Psychological humiliation and sexual harassment: Three former Ubisoft execs on trial in France
Three former top executives from French video game giant Ubisoft – the maker of games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry - went on trial on Monday.
Serge Hascoët, Thomas "Tommy" François and Guillaume Patrux appeared before the Bobigny criminal court on charges of psychological abuse, sexual harassment and attempted sexual assault.
The trial is due to continue until Friday. During the week, the judges will hear the accounts of six women and three men, as well as accusations made by two trade unions.
The defendants deny all the allegations against them.
The Ubisoft omerta began to break in 2020. Three years prior, a Ubisoft employee tried to report psychological harassment to his superiors. The response? 'You stop talking about this immediately. There's no problem at Ubisoft.'
But then came an in-depth investigation conducted by French publications Libération and Numerama. The examination revealed working conditions plagued by harassment, humiliation and discriminatory comments.
Ubisoft then launched an internal inquiry in 2020 after anonymous testimonies emerged on social media accusing the company of a toxic work culture.
Investigators spoke to dozens of witnesses during the probe, but "many refused to file a complaint for fear of reactions from the video game community.'
Still, the testimonies that poured in painted a damning picture of what went on behind the walls of the Ubisoft studios.
Serge Hascoët, 59, Ubisoft's chief creative officer and second-in-command, who resigned after the allegations, is accused of sexual harassment and bullying. He is also accused of making racist comments. He allegedly told staff that a senior employee was irritating because she did not have enough sex and that he should have sex with her in a meeting room in front of everyone 'to show how to calm her.'
Thomas François, 52, former vice-president of editorial and creative services, is accused of forcing a young employee he had just hired to do a headstand in the open-plan office while wearing a skirt. He is also alleged to have often watched pornographic films in the open-plan office and, at a 2015 office Christmas party, he allegedly tried to kiss a colleague on the mouth as his other colleagues restrained the woman. She said she managed to break free and felt 'traumatised' by the incident.
Former game director Patrux, 41, has been accused of psychological harassment and was dismissed for serious misconduct. He is alleged to have mimed hitting staff, cracked a whip near colleagues' faces and drawn swastikas on a woman's notebook as he sat near her in a meeting.
Other examples which allegedly took place under the complicit or indifferent eye of Ubisoft management include shameful examples of public humiliation. For instance, a young Muslim member of staff allegedly found her screensaver changed to an image of a bacon sandwich, while sandwiches were thrown at her during Ramadan.
Other women alleged to police that sexual comments were made regularly, that they were called 'sluts' and told to wear shorter skirts. One woman who wore a coat with red lining was allegedly told by an executive: 'That's an invitation to rape.'
This week's trial is a pivotal moment for the gaming industry, one hailed by some as a #MeToo moment in the video games "boys club". Indeed, the male-dominated video game publishing industry has been scrutinised for years over its treatment of women and minorities, as well as the way these groups are depicted in games.
However, there are those who feel that this week's trial is not enough.
'This trial could have been exemplary,' according to Marc Rutschlé, union delegate at Solidaires Informatique. He told L'Humanité: 'It wasn't three isolated individuals who created this atmosphere of widespread harassment. Their impunity was organised. There are no defendants and many victims. The whole structural aspect has been evacuated.'
Indeed, Ubisoft is taking great care to keep out of the trial as neither the human resources department, nor any representative of the company as a legal entity or its CEO Yves Guillemot, will be making an appearance in court.
Guillemot allegedly previously referred to some of the accusations as 'generational differences of opinion' and 'creative friction'.
