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

Sony’s court battle with a video game executive fired over sexual harassment allegations has taken an odd twist, with the dueling sides embracing unusual positions on a threshold legal issue.

Christopher Barrett—a former lead developer on the blockbuster “Halo” franchise—said Monday that although he thinks Delaware’s elite business tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute, he’s willing to take his claims to the state’s court of general jurisdiction instead. The tech giant, meanwhile, insisted the lawsuit should move forward where it was filed.

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 way of hindering 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.

Monday’s legal role reversal likely reflects Sony’s confidence in Delaware’s Chancery Court, which presides over the lion’s share of high-stakes business disputes thanks to the state’s leading role in the corporate ecosystem.

The court’s judges, who hear cases without juries, are 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 lure companies away, defenders of Delaware’s corporate dominance often tout the state’s specialist judges as its greatest strength.

The separate submissions by Sony and Barrett addressed questions raised by the presiding judge, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, who said in a brief order a week earlier that he had doubts about his jurisdiction over the case.

The order invoked a peculiar, somewhat arcane feature of the 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.

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, declined in a two-page letter to offer new arguments for jurisdiction, beyond the theories in his original complaint. But he’d be “amenable” to proceeding in another court, the filing said.

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.