Bungie Wins Landmark Lawsuit Against Player Who Harassed Destiny Staff (polygon.com) 19
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Polygon: Bungie has won almost $500,000 in damages from a Destiny 2 player who harassed one of its community managers and his wife with abusive, racist, and distressing calls and messages, and sent an unsolicited pizza order to their home in a manner designed to intimidate and frighten the couple. According to members of Bungie's legal team, the judgment from a Washington state court sets important precedents that will empower employers to go after anyone who harasses their employees online, and strengthen the enforcement of laws against online trolling and harassment. "This one is special," Bungie's attorney Dylan Schmeyer tweeted.
As laid out in the court's judgment, the defendant, Jesse James Comer, was "incensed" when the community manager -- whom both Bungie and the court declined to name, to protect them from further harassment -- spotlighted some fan art by a Black community member. Using anonymous phone numbers, Comer left a string of "hideous, bigoted" voicemails on the community manager's personal phone, some asking that Bungie create options in Destiny 2 "in which only persons of color would be killed," before proceeding to threaten the community manager's wife with more racist voicemails and texts. Then he ordered a pizza to be delivered to their home, leaving instructions for the driver to knock at least five times, loudly, to make the intrusion as frightening as possible.
The court ruled that Comer was liable to pay over $489,000 in damages, fees, and expenses it had accrued in protecting and supporting its employees, investigating Comer, and prosecuting the case against him. As laid out in a Twitter thread by Kathryn Tewson, a crusading paralegal who worked on the case, the judgment is significant because it recognizes that patterns of harassment escalate from online trolling to real-world violence; establishes that harassment of an employee for doing their job damages the employer as well, which can then use its resources to go after the culprit; and recognized a new tort -- a legal term for a form of injury or harm for which courts can impose liability -- around cyber and telephone harassment. While it may seem odd to celebrate a judgment that awards a company -- rather than an individual -- with damages for personal harassment, the significance of the case is that its legal precedent empowers and motivates employers to use their resources to protect employees who face harassment as part of their jobs. Bungie and its lawyers have broken important new ground that could improve the level of protection for workers in the game industry and beyond.
As laid out in the court's judgment, the defendant, Jesse James Comer, was "incensed" when the community manager -- whom both Bungie and the court declined to name, to protect them from further harassment -- spotlighted some fan art by a Black community member. Using anonymous phone numbers, Comer left a string of "hideous, bigoted" voicemails on the community manager's personal phone, some asking that Bungie create options in Destiny 2 "in which only persons of color would be killed," before proceeding to threaten the community manager's wife with more racist voicemails and texts. Then he ordered a pizza to be delivered to their home, leaving instructions for the driver to knock at least five times, loudly, to make the intrusion as frightening as possible.
The court ruled that Comer was liable to pay over $489,000 in damages, fees, and expenses it had accrued in protecting and supporting its employees, investigating Comer, and prosecuting the case against him. As laid out in a Twitter thread by Kathryn Tewson, a crusading paralegal who worked on the case, the judgment is significant because it recognizes that patterns of harassment escalate from online trolling to real-world violence; establishes that harassment of an employee for doing their job damages the employer as well, which can then use its resources to go after the culprit; and recognized a new tort -- a legal term for a form of injury or harm for which courts can impose liability -- around cyber and telephone harassment. While it may seem odd to celebrate a judgment that awards a company -- rather than an individual -- with damages for personal harassment, the significance of the case is that its legal precedent empowers and motivates employers to use their resources to protect employees who face harassment as part of their jobs. Bungie and its lawyers have broken important new ground that could improve the level of protection for workers in the game industry and beyond.
FAFO (Score:3)
I don't know the details of the case but just reading the highlights it sounds like this person went crazy in the membrane. When you start doing crazy things like this person did, yeah, I don't blame Bungie at all to go after this individual to protect their employee and their brand.
Default (Score:2, Interesting)
The dude didn't respond. There was no hearing or trial. They'll have to get a bailiff in WV (assuming they could find him) to take action to enforce the judgement.
The defendant could, if he desired, get this default vacated pretty easily. That said, I don't think the dude has two pennies to rub together and this is going to be an unpaid judgement. Trumpeting this as some kind of justice is kind of silly under the circumstances. Nothing actually happened other than lawyers drafting papers and waiting fo
Re:Default (Score:5, Informative)
Trumpeting this as some kind of justice is kind of silly under the circumstances.
This isn't being trumpeted as justice, it's trumpeted as setting important precedence.
The defendant could, if he desired, get this default vacated pretty easily.
No not really. You don't magically get a do-over because you didn't show up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
I promise you that this default would not stand if he were actually going to respond to it in a timely fashion, say 90 days or so.
You promise... based on what evidence? Because you say so? You seem to just be making random claims based on absolutely nothing.
Re:Default (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no precedent here at all.
Do you understand the term case law? Most of the legal system is based on rulings which were made at some point without precedent. I say most, but actually 100% of tort law is made this way, and the president here was creating a new tort law category.
This is a default judgement like a zillion others issued against people who don't pay their credit card bills and such and don't respond to the summons and complaint.
Which don't just magically get overturned. No you can promise all you want, you'd just be a bad person who doesn't keep their promises. Cases don't get magically overturned on the basis of the defendant not showing up the first time. And if you want to argue it would get overturned due to setting a new precedent, then maybe it will maybe it won't, but it certainly will NOT be "pretty easy", rather it'll be a long protracted legal battle that will likely go through several courts.
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some sort of consequence for crazy needed to pop up to discourage these people, and now there's precedence for it.
*unsurprised face* (Score:3, Funny)
Jesse James Comer
Someone with that name would do that!? Nooooo.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that JJ Abrams' real name?
sent an unsolicited pizza order to their home (Score:2)
"sent an unsolicited pizza order to their home in a manner designed to intimidate and frighten the couple."
So, what are we talking, here? Was it a pineapple pizza or a Chicago "deep dish" where they put the cheese under the tomato sauce (the renowned "pizza upside-down cake casserole")? What manner of horror has been perpetrated? Does the couple have a culinary counsellor? ...do they have dogs? Can dogs eat pineapple? I mean, there are so many questions, such as, when did this become Fark?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm assuming it was one of those non-gluten cauliflower crusts(that aren't actually crusts).
I mean, there are so many questions, such as, when did this become Fark?
Astronaut
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
Not only will I be an asshole, by sending you a pizza, I'm telling you I know where you live.
And this is the US, but no, that's not a threat, and he doesn't have a gun.... (yeah, right).
Re: (Score:2)
It is not complicated to know where I live. So many people do! I do not consider that a threat.
address privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For whatever reason, real estate transactions have been public records for a long time. It may be hard to change that tradition. If a person only bought one house, it's fairly likely he lives there. Investment purchases will more likely be one of several, or under a non-personal ownership.
Refining your idea a bit, it used to be that one would have to go to the county clerk and shuffle through paper records to dig this up. The difference now is that everything is online. I think a good case can be made
Only been waiting for 30 years but I'll take it (Score:1)
The internet was already bad enough, then the world wide web brought in the great unwashed masses and the downward spiral began. Idiocracy soon took over and I'd estimate less than 5% of what we find online to be of any true value nowadays.
All along I've been astonished at the myopic and ignorant hot take that since it is on a computer, it didn't really happen, therefore there's no accountability.
If I run around shitting on innocent people, it shouldn't matter if it is in meatspace or cyberspace, accountabi
Cool but, (Score:2)
I am sorry I am not sympathetic to those in Bungie.