctance in UK law to interfere with user creativity unless it causes demonstrable harm or unjust enrichment. From an industry perspective, this distinction is crucial. Modding communities often contribute to the longevity and cultural value of games, and many developers actively support them. Overly aggressive enforcement risks chilling innovation and alienating player communities.[18]
This demonstrates that cheat software is treated as unlawful not because it is technologically sophisticated, but because it replaces player agency, distorts competition, and exploits protected game mechanics. This framing provides a principled basis for enforcement without collapsing the distinction between cheating and legitimate innovation.
The United States approach to cheat software differs in both emphasis and legal framing, particularly through its reliance on copyright and anti-circumvention law. In the U.S. proceedings against Bossland, Blizzard relied heavily on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),[19] arguing that the cheat software circumvented technological protection measures designed to control access to and use of World of Warcraft.[20] This illustrates that the US gives heightened importance to the integrity of access controls embedded in within software architecture.
Thus, a mod that alters gameplay in a harmless, non-infringing way can still raise legal concerns in the United States if it depends on circumventing technological protection measures to function like the Warden mechanism. However, the UK takes a more equitable approach, which looks closely at the market impact and the causal link between wrongdoing and harm. Similarly, in Germany, they focus on whether the modification interferes with fair competition, diminishes contractual obligations, or distorts the gameplay environment.[21]
These frameworks reflect different regulatory priorities. The U.S. framework provides strong, predictable protection for developers by drawing firm technical boundaries, but it can be rigid when applied to benign or creative modifications. By contrast, the UK and German approaches allow greater flexibility by grounding liability in demonstrable harm, competitive distortion, and contractual breach. While this reasoning may offer clearer space for legitimate modding and innovation, it also demands more nuanced evidentiary analysis. Ultimately, the European and UK models appear better suited to balancing enforcement with fairness in player-driven digital environments, whereas the U.S. approach prioritises control and deterrence in markets vulnerable to large-scale abuse.
Conclusion
The Blizzard v Bossland litigation illustrates how the gaming industry has increasingly relied on law to address the commercialisation of cheating. With cheat software operating as a transnational business, publishers like Blizzard have turned to intellectual property claims, contracts, and cross-border litigation to protect game integrity. The $8.5 million claim reframed cheating not merely as unfair play, but as copyright infringement and circumvention of technological protections.
In the United States, the DMCA prioritises technical integrity, for instance, bypassing access controls, which is unlawful even for non-commercial modifications. This provides strong protection for developers but creates uncertainty for legitimate modders. In Europe and the UK, courts emphasise proportionality and actual harm. German courts, for example, prohibited Bossland from distributing bots that interfered with fair gameplay and violated contractual obligations under the World of Warcraft license and the Act Against Unfair Competition, while the UK High Court limited remedies to profits demonstrably connected to UK-based activity.
The case also clarifies the boundary between cheating and lawful innovation. Automation tools that replace player agency and distort competition are treated as unlawful, whereas cosmetic or non-infringing modifications, including community-supported mods, remain largely permissible under EU and UK frameworks. Therefore, effective enforcement requires a careful balance that deters harmful tools while preserving space for innovation. By combining technical safeguards, enforceable contracts, and legal remedies, the Blizzard case provides a practical example of how game developers can protect their ecosystems without stifling player creativity or engagement.
[1] Eddie Makuch, ‘Blizzard Sues Overwatch Cheat-Maker, Claims Millions Lost,’ (GameSpot, 2016). https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-sues-overwatch-cheat-maker-claims-million/1100-6441493/
[2] Nathan Grayson, ‘Blizzard Demands $8.5 Million In Legal Battle Against Cheat Maker,’ (The Kotaku, 2017). https://kotaku.com/blizzard-demands-8-5-million-in-legal-battle-against-c-1793306076
[3] Jason Faulkner, ‘Blizzard Asks For $8.5 Million in Motion Against Hack-Maker Bossland,’ (ShackNews, 2017). https://www.shacknews.com/article/99439/blizzard-asks-for-85-million-in-motion-against-hack-maker-bossland
[4] Robert Abel, ‘Gigs up, Bossland ordered to pay Blizzard $8.5M for game hacks,’ (Scworld, 2017).
[5] Eddie Makuch, ‘Blizzard Sues Overwatch Cheat-Maker, Claims Millions Lost,’ (GameSpot, 2016). https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-sues-overwatch-cheat-maker-claims-million/1100-6441493/
[6] Blizzard Entertainment, ‘Blizzard End User License Agreement,’ (2024).
[7] Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Bossland GmbH et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01236.
[8] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201.
[9] Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Bossland GmbH et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01236.
[10] Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
[11] Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court of Germany), judgment of 12 January 2017, Case No. I ZR 253/14 (“World of Warcraft II”).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Act Against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG 2004).
[14] Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court of Germany), judgment of 12 January 2017, Case No. I ZR 253/14 (“World of Warcraft II”).
[15] Blizzard Entertainment SAS v Bossland GmbH (2019) EWHC 1665 (Ch).
[16] Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court of Germany), judgment of 12 January 2017, Case No. I ZR 253/14 (“World of Warcraft II”).
[17] Act Against Unfair Competition §3 (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG 2004).
[18] Modding Community, Gaming Glossary (LarkSuite, 25 June 2024).
https://waww.larksuite.com/en_us/topics/gaming-glossary/modding-community
[19] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201.
[20] Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Bossland GmbH et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01236.
[21] Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court of Germany), judgment of 12 January 2017, Case No. I ZR 253/14 (“World of Warcraft II”).
