Court communications: participation list and request for clarifications

Court communications so far

As of this date, there have been two primary email exchanges with the court so far.

Since communications and documents related to the class action are public records, if you would like to verify these for yourself I would encourage you to request them from the court directly as some members have already done. The case number is T 5478-26.

First topic, participation list

The first one with Ågren Elsa - TNA received on the 2nd of July 2026 09:44 reads as such:

Hej,

Tingsrätten har mottagit ert yttrande angående uppgifter om gruppdeltagare.

Som framgår av föreläggandet i aktbil. 26 behöver ni inkomma med namn på gruppmedlemmarna, då flera av namnen på listan har stavats på ett sätt som uppenbarligen inte är rätt.

Att det är käranden som ska ange namn på samtliga gruppmedlemmar följer av 9 § andra stycket lagen om grupprättegång.

Kompletteringen ska ha kommit in till domstolen senast den 28 augusti 2026.

Om kompletteringen inte kommer in i tid kan domstolen besluta att inte ta upp (avvisa) målet.

För kännedom har tingsrätten fortfarande inte mottagit samtliga handlingar som har åberopats som bevisning.

Med vänlig hälsning

Elsa Ågren Tingsnotarie, Avdelning 2, Nacka tingsrätt

In short, it’s a complain about the participation list, specifically about how some of the names appear to be incorrect or incomplete (“har stavats på ett sätt som uppenbarligen inte är rätt.”).

This is referring to the ~20 entries whose names contained abbreviations such as Johan A, which the court did not like.

Given that it was so few entries that had this issue in relation to the thousands of valid ones, we decided to drop those entries for the time being instead of having to face delays sending emails and awaiting completion responses. As such the participation count dropped from 2867 -> 2845.

We’re essentially trying to get through the initial hurdle that is getting approved as a class action lawsuit, where the idea is to then demand that Mojang send out a notice to any users that may be affected within their own internal databases themselves, at which point these dropped users (and obviously the millions more that would then be contacted) would have a chance to join again.

We fixed up the list, send it back and they had no further issues with it.

Second topic, clarifications

The second topic, “FÖRELÄGGANDE” (a request for us to provide clarifications) dated 2026-07-23 is quite a bit longer so I uploaded it via my CDN: https://vid.kianbrose.com/-gcTXzS7Wjd

The most important sentence:

Tingsrätten har vid granskning av stämningsansökan (daterad 2026-06-24) preliminärt kommit fram till att det synes finnas förutsättningar för att inleda en grupptalan som sådan, men att det framstår som tveksamt om rätten har möjlighet att i sak pröva vissa av Kian Bröses yrkanden. De yrkanden som avses är de som i stämningsansökan anges under punkterna 1.2, 1.3 och 1.4

Which translates to

The court has, after an initial review of the filings (dated 2026-06-24) preliminarily come to the conclusion that there are grounds that justify it proceeding as a class action lawsuit, but there is doubt on whether the court has the ability to try (as in process) some of Kian Bröses claims. The claims in questions are the points 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

Section by section:

Punkterna 1.2 och 1.3

Here the court confirms whether we’re looking for both a fullgörelsetalan and a fastställelsetalan at the same time.

Essentially, a fullgörelsetalan means that the court orders Mojang to do something, and a fastställelsetalan is the court confirming something, such as a specific action having been unlawful.

We’re looking to do both, since the court claiming “yep it was unlawful” is kind of pointless if you don’t actually force an action out of it, a statement without action is meaningless; and that’s what that first point clarified.

They ask whether the claim could proceed if it wasn’t possible to do a “fullgörelse” (the doing part) to which we’re responding that we do need both for obvious reasons.

This question shouldn’t be looked at negatively as it’s not a conclusion nor hint at what they may say once actually in front of a judge, but rather a preliminary question that arose after they went through it.

Punkten 1.2

They wanted a clarification what what we mean by “direct or indirect” means under which Mojang has affected the users, particularly what we mean by indirect.

An example of direct is the account migration, direct as it was immediately percieved by users.

Indirect mean is (for example) the enforcement of a contract nobody was aware of on server owners which consequently affects players ability to play multiplayer (among other things), having different versions of contracted clauses solely communicated to famous people under NDA etc.

We listed out examples for each category, this is a brief example, the response is still being worked on.

In the same point they mention that they’re doubtful about whether it would be possible to order them to apply previous contract terms, which we don’t really see as a problem as contracts don’t really have time constraints; if you agreed to something, that agreement stands even if it proves to be negative/no longer desirable by either of the parties.

Simple example, a company that sold you a perpetual license can’t just cancel it if there’s no grounds to do so in the contract just because they “don’t like it anymore” and want to juice users for monthly fees (as seen in the LTT teamviewer case and so many others).

Punkten 1.3

Here they’re asking whether the demands that we have would solely require policy changes or technical adjustments.

Policy changes means that they just behave differently against users (enforce a different version of a contract), technical change means modifying the underlying code in some way to make the demand possible (ie re-adding Mojang authentication systems for the Microsoft migration reversal).

We need both for obvious reasons, normally the court would try to weasle their way out of the technical adjustments if they’re too broad in scope or would incur a massive cost, but here we’re basically talking about turning on a system they already have, while disabling features that don’t comply with the privacy policy at that time like telemetry, chat reporting and other means of data harvesting. (Reminder that the 2013 privacy policy is “using the data solely for the purpose of providing the game”. Chat reporting, telemetry etc falls entirely outside the scope of that which wasn’t agreed to, so away it goes)

We then have to clarify exactly what it means to “have access to the game under applicable law”.

Again, reasonable question, nothing really concerning at least as far as we can tell.

Punkten 1.4

This one is a bit hard to explain but it’s basically about whether both parties disagree with each other, which was easy to clarify by the fact that we’re claiming that the contract at the time of purchase is the one that applies, whereas Mojang claims that all old contracts are void and the newest terms apply; all of which is causing damages both now (ie. data is still not being processed as per the agreement at the time of purchase, accounts have been migrated, unmigrated accounts are lost etc) and in the future.

Punkten 1.5

Here they’re basically saying that the damages we are seeking (the 15 000kr (~1 500$) per participant) are independent from the other claims and can be tried by themselves.

This is very good news since it means that even in the odd chance that everything fails, the damages can still be processed by themselves as a standalone claim.

---

We’ve yet to send off the response to this föreläggande, the above described what the court wanted/what the document meant; obviously the actual questions they asked require additional work that we’re working on.

As usual feel free to discuss in the lawsuit channel, please refrain from speculative arguments without backing them up factually.