adminThe Bobby Kotick lawsuit over Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard includes competing claims about the motives behind a Swedish pension fund’s legal challenge. Former Activision Blizzard CEO Kotick alleges the case was connected to Embracer’s business interests; both Embracer and the pension fund have been part of the dispute. The allegations described here are claims in legal filings, not findings of fact.
Image credit: Fox Business
Bobby Kotick lawsuit and the Microsoft-Activision deal
Sjunde AP-Fonden, known as AP7, filed its lawsuit in 2022 to object to Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard. AP7 alleged that Kotick hurried the sale to avoid consequences related to sexual misconduct scandals. Kotick has denied that allegation.
In a court filing submitted the previous month and later made public, Kotick described AP7’s case as a collateral attack on Activision. He also alleged that the lawsuit was linked to Embracer’s desire to strengthen sales of its games while leaving Activision less able to develop competing titles.
What to keep in mind: The filing presents Kotick’s position. It does not, by itself, establish that AP7 or Embracer coordinated their actions.
Kotick’s claims and Embracer’s response
Kotick and his legal team filed a counterclaim against Embracer in connection with the dispute. They alleged that AP7, including vice chairman Emma Ihre—formerly an Embracer executive—brought the case for ulterior motives and to cause harm to Activision while seeking indirect advantages.
Embracer rejected the accusations. The company said it did not need assistance from a Swedish pension fund to compete with Activision and denied coordinating or collaborating with AP7 over Kotick’s statements. It also said it had not given AP7 an agenda or instructions, either through Ihre or directly.
When following a case involving several parties, it is useful to distinguish allegations in court documents from statements made in response. The filings and company statements reflect opposing positions, rather than a settled account of events.
Stock-price allegations and workplace disputes
AP7’s lawsuit also pointed to a substantial decline in Activision Blizzard’s stock price in 2021, which it linked to sexual misconduct allegations. The decline followed a California regulator’s sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against the company in July and a Wall Street Journal report about allegations in mid-November.
AP7 alleged that Kotick, facing growing pressure to leave, negotiated the merger quickly and agreed to sell Activision to Microsoft for $95 per share. Kotick disputed the claims about his motives.
In his response, Kotick also accused the Communications Workers of America (CWA) of making false complaints after it began examining the technology sector and faced a sharp loss of members. He alleged that the union wanted employees to consider unionisation and created a false impression of systemic workplace problems. These are Kotick’s allegations; they should not be treated as independently established facts.
Activision Blizzard’s EEOC settlement
In September 2021, Activision Blizzard settled a lawsuit brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The company admitted no wrongdoing and established an $18 million fund to compensate victims. Kotick said at the time that discrimination, harassment and unequal treatment had no place at the company, and thanked employees who shared their experiences.
In his reply to AP7’s lawsuit, Kotick said the company settled the EEOC case because litigation was costly, distracting and time-consuming. He characterized the workplace incidents as isolated and said the company had addressed them. That characterization was part of his response, while AP7’s filing alleged broader problems.
What the Bobby Kotick lawsuit means
The Bobby Kotick lawsuit brings together disputes over the merger, Activision Blizzard’s workplace record and the alleged motives of the parties involved. Kotick’s accusations against AP7 and Embracer have been denied by Embracer, while AP7’s claims about the sale and stock-price decline have been challenged by Kotick. Readers should look to the court proceedings for any eventual findings and keep the parties’ allegations separate from established outcomes.
