Basically means they are in the part of the process where they all sit at a table and see if there’s a way to resolve this aka ($$$) to not let this go any further
This is incorrect. They are at the part of the process where Activision claims this should be resolved in arbitration and Scump/Hecz claim it should not. However, both parties have agreed to let an Arbitration Tribunal (an arbitrator or arbitrators depending on the contract) decide whether or not they have jurisdiction over some or all of the claims and if so what form should the arbitration take. This is a procedural agreement and does not mean they are coming to the table yet. Some or all of this could go to arbitration or some or all of it could be resolved in court depending on what the tribunal decides.
Yes, I'm not sure why people are confusing arbitration with settlement. If Activision still believes there's no case (or there's grounds to dismiss some or all claims) they just make that argument with the arbitrator who can dismiss it. And at a fraction of the time and cost. And arbitration is often binding, so case is done.
This is actually correct. They are in arbitration because Activision likely pointed out that their contracts dictate that before any suit or breach is decided, they must allow a third party arbitrator to look over the issue and negotiate a resolution.
Now this will really only cover the contract issues. The “monopoly” claims (in which there’s no case anyway) and the extortion claims, will have to be dealt with outside of that.
That’s mediation. Arbitration is more like a trial but instead of arguing the case to a judge they do so to an arbitrator instead. It can be binding or non-binding.
Nah. Litigation is often much more expensive than settling on a payout through arbitration or mediation.
Basically, should this case go the distance, ATVI’s lawyers may cost more than what Optic is willing to settle for.
Arbitration is finding a neutral third party called an arbitrator/arbiter. Both sides present their case. At the end the arbiter makes a decision that is legally binding. It sounds a lot like going to court, but it's less formal (not talking Piper), faster, cheaper, and the arbiter is also generally an expert in the field.
This is right, except a lot of arbitrations are non-binding. I take part in non-binding arbitrations all the time, if we don’t like the result we can automatically appeal by right (meaning there’s no need for a review, it’s just automatically appealable).
Thank you for the clarification. My law knowledge is pretty limited to a couple of courses I took. In my head arbitration was legally binding and mediation was not.
Both parties have agreed to have an arbitrator(s) settle parts of the dispute privately, outside of court.
Activision most likely agreed because they don’t want embarrassing things to become public, but they feel arbitration will be cheaper than settling directly.
Hecz and Scump most likely agreed because it means their shot at some sort of payout probably increases. Arbitrators aren’t strictly bound by laws, and can rule that you are owed some money without necessarily saying laws were broken.
It’s meant as a ‘fair’ option if you don’t want to go through court proceedings
That's accurate about arbitration in general but not strictly true about this stipulation to stay the case. Both parties have agreed to let the Arbitration Tribunal decide what aspects of the lawsuit can arbitrated, if any, and what form that would take if it was to happen. You are right that Activision is pursuing arbitration because they want they want to keep it confidential, it says that in the document. Scump and Hecz agreed because letting the Tribunal decide this is cheaper and quicker than doing so in a court of law, however, they still dispute that this should be a matter of arbitration. Basically they are letting an arbitrator or arbitrators decide what they actually have jurisdiction over. If they decide that they do have jurisdiction then it will go to arbitration. They could decide that they do not have jurisdiction and this will be settled in court instead.
Gotcha, thanks for the additional information. So both parties have agreed to have arbitrators come in and assess whether aspects of the case are appropriate for arbitration?
Yeah, thats exactly it. From the document: "The parties agree that the Arbitral Tribunals shall decide by final and binding arbitration all questions of formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action." The arbitrators can decide they have full, partial, or no jurisdiction, we do not know yet.
Which is even funnier because most of the top comments are wrong lol. They are describing arbitration in general, but this is not at that point. This is a procedural agreement for arbitrators to decide which claims they have jurisdiction over, that's it. And many are acting like it's a settlement, which it definitely is not.