The trial continues in Bobigny until Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's Iran strikes threaten to roil elections in Michigan
The U.S.'s military intervention in Iran could roil next year's House and Senate races in Michigan, a key battleground state that saw Democratic tensions play out last cycle over the war in Gaza. Democratic candidates in particular there will be forced to navigate a political minefield when it comes to President Trump's involvement in Iran, a conflict that is linked to Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, which proved to be a major liability for Michigan Democrats during last year's election. But the conflict also raises questions for Republicans, who will need to win over Arab, Muslim and Jewish Americans statewide while navigating the Trump administration's position on the broader conflict. 'The races next year should be really interesting, because in some ways, they're going to be a referendum on some of the key questions of who the Democratic Party is and who it will become,' said Abbas Alawieh, a senior Democratic strategist who was one of the leaders of the Uncommitted Movement last year, which sought to pressure then-President Biden over his stance on the war in Gaza. That conflict became a flashpoint during the 2024 election, nowhere more so than in Michigan, which has a Jewish population of more than 100,000 while the Arab and Muslim American population is estimated to be about several hundred thousand in the state. 'The Middle Eastern vote, the Muslim vote in particular, has been moving slightly to the right over the last couple of elections and clearly Trump capitalized on it,' said Jason Cabel Roe, a Michigan-based Republican strategist. 'It remains to be seen that Muslim Americans, while they might not love Israel and may even hate Israel, they don't necessarily love Iran,' he added. 'And I do think that everyone recognizes that Iran has been for nearly 50 years the primary disruptive force in the region.' The Uncommitted Movement — in which Arab, Muslim and progressive voters urged Democrats to vote 'uncommitted' in the primary against Biden — notably started out in the Midwestern state, and then later spread across the country, in reaction to the war. After replacing Biden on the ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris lost the state by more than 1 point, fairing only better in Wisconsin among the seven battleground states. The Arab and Muslim 'community here in Michigan … can no longer be taken for granted as just lining up with the Democratic candidate,' Alawieh said. 'I think Democrats are going to have to work harder for that vote.' The Trump administration's decision to bomb several nuclear facilities in Iran last week has only magnified the issue heading into 2026, with Trump on Friday leaving open the possibility to further strikes. Some members of Michigan's Arab and Muslim communities who spoke with The Hill believe that conflict could impact key elections or be an important issue next year again, particularly in the Senate race. The Democratic primary has positioned Rep. Haley Stevens (Mich.), a pro-Israel Democrat who's previously received backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), against state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens noted the need for congressional approval for the strikes and demanded that the administration brief Congress on the matter. 'Like most Michiganders, I believe the last thing our country needs is to be involved in another foreign war,' Stevens said. 'I intend to use my power as a member of Congress to ensure that this president and this administration do not continue to abuse the system of checks and balances we have in this country.' McMorrow said in her own statement following the strikes that the U.S. 'cannot be dragged back into a forever war.' 'The U.S. could have prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. Trump's actions have now put U.S. troops in danger and made us all less safe,' McMorrow said. In an interview with The Hill, El-Sayed equated the issue of foreign intervention to affordability. 'You don't have to be from the Middle East, you have to be from Michigan to know that this is a waste of taxpayer dollars,' El-Sayed said. 'This seems totally removed from the affordability crisis that they're living through. It doesn't increase the access that they have to affordable groceries or reduce the price of eggs.' 'I don't think everyday folks are asking what's Iran up to; I think they're asking am I going to be able to afford my life tomorrow?' Michigan GOP Senate candidate and former Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.) said in an interview that members of the state's Middle Eastern community he has spoken to see the endgame when it comes to Trump's strikes on Iran. 'What I'm sensing is nobody likes it, the fact that they had to do it, but they all support the outcome because they believe that this is going to get us one step closer to peace,' said Rogers, who has a law enforcement and intelligence background. 'People are nervous,' he continued. 'They don't want to see a bigger, wider-spread war. Neither does the president, and I think they're with him on that.' Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), who told reporters Thursday that he was 'seriously exploring' a Senate bid himself, suggested Saudi Arabia and other nations along the Persian Gulf privately 'are very nervous about a nuclear Iran as well.' In addition to the Senate race, Alawieh suggested the issue could play out in the primary for Stevens's House seat, Rep. John James's (R-Mich.) seat and in the Democratic primary between Rep. Shri Thanedar (Mich.) and state Rep. Donavan McKinney, who's backed by progressives. 'Very important,' said Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News, when asked how candidates' positions on the military intervention in Iran and the broader global conflict would affect how he votes next year. 'Because, remember, we are a community that has relatives overseas.' At the same time, Siblani — who declined to endorse Trump or Harris last cycle — noted domestic issues were also extremely important to him. Why are Trump and Republicans 'doing what they're doing in the … campuses, arresting people, deporting them, not giving them the due process?' Siblani asked. 'The country that I came to in 1976 is not the same country that I live in today,' he added. One national Republican strategist said the Israel-Hamas war would likely play a bigger role in the state's campaign discourse than Iran's conflict with Israel. 'It's always going to be an issue when the Middle East comes up regarding politics,' the strategist said. 'The bigger issue will still continue to be more of Israel's war eliminating Hamas.' While a global conflict is looming over the country, some lawmakers caution it's too soon to know how the U.S. intervention in Iran could impact Michigan next year or express ambivalence that it will be as much of a lightning-rod issue. 'Let's see how it all plays out. We haven't even gotten the facts,' Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said Tuesday. Michigan state Rep. Noah Arbit (D), who founded the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus, was not convinced it would be a major issue next year. He suggested what would motivate voters would be anticipated cuts to Medicaid from Trump's megabill and tax cuts that wealthy Americans would benefit off of. Rogers noted that if the conflict were to break down into a broader war and enflame other parts of the Middle East 'then it becomes something very different.' But the Michigan Republican is betting most voters will side with Trump over the issue when it's over. 'I just don't see it happening,' he said. 'I think this is going to be a huge positive.'
