CS:GO

Jamppi's request for temporary pause on CSGO VAC ban denied by court

by Daniel Cleary

Share


Professional CS:GO player Elias 'Jamppi' Olkkonen's call for his Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) ban to be temporarily lifted while the legal case is ongoing has been denied by the court.

Jamppi initially filed a lawsuit against the Counter-Strike developers after an account he previously owned was issued with a VAC ban, hindering the star from signing to OG Esports and stopping him from competing at CS:GO Majors.

Advertisement

The young pro was seeking compensation of €268,092 for missed earnings as well as having his VAC ban lifted, and called for the District Court of Eastern Uusimaa to temporarily lift his VAC ban while these legal proceedings were ongoing. 

CS:GO pro Jamppi in ENCE interview
ENCE TV, YouTube
Valve has now responded to Jamppi's CSGO VAC ban demands.

Valve responded to this on August 20, following the 19-year-old’s demands to compete without restrictions until the legal feud is decided in court, according to reports from Finnish website Ilta-Sanomat.

Advertisement

The response from Valve revealed that they had refused Jamppi’s demands for temporary measures, claiming that it would cause more damage to the company.

“The applicant seeks to gain temporarily, by means of a precautionary measure, what he cannot achieve with the main case he has initiated,” Valve’s representative responded.

It was also pointed out that this would give other players false signals that they could cheat in CSGO and their ban would be lifted without justification. It also added that both they and the community as a whole would suffer if they could not ensure that there would be no cheating in a competitive environment.

Advertisement

Now, the District Court have ruled on Jamppi's demand and chosen to deny his call for his VAC ban to be removed on a temporary basis. This means that the 19-year-old will not be able to compete in any major Counter-Strike tournaments while this action continues.

Jamppi can now lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeals against this decision but must do so within seven days of the decision being given.

With this issue seemingly concluded, the next step required is to decide if the District Court of Eastern Uusimaa has the jurisdiction to investigate further. The district court were unable to give Ilta-Sanomat a timeframe for the decision on whether the court is eligible to handle the case moving forward. 

Advertisement