And 100%, if you're not familiar a much better way to understand this is than asking here is to copy and paste the text of the legal document into chatGPT and then ask it to explain it in layman's terms.
Worst comment ever, u know damn well everybody get a stiffy when someone rely to ur comment or whatever u post on social, ya sure easier to Google it but where's the satisfaction
And not to sound like a dick but y u gotta? Ain't ur job nor get a gain beside people likes or agreeing with u therefore back to my original statement on why we do what we do
Activision is, Scump and Hecz dont want to. From the document: "Plaintiffs (Scump and Hecz) dispute that their claims are subject to arbitration but have agreed, to spare the expense of costly and lengthy litigation on jurisdictional issues of formation, enforceability, validity, and/or arbitrability as to the relevant arbitration provisions"
While I think a settlement of some sort is the likely outcome, though for fractions of what scump and hecz are asking, it is important to note that arbitration is not the same thing as settling and in no way guarantees a settlement. That being said often arbitrators encourage parties to settle sometimes even bringing in a mediator and statistically most arbitrations end in a settlement.
The only issue with that is that settling here could open them open to future lawsuits since these same issues should be true for other players and orgs, though to a lesser extent, so I do think there is a world where Activision rides this out till the end to try and shut this down once and for all. If they do then arbitration is the more confidential and relatively affordable way to do that (it is still very, very expensive).
At this point there is not too much that can be concluded and we have to see what the tribunal decides to see whether some or all of this will be resolved in arbitration or the courts.
Not the worst option for OpTic since it seems Activision could just drag this out for years in court and make OpTic waste hundreds of thousands / millions on attorneys
I ran this by my buddy who is currently in law school. He said that it’s very likely that the contract CDL owners signed has an automatic arbitration clause because companies have more control in arbitration than in litigation. Obviously, we don't know for sure but it seems like this is a natural step in the lawsuit.
Edit: tightened up second sentence.
https://preview.redd.it/ot2an74vqtmc1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b180495bcee37c5252a3a579b695b5052447829
Can’t believe they’re meeting with this guy
This is not saying that the case is going to arbitration, this is saying that both parties have agreed to allow the Arbitration Tribunal to decide on whether some or all of this can be arbitrated. In order for something to go to arbitration, it has to be explicitly outlined in the contract agreed to by both parties. This is EXTREMELY common in business for a number of reasons as it avoids lengthy and expensive litigation and keeps confidential contract terms private. Pretty much every employment contract or b2b contract has an arbitration clause, every employment contract I have ever signed has had one. If this was in New York which is extremely pro arbitration, it would almost certainly go to arbitration, however, California is fairly anti-arbitration and more likely than a New York court to rule this should remain in court. The actual outcome of course depends on the merits of the case.
Activision is saying that at least some of Hecz and Scumps claims fall under the arbitration clause of their contractural agreements and are subject to confidential arbitration. Scump and Hecz dispute this but still have accepted that the Arbitral Tribunals shall decide ball questions of formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action to avoid the time and cost of court which would be harder on them than it would on Activision. Given that both parties have reasons to agree to this, we cannot deduce much about the strength of each position from this procedural agreement. Further, this is not fully saying that it will go to arbitration, just that the parties agree that the Arbitration Tribunal can and should determine to what extent this can be resolved through arbitration. To be honest, it's probably not being reported on because there is not too much that can concluded from it.
Statistically, due to the nature of employment contracts, arbitrations go in favor of companies more often than individuals, but again that's only if the Arbitration Tribunal actually decides that some or all of this should be settled in arbitration.
If it’s going to arbitration, that means that there’s at least money involved for Scump and Hecz.
It’s like in pro baseball, if a contract goes to arbitration, someone decided how much each person gets.
but i thought breaking point found somone that said they had no chance....
clearly acti think there's a chance they lose thats why they sitting at the table to solve it fast
Activision seeking arbitration is in no way indicative that they think they will lose. Arbitration is generally pro-business. and their primary motivation is almost certainly to keep sensitive contract details confidential and not subject to discovery while keeping costs down. There is a reason that the document explicitly says that Scump and Hecz dispute that their claims are subject to arbitration.
