Cover-Credits:
- The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa has reached a crucial outcome favoring Valve GmbH in the Jamppi lawsuit.
- The court states that it has no jurisdiction over the case and the action is therefore inadmissible.
- This decision has been taken as they don't consider Jamppi to be a consumer in this case.
The controversial legal battle brewing between Finnish pro player Elias "Jamppi" Olkkonen and Valve GmbH which started in late March earlier this year at the District Court of Eastern Uusimaa (Southwest region of Finland) seems to have reached a crucial outcome favoring Valve GmbH as the Court has issued a decision stating that it is not the right party to resolve this dispute, as reported by Ilta-Sanomat.
“The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa has no jurisdiction and the action is therefore inadmissible”
RELATED: Valve Responds to Jamppi’s Demand to Lift VAC Ban Till Lawsuit Ends
Jamppi Lawsuit: Court Decision Inclined Towards Valve
In late March earlier this year, Jamppi had taken legal action against Valve GmbH demanding the removal of a lifetime ban from Valve sponsored tournaments while asking for over €260,000 in damages. Valve GmbH gave them a fitting response by ignoring several of their arbitration requests and directly submitting their response to the court.
The first response from Valve GmbH was massive as they revealed that Jamppi’s legal team had sued the wrong company, instead of filing the case against Valve Corporation action was being taken against one of its subsidiaries called ‘Valve GmbH’.
This was a big turning point in the case and affected a lot of things going further which leads us to the court’s current decision that seems to be favoring Valve GmbH as Jamppi’s legal team prepare to appeal this decision.
RELATED: Valve's Response to Jamppi's Lawsuit Goes Public; They Sued the Wrong Company!
Why Can’t The Finnish Court Settle The Dispute?
With the above point being made, Jamppi’s side had retaliated by saying that the 19-year-old had filed the lawsuit as a consumer because at the time this incident took place (2015) he was not a professional player yet and hence the dispute should be dealt in Finland itself as it is a consumer dispute.
However, the company that they have sued ‘Valve GmbH’ did not even exist when the incident took place, the subsidiary was created in 2016 one year after Jamppi was handed the VAC ban. This means that the contractual agreement as a consumer was signed between Jamppi and Valve Corporation back in 2015 and that there is no contractual relationship with Valve GmbH despite them being booked for the case.
Based on these reasonings the court came to a decision that “Jamppi cannot be considered a consumer in this matter as he has gone on to say that the VAC ban placed against him has hindered his professional career and restricted his right to freedom of trade.”
As he is not being considered as a consumer by the Finnish court they have no jurisdiction over the case any longer and hence the action is inadmissible.
RELATED: Valve's Email to Jamppi Regarding his VAC Ban goes Public
This decision is however not final as Jamppi’s lawyer Hannu Kalkas has stated that they will be appealing this decision but it may take sometime before hearing the appeal as “the Court of Appeal has been severely congested due to the pandemic.” He also said that if in case their complaint did not produce any positive results they have not yet planned any further follow-ups.
If the current decision stays Jamppi might need to pay Valve GmbH a fine amounting to €44,650. As per reports, Jamppi has himself spend around €33,845 on legal costs so far and this amount may only increase if he continues to proceed with the lawsuit.
Though it may look like a massive failure for Jamppi’s side it is nothing but a small setback if he wishes to continue fighting the case. The court actually took another decision which stated that “Jamppi has not cheated with the (VAC banned) account" based on the fact that both the parties had agreed that Jamppi had “bought, sold, and handed off the VAC banned account in question to a third party on the same evening that it was created.”
It will be interesting to see if Jamppi’s side is able to produce any positive results with their appeal and their plans for the future if the appeal gets rejected.
