Activision CEO Bobby Kotick allegedly failed to inform the company board about rape allegations

Polycount

Posts: 3,017   +590
Staff
In context: Activision Blizzard has been embroiled in a series of investigations and controversies over the past few months following reports of widespread sexual misconduct and harassment within the company. Several alleged harassers have already resigned, but that hasn't put an end to this debacle. Now, reports claim Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick not only knew about the misconduct, but may have attempted to protect some accused employees from punishment.

This news comes courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, which has spoken to several sources close to Activision, its subsidiaries, and those with knowledge of the company's board of directors.

The article leads with quite a claim: back in 2016, a former Sledgehammer Games employee (an Activision studio) alleged that she had been raped in "2016 and 2017" by a "male supervisor" after being pressured to consume "too much alcohol" in the office and at work-related functions. The encounters were reported to Activision's HR department, supervisors, and even the police, but according to the WSJ, nothing came of it.

Sometime later, Activision settled with the woman, effectively putting an end to that particular case. However, importantly, Kotick failed to report the matter to Activision's board of directors. Other similar incidents also went unreported by the executive, the WSJ alleges.

The allegations don't stop there. Earlier this year, California officially filed suit against Activision Blizzard for harassment, discrimination, sexism, and other problems related to its "frat boy" culture.

In response to the lawsuit, Activision Blizzard exec Frances Townsend penned an email calling the action both "meritless" and irresponsible," claiming that it contained "distorted, and in many cases false, descriptions of Blizzard's past."

At least, we thought the email came from Townsend. The WSJ says it was Kotick himself that penned the response but chose to send it under Townsend's name (presumably to avoid negative PR).

In 2017, the WSJ says Kotick intervened on behalf of Activision Treyarch's co-lead Dan Bunting, who was accused of sexually harassing a female employee in 2017 "after a night of drinking." The outlet claims an internal investigation soon followed and ultimately led investigators to recommend Bunting be fired. However, Kotick allegedly "intervened to keep him," though it's unclear what that means.

There are plenty more stories like the ones we've just mentioned in the WSJ's full report, so if you want all of the context, we recommend reading it. With that said, we should emphasize that these are just allegations for now and should not be taken as concrete facts or outright falsehoods.

Either way, this is a terrible look for a company and a CEO that are both already under immense pressure from the public, lawyers, and regulators. Even Activision Blizzard employees are enraged: dozens of workers have staged a walkout, demanding that the executive be fired from his position.

Activision Blizzard has responded to the WSJ report with the following statement:

We are disappointed in the Wall Street Journal’s report, which presents a misleading view of Activision Blizzard and our CEO. Instances of sexual misconduct that were brought to his attention were acted upon. The WSJ ignores important changes underway to make this the industry’s most welcoming and inclusive workplace and it fails to account for the efforts of thousands of employees who work hard every day to live up to their – and our - values. The constant desire to be better has always set this company apart. Which is why, at Mr. Kotick’s direction, we have made significant improvements, including a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct. And it is why we are moving forward with unwavering focus, speed, and resources to continue increasing diversity across our company and industry and to ensure that every employee comes to work feeling valued, safe, respected, and inspired. We will not stop until we have the best workplace for our team.

While the work Activision Blizzard is currently doing to address workplace inequality is certainly admirable, only the first sentence of this response attempts to dispute the WSJ's claims. Even then, the company fails to offer any reasoning behind its words -- in what way is the WSJ's report "misleading"?

At any rate, we'll let you decide for yourself how to feel about this situation. It's a complex matter, to be sure, and it's perhaps best left to the courts and legal experts to unpack.

Permalink to story.

 
He needs to inform nobody, they are allegations which means he is completely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To treat it differently is to thumb your nose at the very heart of what makes America a free country.
 
He needs to inform nobody, they are allegations which means he is completely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To treat it differently is to thumb your nose at the very heart of what makes America a free country.
Have you seen the news in say, the last two years?
 
He's filthy rich. He'll get laid more than everyone on this forum combined if he wanted to.
Funny you say that. If ugly, but filthy rich people can get laid so easily then why are so many of them keep getting caught raping and molesting women who want nothing to do with them?
 
He needs to inform nobody, they are allegations which means he is completely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To treat it differently is to thumb your nose at the very heart of what makes America a free country.

You are 100% correct but given the prior knowledge of Activision's complacency and what we have learned so far? Coming out defending him is risky and a little bit sus?
 
You are 100% correct but given the prior knowledge of Activision's complacency and what we have learned so far? Coming out defending him is risky and a little bit sus?
If you took WizardB's statement as defending him, then your assumption of his defense confirms your own bias as the presumption of guilt.

Objectivity is critically important when dealing with accusations. Because until proven otherwise, they're just that - accusations. Leave presumptions of guilt to the media, they specialize in the 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra.
 
