Blizzard Asks For $8.5 Million in Motion Against Hack-Maker Bossland Blizzard seeks $8.5 million against cheat and hack distributor Bossland citing DMCA breach.

Blizzard has filed suit against hack distributor Bossland GMBH for $8.5 million in damages. This is only the latest episode in legal proceedings between Blizzard and Bossland though, with at least ten other suits filed in German courts according to TorrentFreak. The $8.5 million in damages aren't due to a new suit, though, but a default judgment in a suit filed against Bossland in summer of last year alleging the cheats and hacks Bossland distributed in the U.S. were violations of the DMCA and blatant copyright infringement.

The suit last year, filed in a California federal court, contained the following allegations against Bossland concerning the then newly-released Overwatch:

Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation. Moreover, by releasing ‘Overwatch Cheat’ just days after the release of ‘Overwatch,’ Defendants are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm that game before it even has had a chance to flourish fully.

Bossland attempted to have last years suit dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction after that failed Bossland went silent and refused a Court order to reply. Blizzard is, therefore, seeking the minimum statutory damages of $200 for each infringing Blizzard-related hack that Bossland has sold in the U.S for a total of $8,563,600.

However, since the Motion for Entry of Default Judgement was filed, Bossland's CEO Zwetan Leschew has contacted TorrentFreak to make the statement that the company may take action once the motion is ruled upon.

Leschew made the statement:

We only filed a motion to dismiss the case, as US courts have no jurisdiction. The motion was declined, we will appeal the decision on the motion to dismiss, once the default judgment is served. Bossland GmbH has no business in the U.S., we have no offices there, no employees, we do not advertise there, nor use U.S. based companies.

This case shows another one of the gray areas of international e-commerce. Should a company that doesn't have employees or offices in a nation be beholden to its laws if a product it sells there violates a law? How would a U.S. court enforce a decision against a company entirely based in Germany? These are questions that will be crucial topics over the next decade as e-commerce continues to grow.