Game Over
for
mod accounts.
Game Over
for
mod accounts.
by
Is a marketplace allowed to broker mod accounts—that is, player accounts whose contents were not earned fairly? And is it liable for this, even though it doesn’t sell anything itself but merely collects a commission?
Millions in a gaming account—bought, not earned
A company based in Lithuania operated an online marketplace for gaming accounts from 2018 until at least the end of 2025. The site was also available in German. Third parties sold accounts there, and the company received a percentage of the proceeds. As of late December 2024, over 2,000 accounts were listed for the online mode of an open-world game that has sold more than 200 million copies worldwide. The game is anonymized in the published ruling.
Many of the accounts were so-called “mod accounts.” These are game accounts with millions in in-game currency, high ranks, and unlocked vehicles or weapons that would normally require a significant amount of playtime to obtain. The marketplace even advertised this feature. Its sellers used only mods that went unnoticed, and a guarantee was available in case of a ban.
The game’s terms of use prohibit the trading of accounts and virtual goods. They permit use only for personal, non-commercial purposes. The game company, which enforces the laws in the European Union, filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction, disclosure, and damages.
The parties’ arguments
The gaming company based its case on three pillars: copyright law, competition law, and trademark law. It argued that the marketplace deliberately encouraged sellers to infringe on intellectual property rights. Purchased advantages spoiled the fun for honest players and thus harmed sales of in-game currency.
The marketplace countered that it did not sell anything itself. It argued that the accounts had been created by former players or resellers and were the result of legal gameplay as well as the exploitation of program errors. It contended that the ban on resale was invalid. Furthermore, it argued that a mere breach of contract could not constitute a copyright infringement.
The Frankfurt Regional Court largely ruled against the marketplace
In its judgment dated September 9, 2026—Case No. 2-06 O 70/25 —the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main prohibited the marketplace in Germany from participating in the reproduction of the game software in connection with account trading. It may no longer support the sale of such accounts and virtual content, nor may it use the game logo in the manner at issue. The court ruled that the marketplace itself did not engage in reproduction or distribution.
Does trading in mod accounts constitute a copyright infringement?
For commercial sellers, the court ruled in the affirmative. When playing the game, the program and game graphics are loaded into RAM, which constitutes a reproduction under copyright law. The terms of use permitted this only for private, non-commercial purposes. Anyone who specifically levels up accounts to sell them is using the game commercially and is therefore acting without a license.
The key issue is the classification of the terms of use. In this regard, the court relies on the Federal Court of Justice’s (BGH) 2016 decision in the World of Warcraft I case.
The restriction of the license under the Terms of Use to the private use of the client software is not merely a contractual restriction, but a restriction that has effects in rem (…), such that exceeding it constitutes a copyright infringement.
In this context, “real effect” means that the limitation applies not only between the contracting parties but also determines the scope of the right of use itself. Furthermore, the clause is neither surprising nor unreasonable. The fact that the gaming company tolerates paid livestreams, for example, does not change this.
Why is a marketplace liable if it does not sell anything itself?
The court views the marketplace as an accomplice to the commercial sellers. An accomplice knowingly assists another in committing an infringement. This requires knowledge of specific impending infringements; occasional infringements by individual users are not sufficient.
The court deduces this knowledge from the marketplace’s own conduct. It advertised content that is not normally available and provided guidance on how to avoid account suspensions. It offered a guarantee for suspended accounts and requested VAT identification numbers from sellers. Thus, it knew that commercial sellers were selling accounts that violated the rules.
Therefore, the question of liability as a third-party contributor or the liability exemption for hosting services under the Digital Services Act was no longer relevant. The court considered the German-language version, German-language advertising, and sales to domestic customers to be sufficient evidence of a sufficient connection to Germany.
How does account trading hinder the gaming company?
The marketplace also lost on the grounds of competition law. Under the Unfair Competition Act, a competitor is defined as anyone who is in a specific competitive relationship. The court upheld this ruling because the accounts, with their play money, competed directly with the sale of official game currency.
On the merits of the case, the court follows the Federal Court of Justice’s (BGH) 2017 decision in World of Warcraft II regarding bots in online games. A multiplayer game depends on the same rules applying to everyone. Purchased advantages distort the game and could drive away honest players. This is sufficient to constitute intentional obstruction; actual damage need not yet have occurred. Notably, the reasoning given by the members of the chamber indicated that they themselves were among the players in question.
Is the marketplace allowed to advertise using the game’s name?
No, at least not in the form that was objected to. Among other things, the marketplace had advertised on Google using the game’s name. Under trademark law, it is generally permissible to mention another party’s trademark to describe the purpose of an offering.
However, this exception applies only within the framework of fair business and commercial practices. Anyone who knowingly promotes a marketplace for unlawfully modified accounts acts in a manner that unfairly infringes upon the legitimate interests of the trademark owner. The court therefore left open the question of whether trademark use had occurred at all.
Conclusion
The ruling makes it easier for gaming companies and other software providers to enforce their rights against marketplaces. Marketplaces face increased risk if they actively promote their sellers’ offerings. The issue of marketplaces’ liability for sellers is also being addressed by the courts in other areas, as we reported in the case of the Wish marketplace.
The court expressly left open the question of whether the purchasers of the accounts themselves commit infringements of laws and expressed doubts on this point. The ruling also fails to clarify the relationship to the liability exemption under the Digital Services Act.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Copyright!
