2-Year Call of Duty False Permanent Ban Reversed by Court Case

> Activision explained that the burden of proof should be on me as “there is no requirement for Activision to prove that I had cheated” and “any burden rests on the Claimant” (me). The Judge agreed with this so I had the task of providing evidence that I didn’t cheat.

This doesn't make sense to me - if I bought a book, paid, and never got it, then sued, would I be expected to prove they never delivered the book? That seems nuts, I'd expect the court would say "show the courier's receipt".

"The burden of proof is on the accuser" - I'd expect the required proof here to be the proof that they were banned (which should be trivial: the emails).

> A combination of the evidence I submitted... and lack of evidence submitted by Activision led to this decision.

So in the end the burden of proof wasn't on @mdswanson?

Stuff like this is an ever-present threat so I'd like to know what was effective in case it ever happens to me.

Here's what I don't get:

- At the start the blog says that Activision's case fell apart because they gave a reason - does this mean that if they said "we banned him for no reason at all" he'd have no case?

- Couldn't Activision have said "well, he got 37 hours of gameplay, we don't owe him any more"? There's no monetary damage - so how was damage actually determined here? Was there a defamation angle or something?

What laws did the Judge cite making this decision?

Yea CoD sucks but the illegitimate ban destroyed the reputation & standing of their 7 year old Steam account.