Bobby Kotick may have exited Activision Blizzard with the Microsoft acquisition, but he’s proving he has no intention of fading quietly into the background. In a new legal filing responding to the ongoing AP7 shareholder lawsuit, Kotick has launched a surprising counter‑accusation: that the Swedish pension fund’s attempt to block the Microsoft deal was secretly designed to benefit Embracer Group, not to hold Activision accountable.
The claim reframes the lawsuit as a corporate maneuver rather than a governance dispute. Kotick argues that AP7’s legal action was intended to damage Activision’s reputation, depress its competitive standing, and ultimately give Embracer an easier path to acquiring talent and influence in the California development ecosystem. Embracer, which has spent the last two years swinging between massive acquisitions and equally massive layoffs, has denied any involvement.
What makes Kotick’s allegation so striking is not just the accusation itself, but the way he presents it. His filing reads less like the defensive posture of a former executive and more like the voice of someone still deeply embedded in Activision’s internal operations. He goes as far as citing recent internal performance data for Call of Duty — including claims about the franchise’s current momentum and the success of its latest releases — as evidence that the company was not in the weakened state AP7 described.
Well-informed despite no longer at ABK
That detail has raised eyebrows across the industry. Kotick officially left Activision Blizzard King in December 2023, and Microsoft has made no public indication that he retains any advisory role or privileged access to internal metrics. Yet his filing references specific, up‑to‑date performance indicators that would normally be available only to current leadership or employees with ongoing access to internal dashboards.
The irony is hard to ignore. Kotick’s central argument is that AP7’s lawsuit was based on outdated or misleading assumptions about Activision’s health — yet the only way he can make that argument convincingly is by relying on information he should no longer possess. The situation invites an uncomfortable question: is Kotick still receiving internal data from within Activision Blizzard King, or is he simply presenting the appearance of insider knowledge to strengthen his legal position?
Kotick’s filing doesn’t just defend his past decisions; it reads like an attempt to reassert authority over the narrative of Activision’s present. He frames the Microsoft acquisition as a strategic triumph rather than an escape route, and positions himself as a victim of external manipulation rather than a CEO under pressure from misconduct scandals. By invoking Embracer — a company now synonymous with overextension and collapse — Kotick casts himself as the responsible steward of a stable empire, unfairly targeted by a rival’s proxy.
But the more he speaks with the confidence of someone still inside the building, the more he invites scrutiny. If he truly has access to internal Call of Duty performance data, that raises governance questions for Microsoft. If he does not, then his filing becomes a rhetorical performance designed to project authority he no longer holds.
Either way, Kotick’s reemergence shows that the Microsoft–Activision saga is far from over. The lawsuit continues, Embracer denies involvement, and Kotick — no longer CEO, no longer in charge, yet still speaking with the voice of a man at the center of the industry — has once again made himself part of the story.
