Combating Cheating in Games: A Legal Approach

In response to the growing problem of cheating, it is time for game developers to take a proactive stance against hackers. A significant portion of revenue for game developers comes from in-game purchases and microtransactions, which can only be maximized by retaining players over an extended period. One key aspect of player retention is offering a competitive and fair multiplayer experience. However, the incentive to cheat can be overwhelming, and the sale of cheating software has become a lucrative industry, with one group, known as 'Chicken Drumstick,' generating over $70 million from selling cheats for a mobile version of PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. Such cheating software poses a significant risk to game developers, compromising the competitive integrity of the game and leading to player dissatisfaction. If left unchecked, cheating can result in lost revenue for game developers. While game developers typically ban accounts of known cheaters, the effectiveness of these actions is often limited and relies on the ability to detect the hacks. Almost all games use cheat-detection software, such as Riot Game's Vanguard or Activision Blizzard's Ricochet, which look for third-party programs or modifications to the game files. However, these anti-cheat programs have their limitations, and the developers of the hacks can adapt and make their programs less detectable, putting game developers in an arms race with hackers. Game developers can ban players who use known hacks, but as long as there is a market for these hacks, new and more sophisticated programs will emerge. In recent years, game developers have turned to copyright law for protection, filing suits against hack developers and utilizing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically 17 U.S.C. § 1201. Section 1201(a)(2) prohibits the manufacture, import, or distribution of technology designed to circumvent technological measures that control access to a protected work, while § 1201(b) addresses technology that circumvents the rights of a copyright owner. Game developers argue that their anti-cheat programs are technological measures that control access to a protected work, and that hacking software is designed to circumvent these measures. Several cases, including Bungie, Inc. v. Aimjunkies.com and Riot Games, Inc. v. Cameron Santos, have alleged violations of §§ 1201(a) or 1201(b) against hack developers. Although none of these cases have gone to trial, game developers have had some success in litigation, including a $6.5 million award in a suit against a hacker. The case of MDY v. Blizzard highlights the importance of § 1201(f), an exception to §§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) for reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving interoperability. However, this exception may not be as effective as it seems, as it only protects software that bypasses access control measures for the purpose of interoperability, and not software that is primarily designed to intentionally bypass security measures. To ensure access to § 1201 protection, game developers can use anti-cheat software that controls access to both online and offline elements of the game. Programs like Denuvo, which encrypt and obfuscate local files, can verify the legitimacy of a game before allowing players to access it. By creating a first layer of access control, cheat developers must also develop tools capable of being used for piracy, which may run afoul of interpretations like Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes. If § 1201 protection proves insufficient, game developers have other fallback options, including trademark infringement and breach of contract claims. It is unlikely that the strength of § 1201 will be definitively answered anytime soon, but the threat of litigation has been enough to deter some hackers.