Denuvo GmbH has filed a federal lawsuit against the anonymous game cracker known as Voices38, accusing the defendant of circumventing its Anti-Tamper protection across 26 PC games. The complaint, filed on September 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, brings two claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention rules.
The case is Denuvo GmbH v. Voices38, No. 5:26-cv-10423. Denuvo is not one of the publishers that owns the copyrights to the games named in the complaint. Its claims instead focus on the technological protection layer it provides to publishers and on the DMCA provisions governing circumvention of access controls.
Two §1201 provisions define Denuvo’s claims
The first claim is based on 17 U.S.C. §1201(a)(1). That provision prohibits circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Applied to this case, Denuvo alleges that Voices38 bypassed the Anti-Tamper protection used in the games identified in its complaint.
The second claim uses §1201(a)(2), which prohibits trafficking in technology, products, services, devices or components that meet the statute’s anti-circumvention tests, including technology primarily designed for circumvention. It also reaches qualifying technology with only limited commercially significant use beyond circumvention, or technology marketed for use in circumvention. The two provisions address different conduct: §1201(a)(1) concerns the alleged act of bypassing an access control, while §1201(a)(2) concerns qualifying circumvention tools or services.
Those are allegations, not findings. Denuvo still has to establish that the relevant protection qualifies under §1201 and that the defendant’s conduct satisfies the elements of the claims.
Section 1203 gives Denuvo a civil remedy of its own
Section 1203(a) supplies the civil cause of action Denuvo invokes. It allows a person injured by a violation of §1201 or §1202 to bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court. Denuvo therefore does not need to own the copyrights in the 26 games to pursue this particular theory, but it still has to prove a qualifying §1201 violation and injury.
Section 1203 also sets out the remedies available if a violation is proven. A court may issue temporary or permanent injunctions, order the impounding of devices or products involved in a violation and award damages. A complaining party can elect actual damages and profits or statutory damages where the statute allows them.
For a §1201 violation, §1203 permits statutory damages of $200 to $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer or performance of service, with the amount determined by the court. That does not mean the 26 games in Denuvo’s complaint can simply be multiplied by $2,500. The eventual calculation would depend on which alleged violations, if any, are proven and what remedy Denuvo elects.
The complaint spans 26 games while Voices38 remains unidentified
Denuvo’s complaint identifies 26 games that it says had its protection circumvented. The titles span several years and multiple publishers, including FIFA 20, PES 2020, Star Wars: Squadrons, Hogwarts Legacy, Black Myth: Wukong, Doom: The Dark Ages, Stellar Blade, Resident Evil Requiem, Pragmata and 007 First Light.
The 26 titles come from multiple publishers, but the common element in the complaint is Denuvo’s Anti-Tamper layer. The case focuses on alleged circumvention of Denuvo’s technology rather than ownership of any single game.
Voices38 is named as an unknown individual or entity. The complaint associates the alias with online accounts, including a Reddit account, a Discord identifier and several Steam profiles, as part of Denuvo’s effort to identify the defendant. Until that identity is established through the legal process, those connections remain allegations made by the plaintiff.
The filing starts the legal test; it does not decide it
The lawsuit establishes that Denuvo is now using the DMCA’s civil anti-circumvention provisions directly against an alleged cracker. It does not establish that Voices38 violated §1201. There is no liability ruling simply because a complaint has been filed.
If the case proceeds against an identified defendant, Denuvo will still have to prove that its technological measure falls within §1201, that the alleged acts meet the statutory definitions and that Denuvo suffered an injury that supports the remedies it seeks under §1203.
The legal issue is not whether game cracking amounts to “piracy” in the abstract. The court would have to decide whether the alleged conduct falls within §1201 and whether Denuvo can establish the injury and remedies required by §1203.
Court record: Denuvo GmbH v. Voices38, No. 5:26-cv-10423 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 14, 2026), available through PACER. Law: 17 U.S.C. §1201; 17 U.S.C. §1203. Analysis: GameTechReport.