Sony’s Court Fight With Fired ‘Halo’ Lead Takes Unusual Turn

Sony’s court fight with a video game developer fired over sexual harassment allegations has taken an odd twist, with the ousted executive conceding lack of jurisdiction while the tech giant says the litigation should proceed.

The dueling sides expressed their counterintuitive positions in filings Monday with Delaware’s Chancery Court, which hears the lion’s share of high-stakes business disputes thanks to the state’s leading role in the corporate ecosystem. The separate submissions by Sony and Christopher Barrett addressed questions raised by the presiding judge, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster.

Laster said a week earlier that he had doubts about his jurisdiction over the case. The responses flipped the usual script: Normally, a plaintiff like Barrett would fight to establish jurisdiction, while a defendant like Sony would seize on any basis for ending a $200 million lawsuit. Barrett’s suit says the Sony affiliate he worked for, video game studio Bungie Inc., made up and leaked the harassment accusations.

The dispute is part of the fallout the male-dominated video game industry has faced over about the past decade, in the wake of a loosely organized online harassment campaign known as Gamergate. As the #MeToo movement gained momentum, allegations spread to gaming companies including Riot Games Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment SA and Activision Blizzard Inc., prompting litigation and leadership changes.

Bungie and Sony “cynically exploited the #MeToo movement for financial and reputational gain,” Barrett’s court complaint said last December.

Laster’s order raising concerns about his jurisdiction invoked a peculiar, somewhat arcane feature of the elite seven-member court: its identity as an “equitable” tribunal designed primarily for cases that defy rigid categories. The lawsuit appears to seek the ordinary remedy of money damages on routine employment law theories, the judge said Oct. 13.

Monday’s legal role reversal likely reflects Sony’s confidence in the specialist court and its judges, known worldwide for their depth of expertise and speed in resolving complex cases, often with billions on the line. As states like Texas and Nevada look to chip away at Delaware’s corporate dominance, its defenders often tout Laster and his six colleagues as the state’s greatest strength.

The company’s letter asking Laster to keep the case in his courtroom argued that it concerns internal corporate affairs such as stock rights—a core area of equitable jurisdiction—and said Barrett is seeking reinstatement anyway. Laster can also exercise supplemental “clean-up” jurisdiction over the suit’s defamation claim, particularly because Barrett has waived his jury rights, Sony’s filing said.

Barrett, meanwhile, said in a two-page letter that he’d be willing to take his claims to Delaware’s trial-level court of general jurisdiction instead.

Sony is represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. Barrett is represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, and CFL Law LLP.

The case is Barrett v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, Del. Ch., No. 2024-1285, letters filed 10/20/25.