He needs to inform nobody, they are allegations which means he is completely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To treat it differently is to thumb your nose at the very heart of what makes America a free country.
I think the board can understand what an allegation is. Allegations all the time result in people standing aside until cleared for the precise reason that it would be inappropriate for an uncleared person to be left in such a position.

Imagine if a pedo was left in charge of a group of kids because "he wasn't found guilty YET". The parents would say "F that. You make sure he is ok before risking MY kids." They could very prudently withdraw their support for the company if that wasn't the process causing massive PR damage. There's a very good reason why things are done this way. To keep trust.

Usually people are stood aside WITH PAY. It is a reasonable inconvenience considering the circumstances.

The point is whether they needed to know and considering the gravity of the changes that have precipitated including all this fallout RIGHT NOW indicates it most definitely needed to be brought to the board's attention.
 
I'm sure the board will hurry up and give him the biggest golden parachute in history on his way out to catch his private yacht to enjoy some early retirement.

Early retirement? There is always some startup looking to rehab a disgraced CEO.

If a CEO gets really desperate, they can just start their own startup, wait a few years for things to calm down, and then get back in the headlines.
 
I hate Bobby Kotick and the way the monetization is present in basically every game from Blizzard also. However, what I do hate more is the cancel culture, metoo crazies. Fortunately, I live in Eastern Europe and the Twitter mob and the SJW and the politically'rect are still mocked here. The "let's remove sexual innuendo" from Blizzard is one of the reasons I'm not touching ANYTHING they have produced, will produce or are producing.
I like my games sexualized, fun, funny and produced by geeks, not by politically correct imbeciles. That's why I prefer Polish or Czech producers over metoo lunacy.
That's why I'm never touching Battlefield V SJW edition or Halo genderless.
That's why censorship is bad.
Bobby Kotick is carrying a lot of sins. Not the allegations for a drunkard though. Not guilty, in this case.
 
Damn, that's repulsive. Wouldn't be in his shoes if he had twice the money.

I'm sure another Overwatch character will come out of the closet and this whole thing will go away.
 
Funny you say that. If ugly, but filthy rich people can get laid so easily then why are so many of them keep getting caught raping and molesting women who want nothing to do with them?
Because they want the thrill of forcing a woman (or man) to do what they want... many people in positions of power like to USE that power for just about everything...

As an example, Bill Cosby could have had pretty much any woman he wanted back in the day... he WANTED to drug and rape them instead. I guess he loved the power he had over them.

The problem, I suppose, is that our society is geared to reward those personality types with excess power and wealth...
 
News doesn't matter you are innocent until proven guilty and all the crap like the me too movement and so-called social media activism have done is throw the idea of innocent until PROVEN guilty under the bus....mind you that's very normal for the cancel culture bunch.
In Australia, 90% of sexual assault complaints never achieve convictions. Around 5% of those CLAIMS are false.

On top of that, according to census data, 90% of sexual assaults are not REPORTED.

Do the math. That means roughly 98-99% of sexual assaults don't achieve convictions. That is the result of modern law. The LAW has utterly failed in sexual assaults and child assault etc. That is a legal system not a justice system. "Me too" is about the complete failure of the LAW to achieve JUSTICE.
 
In Australia, 90% of sexual assault complaints never achieve convictions. Around 5% of those CLAIMS are false.

On top of that, according to census data, 90% of sexual assaults are not REPORTED.

Do the math. That means roughly 98-99% of sexual assaults don't achieve convictions. That is the result of modern law. The LAW has utterly failed in sexual assaults and child assault etc. That is a legal system not a justice system. "Me too" is about the complete failure of the LAW to achieve JUSTICE.
I'm not disputing your conclusion... but... how do we know that only 5% of the claims are false?
 
I'm not disputing your conclusion... but... how do we know that only 5% of the claims are false?
In Australia, Melb University study of historical cases from police reports spanning about a decade or so. Melbourne University is I believe top 3 of all universities in the country.
 
I think what that highlights is that there is a perception that a lot of women use sexual assault claims against people but the reality is there are far more legit assaults occurring. Huge amount more. At 5% of REPORTED alone that is 1 in 20 being false let alone the unreporteds.

People have to understand that a system that is only giving justice to about 2 in 20 of the reporteds is denying justice to the other 17 legit reports. That to me is simply not good enough.

I know first hand of people told by police to not bother filing their reports because the system will hurt them far more and not likely achieve justice. Again, that is a legal system not a justice system.
 
In Australia, Melb University study of historical cases from police reports spanning about a decade or so. Melbourne University is I believe top 3 of all universities in the country.
My point is... if the case was dismissed or not tried in court... how do we “know” the case was legit?
 
My point is... if the case was dismissed or not tried in court... how do we “know” the case was legit?
There is a very large amount of data. There are statistical error margins around it. The police determination of cases likely to be lying were what was used from my understanding vs what they had no evidence to suggest lying. The difference in the latter of course is that "not lying" vs "conviction" are distinctly different things.
 
Back