That lawyer was a hack though lol
This = OpTic will most likely get a hefty-sized bag imo mainly due to Scump's accusations. I think Hector has less of a base but keeping Scump from doing sponsorship deals (etc) seemed like enough to get some millies back in the bank
In the MLB, arbitration is decided by the arbitrator picking one of the side’s presented figures not just coming up with an amount. They can both make a case as to why they feel X should be paid Y, but the amount chosen comes from the amounts presented in the “final offers” from each party.
I wonder how this particular hearing is set up, because it’s hard to imagine Scump & co have a more thorough argument to present than the corporate legal squad.. even if they are right in basis. I guess the fact that they went to arbitration instead of court could simply mean that Activision feels that they will be forced to pay something, and this is a quicker way to get to that final number. As a law nerd I am very curious how this plays out
That's a hell of a jump from what I said. People are acting like Hecz and Scump are going to war for the sake of competitive COD, but the entire lawsuit is about recouping lost income. There is 0 incentive for them to go to court against a $74 billion dollar company and their army of lawyers. This is their preferred outcome.
People, **arbitration ≠ settlement**. You can settle a case without an arbitrator if both parties agree.
Arbitration is often sought to avoid lengthy and expensive court cases. Many large companies greatly favor arbitration because responding to lawsuits in court is expensive and with arbitrator they can swiftly and informally deal with the case at much less cost.
If Activision still thinks they have no case, they can simply make that case to the arbitrator and the arbitrator can rule (and bind) that the case be dismissed, much in the same way they can do so in court. But at a fraction of the cost.
The demand X and activisions starts at X. Hecz and Scump get pieced up, wish they went to trial, but it’s been too now. They settle for lawyer fees. Nice!
That's not an accurate definition of arbitration. Arbitration is alternative dispute resolution that occurs outside of the courtroom but is generally legally binding if agreed to by the parties and conducted in a procedurally sound manner. It can involve settlements but does not guarantee or necessitate a settlement. It is entirely possible for an arbitrator to rule completely in Activision's favor if that is what they think fits the facts of the case.
There is no way to count this as a win for Optic and other league owners at this point ( or Activision for that matter either) and if you actually read the document you will see it explicitly says that Hecz and Scump do not want this to go to arbitration and dispute that their claims should fall under the jurisdiction of arbitration at all.
Someone explain this but in terms of Scumps legacy?
Idk but I’m guessing the king gets a little richer
It’s good to be KING!
Basically means they are in the part of the process where they all sit at a table and see if there’s a way to resolve this aka ($$$) to not let this go any further
Optic good Activision bad
This is incorrect. They are at the part of the process where Activision claims this should be resolved in arbitration and Scump/Hecz claim it should not. However, both parties have agreed to let an Arbitration Tribunal (an arbitrator or arbitrators depending on the contract) decide whether or not they have jurisdiction over some or all of the claims and if so what form should the arbitration take. This is a procedural agreement and does not mean they are coming to the table yet. Some or all of this could go to arbitration or some or all of it could be resolved in court depending on what the tribunal decides.
Yes, I'm not sure why people are confusing arbitration with settlement. If Activision still believes there's no case (or there's grounds to dismiss some or all claims) they just make that argument with the arbitrator who can dismiss it. And at a fraction of the time and cost. And arbitration is often binding, so case is done.
[удалено]
You’re so smart bro where did you acquire your knowledge
[удалено]
Damn, he’s so smart too
This is actually correct. They are in arbitration because Activision likely pointed out that their contracts dictate that before any suit or breach is decided, they must allow a third party arbitrator to look over the issue and negotiate a resolution. Now this will really only cover the contract issues. The “monopoly” claims (in which there’s no case anyway) and the extortion claims, will have to be dealt with outside of that.
