Call of Duty: Former dictator Manuel Noriega sues Black Ops II publishers for 'portraying him as a kidnapper and murderer'
Published 16/07/2014 | 18:22
Former dictator of Panama Manuel Noriega sues Call of Duty publishers for 'portraying him as a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state'
Manuel Noriega was ousted as leader of the Central American state when the US invaded in 1989, and spent almost two decades in a Miami jail on drug trafficking charges.
Now 80 and residing in a prison in Panama, Noriega is seeking damages from game publisher Activision Blizzard for portraying him as “a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state” in Call of Duty: Black Ops II.
In the game, which sold more than 24 million copies worldwide, a character called Manuel Noriega reneges on a deal with the CIA, betrays the main playable characters and indiscriminately shoots members of his “own private police force” – the army of Panama.
Unlike with the recent case of Lindsay Lohan suing the makers of Grand Theft Auto V, there is no question that the villain in Call of Duty is styled on the former military dictator.
He is variously described by characters within the game as a “piece of s***”, “a**hole” and “old pineapple face himself, Manuel Noriega” – the nickname used in Panama to describe the man himself because of his “pockmarked visage”.
In his lawsuit brought at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Noriega claims Call of Duty made more money from his likeness because the “heighten[ed] realism” of using real people “translates directly into heightened sales for the defendants”.
According to the Courthouse News Service, the 13-page suit reads: “In an effort to increase the popularity and revenue generated by Black Ops II, defendants used, without authorization or consent, the image and likeness of plaintiff in Black Ops II.
“Defendants' use of plaintiff's image and likeness caused damage to plaintiff. Plaintiff was portrayed as an antagonist and portrayed as the culprit of numerous fictional heinous crimes, creating the false impression that defendants are authorized to use plaintiff's image and likeness. This caused plaintiffs to receive profits they would not have otherwise received.”