Fortnite: Epic Games Is Not Backing Down Regarding Lawsuit With 14 Year Old Cheater

Back in November, we reported that Epic Games filed a lawsuit against a Fortnite player that not only was caught cheating, but quite seemed to be bragging about the fact proudly for video clicks. The problem? The kid is a minor at 14 years old, whose mom quickly came to his legal defense. She cited that they were using her son as a scapegoat to hide from the "real problem," - those that actually make the cheating software. To see her full list of notations that she used to fight back, you can see our previous coverage here. She also mentioned she did not give her son permission to play Fortnite, which violates the terms and conditions of the game.

Since then, the child in question made a video calling out Epic Games and unrepentantly defended his cheating because "cheating is fun." Since then, it went into the hands of the law and we haven't had any updates on what went down behind closed doors. At least until now.

The letter the mother wrote to the developers were considered a motion to dismiss the case by the judge, which put the ball in Epic Games' court. Their move, "because Defendant has not carried his burden of proving Epic's Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, his 'motion to dismiss' must be denied." They also mentioned that the mother's allegations that they illegally revealed his name as "incorrect" and "baseless."

Thanks to our friends at TorrentFreak, below is a part of the response from Epic Games summarizing their intent to pursue this case, no matter his age:

"This is because, '[i]f an infant enters into any contract subject to conditions or stipulations, he cannot take the benefit of the contract without the burden of the conditions or stipulations'," the response states, citing a 2008 case in which four high school students sued a software company for copyright infringement because its anti-plagiarism software, which the school used for submitting written works, kept archives of that work, which they claimed violated the Copyright Act. The software company claimed that a contract was formed when the students clicked "I agree," while the students claimed the "infancy defense" rendered it void.

"The court declined to apply the defense at summary judgment and held that a valid contract existed between the minors and the software company as a result of the students' affirmative agreement to the user agreement," Epic wrote. "The court found that the infancy defense failed because a minor may not 'use the infancy defense to void their contractual obligations while retaining the benefits of the contract'."

What are your thoughts on this? With more and more online game devs cracking down on devs, are you happy to see them so vigilant? Or do you think his mother has the right of it? Let's discuss in the comment section below!