| > 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? |
The burden of proof in civil cases is on both parties equally. They are decided on the preponderance of evidence basis. So in this case the author only needed to show that it was more likely that he wasn't cheating than he was cheating.