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS school smackdown revives parents' rights
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and religious freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America's children. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., parents fought their local school board over a policy requiring young children to read books centered on LGBTQ+ identity. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents, who sought the right to opt their kids out of lessons that undermine their religious beliefs. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books speak for themselves via color reproductions of their pages. There was no better way to demonstrate that these were not books promoting tolerance and acceptance, but radical attempts at indoctrination. 'Pride Puppy,' part of the district's kindergarten curriculum, includes a word search listing topics detailed in the book's illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Another book, 'Born Ready,' features a very young child who identifies as transgender. In it, the character's older brother protests, 'This doesn't make sense. You can't become a boy. You have to be born one.' Their mother scolds him: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The message is clear: If you want issues of sex and gender to make sense, you aren't a loving person. The school board, Alito wrote, 'encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being 'hurtful' when they express a degree of religious confusion.' They use the books to do it. At the heart of the case was the claim that parents' religious rights were being violated. But the deeper reality remained unspoken: The school-district progressives weren't simply undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon parents. They were trying to induct the children of these families into their own ideology — one that dismisses biological reality and enshrines 'love,' as they define it, as the only acceptable truth. The conflict also exposed a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county school system and the religious, largely immigrant families the district serves. Accustomed to lockstep minority support, leftist county officials were blindsided when the communities they claim to represent pushed back. And when the minority parents protested, the progressives lashed out. The curriculum dispute 'puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,' Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in one contentious public meeting. School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim student who testified at another meeting, telling the press she felt 'kind of sorry' for the girl and speculating she was 'parroting dogma' she'd learned from her parents. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from both officials. When progressives rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district's policy was about teaching tolerance to children of supposedly bigoted parents. After the ruling came down, the district declared in an email to staff, 'This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.' But if tolerance and inclusivity were truly its goals, the county would have sought to respect the values of religious families. No, the objective was ideological control over every child in the county's schools. The progressive activists' message was brutally simple: Our way or the highway. This is what we do in public schools. If you don't like it, you can pay to educate your kids privately, or homeschool them yourself. Alito flatly rejected that argument. 'Public education is a public benefit,' he wrote, 'and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.' In addition, he observed, 'since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.' This case laid bare the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of those convictions when challenged. Progressives in Montgomery County had a choice: To respect the religious beliefs of minority families, or to force them to abandon those beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality. Or, of course, the district could have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether. Rather than offering an unbiased public education to these low-income, immigrant religious families, school officials told them to leave if they wouldn't comply. Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left's true colors on tolerance and privilege. But with its decision, the Supreme Court sent an unmistakable message: Parents' rights are not subject to the whims of progressive activists — and they don't evaporate at the schoolhouse door. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Miami Herald
G-7 agrees to exclude U.S. companies from 15% minimum tax
June 29 (UPI) -- Group of Seven nations agreed to exempt U.S. companies from a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, the countries said in a joint statement. The nonbinding deal was announced Saturday but still requires approval from the 38-member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that established the 2021 agreement on taxing companies. G-7 nations are part of the OECED. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had proposed a "side-by-side solution" for American-headquartered companies that would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule and Undertaxed Profits Rule "in recognition of the existing U.S. minimum tax rules to which they are subject." The massive spending bill now being considered in Congress originally included a "revenge tax" that would have imposed a levy of up to 20% on investments from countries that taxed U.S. companies. "I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Bessent wrote in a multi-post thread on X on Thursday. The House has approved the massive legislation and the Senate is considering it. "It is an honorable compromise as it spares us from the automatic retaliations of Section 899 of the Big, Beautiful Bill," Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told local media. "We are not claiming victory, but we obtained some concessions as the U.S. pledged to engage in OECD negotiations on fair taxation," an unnamed French official told Politico Europe. The official called the "revenge tax" a potentially "huge burden for French companies." Trump has criticized this provision because he said it would limit sovereignty and send U.S. tax revenues to other countries. "The Trump administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans," Bessent wrote Thursday. Trump has imposed a July 9 deadline for U.S. trading partners to lower taxes on foreign goods, threatening high duties on the worst offenders, including 50% on goods from the 27 European Union members. In April, a baseline tariff was imposed on most U.S. trading partners, with higher rates on certain companies and products. In 2021, nearly 140 countries agreed to tax multinational companies at the 15% minimum, regardless of where they were headquartered. In late April, the European Union, Britain, Japan and Canada agreed to exempt the United States from the 15% minimum tax on companies. "Delivery of a side-by-side system will facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy and on preserving the tax sovereignty of all countries," the joint statement read. The agreement, according to the statement, would ensure that any substantial risks identified "with respect to the level playing field, or risks of base erosion and profit shifting, are addressed to preserve the common policy objectives of the side-by-side system." The G-7 includes Britain, France, Germany, Italy in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan and U.S. Before 2014, the group was known as the G-8 until Russia was expelled after annexing the Crimea region of Ukraine. The chairs of the House and Senate committees responsible for tax policy cheered the agreement. "We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration's unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2," Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a press release. The agreement also, however, has its critics. "The U.S. is trying to exempt itself by arm-twisting others, which would make the tax deal entirely useless," Markus Meinzer, director of policy at the Tax Justice Network, told Politico Europe. "A ship with a U.S.-sized hole in its hull won't float." Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