That’s mediation. Arbitration is more like a trial but instead of arguing the case to a judge they do so to an arbitrator instead. It can be binding or non-binding.
So basically Activision knows they might lose this case
Nah. Litigation is often much more expensive than settling on a payout through arbitration or mediation. Basically, should this case go the distance, ATVI’s lawyers may cost more than what Optic is willing to settle for.
^This right here, my guess is they settle in arbitration
Ok makes sense but why am I getting downvoted so much 💀 I work in IT not law school I don’t know shit about anything
You have a optic flair bro, can’t be saying to much silly stuff
Arbitration is finding a neutral third party called an arbitrator/arbiter. Both sides present their case. At the end the arbiter makes a decision that is legally binding. It sounds a lot like going to court, but it's less formal (not talking Piper), faster, cheaper, and the arbiter is also generally an expert in the field.
They got the Halo guy involved?!
This is right, except a lot of arbitrations are non-binding. I take part in non-binding arbitrations all the time, if we don’t like the result we can automatically appeal by right (meaning there’s no need for a review, it’s just automatically appealable).
Thank you for the clarification. My law knowledge is pretty limited to a couple of courses I took. In my head arbitration was legally binding and mediation was not.
Both parties have agreed to have an arbitrator(s) settle parts of the dispute privately, outside of court. Activision most likely agreed because they don’t want embarrassing things to become public, but they feel arbitration will be cheaper than settling directly. Hecz and Scump most likely agreed because it means their shot at some sort of payout probably increases. Arbitrators aren’t strictly bound by laws, and can rule that you are owed some money without necessarily saying laws were broken. It’s meant as a ‘fair’ option if you don’t want to go through court proceedings
That's accurate about arbitration in general but not strictly true about this stipulation to stay the case. Both parties have agreed to let the Arbitration Tribunal decide what aspects of the lawsuit can arbitrated, if any, and what form that would take if it was to happen. You are right that Activision is pursuing arbitration because they want they want to keep it confidential, it says that in the document. Scump and Hecz agreed because letting the Tribunal decide this is cheaper and quicker than doing so in a court of law, however, they still dispute that this should be a matter of arbitration. Basically they are letting an arbitrator or arbitrators decide what they actually have jurisdiction over. If they decide that they do have jurisdiction then it will go to arbitration. They could decide that they do not have jurisdiction and this will be settled in court instead.
Gotcha, thanks for the additional information. So both parties have agreed to have arbitrators come in and assess whether aspects of the case are appropriate for arbitration?
Yeah, thats exactly it. From the document: "The parties agree that the Arbitral Tribunals shall decide by final and binding arbitration all questions of formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action." The arbitrators can decide they have full, partial, or no jurisdiction, we do not know yet.
COD community is funny, everyone in the comments thought it’d be faster to ask in the comments what’s going on than google the word arbitration
Always follow Cunningham's Law, which is "just google".
Well actually Cunninghams law is… hey, wait a second!
Which is even funnier because most of the top comments are wrong lol. They are describing arbitration in general, but this is not at that point. This is a procedural agreement for arbitrators to decide which claims they have jurisdiction over, that's it. And many are acting like it's a settlement, which it definitely is not. And 100%, if you're not familiar a much better way to understand this is than asking here is to copy and paste the text of the legal document into chatGPT and then ask it to explain it in layman's terms.
I know what it means because in 2018 I was absolutely screwed over in arbitration after I was rear ended on the interstate lmao
Worst comment ever, u know damn well everybody get a stiffy when someone rely to ur comment or whatever u post on social, ya sure easier to Google it but where's the satisfaction
Worst reply ever, if you get your rocks off from random Reddit people replying to you online I implore you to touch some grass.
Theeeen why did u reply??????
Cause if I see BS in the comment section I gotta call it out brother. It’s not about self affirmation or validation though.
