Beyoncé sued for $100 million by game developer

Music star Beyoncé Knowles is on the receiving end of a lawsuit... over a video-game. According to American game developer Gate Five LLC, the mega-star 'destroyed [its] business on a whim'. The company claims that Beyoncé destroyed plans for a title called Starpower: Beyoncé, forcing the company to lay-off seventy employees just a week before Christmas. The company claims that Beyoncé agreed to license her image to the company for a 'lucrative joint venture'.

According to Gate Five, the company invested $7,000,000 into the production of the title. The game allowed players to dance along to songs by the popular American artist, though in mid-December she changed her mind on the agreement. Development of the title had reached a 'crucial point', and apparently Beyoncé 'made an extortionate demand for entirely new compensation terms'. The financier of the project backed out, and the plan fell apart.

Court papers declare that 'a bad faith breach of contract so callous that, on what appeared to be a whim, she destroyed Gate Five's business and drove 70 people into unemployment'. Gate Five's founder spoke to New York Magazine about the situation, and claims that even Beyoncé's own father was disappointed with her actions. Currently, the singer has not responded to the allegations.

Unusually for a gaming company, its website cannot be found via Google search. The first results appear to be different links to the report about their lawsuit against the singer, and searching the MobyGames database yields no results.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google Talk Video and Voice chat announced for Nexus S

Next Story

Apple becomes more profitable than Microsoft

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It's just my opinion and all but I've got an idea; if you're earning over so much $$ per year (I'm talking like at least $1b/year profit) then you should no longer be able to sue companies or other people earning less than $1b/year because of 'patent infringement' or rubbish like that.

n_K said,
It's just my opinion and all but I've got an idea; if you're earning over so much $ per year (I'm talking like at least $1b/year profit) then you should no longer be able to sue companies or other people earning less than $1b/year because of 'patent infringement' or rubbish like that.
Any reasons for that conclusion? Poverty is not an excuse.

n_K said,
It's just my opinion and all but I've got an idea; if you're earning over so much $$ per year (I'm talking like at least $1b/year profit) then you should no longer be able to sue companies or other people earning less than $1b/year because of 'patent infringement' or rubbish like that.

I struggle to see how this has anything to do with the topic.

n_K said,
It's just my opinion and all but I've got an idea; if you're earning over so much $ per year (I'm talking like at least $1b/year profit) then you should no longer be able to sue companies or other people earning less than $1b/year because of 'patent infringement' or rubbish like that.

If that was the case, any of us would be able to start a new company and use a big company's patented technology in our product, which isn't fair. Some patents are ridiculous but some are justified patents which others shouldn't steal. Whatever the case (even if there was patent reform), it would be completely unfair. The interpretation of what you said is that if I had a small company not earning too much, I'd be able to steal some other bigger company's patented technology and use it in my product and they wouldn't be able to sue me because I'm earning less than $1 billion a year.

Shouldn't there be a clause in the contract they signed with some sort of fine should either party break the conditions of the contract?

If not then I don't think they have a leg to stand on correct me if I'm wrong though!

excalpius said,
The "clause" is Breach of Contract. If she signed the contract, she's in breach if she doesn't perform.
Hence the lawsuit and punitive damages. I just wish the 70 people got part of the money.

Honestly, I laughed when I first saw this story as well. That's why I marked it as 'Strange News of the Week'. It's a given there'll be more to the story though, because $100,000,000 is a ridiculous amount to demand for most lawsuits.

So wait... a game company noones heard of doesnt show up on Google and yet they had $7,000,000 to blow on game? On a super star singer? Why do I have a feeling theres alot more to this story. Because from this story I have a feeling this companys going to get $100,000,000 richer.