Geez on the evidence they’ve shared here, Rockstar has so obviously fucked up.
The best piece of evidence in their favour is that employees discussed, in a space open to former employees and an external union representative, that the number of people allowed on leave at a time is heavily restricted because they need to be able to get 32 people together at once to test an online game feature. Rockstar claims this reveals information so sensitive their barrister wouldn’t even read that part out in court, only in written submissions. The idea of “an online service that can support at least 32 users” is TOP SECRET and worth insta-firing 33 people with no hearing, according to Rockstar. As the video points out, it really feels like they’ve trawled through the evidence to find a post-hoc justification for the firings.
It’s what I wrote before learning the actual judgment.
I am absolutely shocked that it went the way it did. Apparently interim relief is a very high burden, so this doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have a decent chance of winning the substantive case. But still…without knowing the details not the applicable law, it certainly feels ridiculous given how blatantly terrible Rockstar’s argument is.
At least how it’s framed in this and PMG’s previous videos on the topic.
Just further proves my theory that nobody involved in the legal system is a real human with actual emotions
Tl:dw for anyone who isn’t in a position to watch the video, the evidence provided by Rockstar is a complete joke as expected, but apparently that wasn’t enough to convince the judge to grant interim relief. I highly recommend watching the whole video if you get the chance though, PMG have been doing a very good job of covering this topic so far.
Also posted to [email protected]