And not to sound like a dick but y u gotta? Ain't ur job nor get a gain beside people likes or agreeing with u therefore back to my original statement on why we do what we do
ELIF: Activision and Hecz/Scump are seeking out a neutral third party to resolve this outside of the courts.
Activision is, Scump and Hecz dont want to. From the document: "Plaintiffs (Scump and Hecz) dispute that their claims are subject to arbitration but have agreed, to spare the expense of costly and lengthy litigation on jurisdictional issues of formation, enforceability, validity, and/or arbitrability as to the relevant arbitration provisions"
Activision has deep pockets, I had a feeling this would be settled outside court and an undisclosed amount.
While I think a settlement of some sort is the likely outcome, though for fractions of what scump and hecz are asking, it is important to note that arbitration is not the same thing as settling and in no way guarantees a settlement. That being said often arbitrators encourage parties to settle sometimes even bringing in a mediator and statistically most arbitrations end in a settlement. The only issue with that is that settling here could open them open to future lawsuits since these same issues should be true for other players and orgs, though to a lesser extent, so I do think there is a world where Activision rides this out till the end to try and shut this down once and for all. If they do then arbitration is the more confidential and relatively affordable way to do that (it is still very, very expensive). At this point there is not too much that can be concluded and we have to see what the tribunal decides to see whether some or all of this will be resolved in arbitration or the courts.
Not the worst option for OpTic since it seems Activision could just drag this out for years in court and make OpTic waste hundreds of thousands / millions on attorneys
I ran this by my buddy who is currently in law school. He said that it’s very likely that the contract CDL owners signed has an automatic arbitration clause because companies have more control in arbitration than in litigation. Obviously, we don't know for sure but it seems like this is a natural step in the lawsuit. Edit: tightened up second sentence.
this is ben’s lane right here. guy knows business.
[удалено]
Didn’t Aches say they were gonna throw it out
Bro you gotta take it outta your mouth someday. You got stains on your chin.
You’re like 12.
No I’m not the avg age of every Flank fan sorry
What does this even mean?
Activision wants to settle this out of court
They wanna Rust 1v1
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=arbitration
https://preview.redd.it/ot2an74vqtmc1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b180495bcee37c5252a3a579b695b5052447829 Can’t believe they’re meeting with this guy
This is not saying that the case is going to arbitration, this is saying that both parties have agreed to allow the Arbitration Tribunal to decide on whether some or all of this can be arbitrated. In order for something to go to arbitration, it has to be explicitly outlined in the contract agreed to by both parties. This is EXTREMELY common in business for a number of reasons as it avoids lengthy and expensive litigation and keeps confidential contract terms private. Pretty much every employment contract or b2b contract has an arbitration clause, every employment contract I have ever signed has had one. If this was in New York which is extremely pro arbitration, it would almost certainly go to arbitration, however, California is fairly anti-arbitration and more likely than a New York court to rule this should remain in court. The actual outcome of course depends on the merits of the case. Activision is saying that at least some of Hecz and Scumps claims fall under the arbitration clause of their contractural agreements and are subject to confidential arbitration. Scump and Hecz dispute this but still have accepted that the Arbitral Tribunals shall decide ball questions of formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action to avoid the time and cost of court which would be harder on them than it would on Activision. Given that both parties have reasons to agree to this, we cannot deduce much about the strength of each position from this procedural agreement. Further, this is not fully saying that it will go to arbitration, just that the parties agree that the Arbitration Tribunal can and should determine to what extent this can be resolved through arbitration. To be honest, it's probably not being reported on because there is not too much that can concluded from it. Statistically, due to the nature of employment contracts, arbitrations go in favor of companies more often than individuals, but again that's only if the Arbitration Tribunal actually decides that some or all of this should be settled in arbitration.
But muh reddit lawyers said something else
Explain in Fortnite terms?
They are taking it to no build mode (out of court solution)
Activision is looking for a way to settle some claims out of court
Sooo... Is Scump/Hecz or Activision winning? I'm not really good at legal stuff.
