Three former Ubisoft executives were on trial from June 2 to June 5. Serge Hascoët, Thomas “Tommy” François and Guillaume Patrux appeared before the judicial court of Bobigny, for charges of sexual and moral harassment, complicity in sexual and moral harassment, and attempted sexual assault.
The STJV joined this trial as a plaintiff to defend the rights of workers, and in support of the victims seeking justice and the Solidaires Informatique union.
We outline our position here, drawing on the closing arguments of Sophie Clocher, the lawyer representing the STJV at the trial.
First of all, let’s not forget that this trial is taking place in a reality where many victims stop long before the courtroom. How many victims of the actions committed at Ubisoft were absent from this trial? It’s impossible to give a figure, but it’s certainly very high. Due to a lack of resources, discouragement or because they are crushed by society, many people do not defend themselves, either in the workplace or in court.
There is widespread sexist discrimination in the form of sexual harassment in the industry. It was particularly telling to hear that, for the defendants, seeing a man rubbing up against another man was a problem, but that when it was with a woman they didn’t even realise the concern. The defendants themselves presented a complete patriarchal framework of domination.
The video games industry has always been, and still is, very hostile to women. In 2024, women will account for barely 20% of the industry in France, a figure that employers themselves admit is down sharply from 2022, and which is even lower in production studios. At Ubisoft, women disappear completely after the age of 40. The same applies to high-profile or executive positions: very few women are entrusted with the creative direction of a project, for example.
The “creative culture” excuse brandished by the defendants is absurd. What prevailed was rather a virilist and childish culture. A culture which, as Serge Hascoët himself admitted in court, was not encouraging creativity anyway! But the games were selling, so any questioning was swept aside, and still remains unanswered today. Serge Hascoët and his editorial department were seen as the source of Ubisoft’s success, in a way similar to a cargo cult: they were there at the right place at the right time, and the company made no attempt to understand the real ins and outs of video game production and success (or failure).
Ubisoft’s editorial department is nothing more than a magnifying glass on an industry-wide plague, a distortion of the norm where “the creatives” have every right, where insults are not insults (‘When I called someone an asshole or a loser, it wasn’t to say that they were an asshole or a loser” ventured Guillaume Patrux). One victim compared this department, unfortunately very accurately, to the series Severance: a form of dissociation weighed on the victims of these « creatives » who were more concerned with inventing new forms of bullying rather than contributing to the smooth running of the company. From this testimony, we also retain this chilling sentence: « I had the impression that the law stopped at Ubisoft’s doorstep ».
This trial clearly demonstrates a disregard for the law, particularly labour law, that has been asserted and upheld. « It’s the role of HR » as Serge Hascoët, 2nd in command at a multinational company with over 20,000 employees, choses to put it, while also claiming that his role is not that of a manager. If he didn’t know enough about the subject, he had ample opportunity to take an interest in it and to educate himself. The fact that he has chosen not to do so, like all employers, is revealing.
Ubisoft, the elephant in the courtroom
Although it’s lawyer was present, taking extensive notes throughout all 4 days of the hearing, Ubisoft was conspicuously absent from the dock. Until the explosion of testimonies in 2020, relayed by the press, there were no whistleblowing systems at Ubisoft, apart from the specific legal minimum for reporting corruption, laid down in the Sapin II law.
The testimonies clearly demonstrated the extent to which Ubisoft’s management was, at best, deliberately unaware of what was going on on the floor just below the CEO’s office. Yves Guillemot even had the opportunity to console a crying victim: how dare he continue to pretend he didn’t know?
Since 2020, the system specifically designed to deal with corruption has been extended to include reports of harassment but, despite regular requests from workers representatives, opacity continues to reign at Ubisoft, crushing workers as much as ever. Our article from 2021 is unfortunately still relevant: Harassment: Ubisoft chooses delaying tactics and communication campaigns instead of protecting employees – STJV
In the face of these “‘mind-boggling”’ facts, in the face of this “‘indescribable”’ case, as the plaintiffs’ lawyers so aptly described it, it seems crucial to us that everyone’s responsibilities be recognised: Ubisoft exposed its employees to danger. A workers representative was harassed, sidelined and driven out of the company. Many of the victims still have problems working in a company because of what they experienced at Ubisoft. We will not forget!
It still should be noted that, contrary to what their lawyers tried to argue, Ubisoft’s liability in no way removes the defendants’ personal responsibility. Nobody forced Serge Hascoët, Thomas “Tommy” François or Guillaume Patrux to insult, harass or assault their colleagues.
We hope that justice will be served.
To all the victims, to all the people who suffer in the workplace for whatever reason, we reiterate our unwavering support, and we invite you to contact us by any means: together, we have the power to put an end to these acts!