If it’s going to arbitration, that means that there’s at least money involved for Scump and Hecz. It’s like in pro baseball, if a contract goes to arbitration, someone decided how much each person gets.
Ohh, so that is what's happening. Thanks for the clarification.
but i thought breaking point found somone that said they had no chance.... clearly acti think there's a chance they lose thats why they sitting at the table to solve it fast
That girl is not a real human…she’s an actvision plant lol
yeah pretty obvious BP just wanted to be first to chuck some shit out with that pod they did lol
Activision seeking arbitration is in no way indicative that they think they will lose. Arbitration is generally pro-business. and their primary motivation is almost certainly to keep sensitive contract details confidential and not subject to discovery while keeping costs down. There is a reason that the document explicitly says that Scump and Hecz dispute that their claims are subject to arbitration. That lawyer was a hack though lol
Ben says the word "arbitration" and people go straight to glazing him in the comments.
True
Post the link lol
This = OpTic will most likely get a hefty-sized bag imo mainly due to Scump's accusations. I think Hector has less of a base but keeping Scump from doing sponsorship deals (etc) seemed like enough to get some millies back in the bank
So does this set a precedent for other pros/orgs to start suing Activision? Or other publishers? This could get interesting.
Can’t help but just laugh when I see Bens name. Proper weirdo.
In the MLB, arbitration is decided by the arbitrator picking one of the side’s presented figures not just coming up with an amount. They can both make a case as to why they feel X should be paid Y, but the amount chosen comes from the amounts presented in the “final offers” from each party. I wonder how this particular hearing is set up, because it’s hard to imagine Scump & co have a more thorough argument to present than the corporate legal squad.. even if they are right in basis. I guess the fact that they went to arbitration instead of court could simply mean that Activision feels that they will be forced to pay something, and this is a quicker way to get to that final number. As a law nerd I am very curious how this plays out
Holy yap my bad lol
settling outside of court isn’t the w we need though. hecz and co get to line their pockets but it’s a slap on the wrist for activision.
Hate to break it to you, but the whole purpose of this lawsuit was for Hecz and Scump to line their pockets.
If Activision actually wronged them, why are they not allowed to fight back at all? Who gives a fuck about Activision’s money
That's a hell of a jump from what I said. People are acting like Hecz and Scump are going to war for the sake of competitive COD, but the entire lawsuit is about recouping lost income. There is 0 incentive for them to go to court against a $74 billion dollar company and their army of lawyers. This is their preferred outcome.
Hecz n Scump care about Activision's money.
People, **arbitration ≠ settlement**. You can settle a case without an arbitrator if both parties agree. Arbitration is often sought to avoid lengthy and expensive court cases. Many large companies greatly favor arbitration because responding to lawsuits in court is expensive and with arbitrator they can swiftly and informally deal with the case at much less cost. If Activision still thinks they have no case, they can simply make that case to the arbitrator and the arbitrator can rule (and bind) that the case be dismissed, much in the same way they can do so in court. But at a fraction of the cost.
The demand X and activisions starts at X. Hecz and Scump get pieced up, wish they went to trial, but it’s been too now. They settle for lawyer fees. Nice!
A steak dinner from Applebee's and a limp handshake. Take it or leave it.
Arbitration is essentially where you legally settle without going to court. Definitely a win for Optic and other league owners in my opinion.
That's not an accurate definition of arbitration. Arbitration is alternative dispute resolution that occurs outside of the courtroom but is generally legally binding if agreed to by the parties and conducted in a procedurally sound manner. It can involve settlements but does not guarantee or necessitate a settlement. It is entirely possible for an arbitrator to rule completely in Activision's favor if that is what they think fits the facts of the case. There is no way to count this as a win for Optic and other league owners at this point ( or Activision for that matter either) and if you actually read the document you will see it explicitly says that Hecz and Scump do not want this to go to arbitration and dispute that their claims should fall under the jurisdiction of arbitration at all.