The reviewed sources do not document a retraction of The Wall Street Journal’s November 16, 2021 story about Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick. The claim that the Journal never took the story down appears in a 2025 complaint by Kotick; that pleading also argues that later Journal coverage undercut the story. Those are a litigant’s claims, not findings by a court or an independent audit of the Journal’s edits.
What “never retracted” does—and does not—establish
A retraction is a publication’s withdrawal of a story. It is different from a correction, an update, a later article, or an editorial-board piece. The reviewed sources do not document a WSJ retraction, but they also do not establish the complete correction or update history of the original article. Kotick’s complaint is the source for the assertion that the article was never taken down; it is not a comprehensive record of every change the Journal may have made.
That distinction matters because keeping an article online does not settle whether its claims were accurate, and later coverage does not automatically retract or refute an earlier story. Each is a separate editorial action or substantive claim.
What Kotick’s complaint says about later Journal coverage
Kotick’s 2025 complaint alleges that the Journal and its editorial board published material in December 2023 that refuted the narrative of the November 2021 article. The complaint also says G/O Media stood by its own reporting in May 2024 partly because the Journal had not taken down the 2021 story, and faults G/O Media for not addressing the later Journal publications.
#1 Best Overall
These descriptions are the plaintiff’s account of the Journal’s later work and of the correspondence with G/O Media. The materials reviewed do not include the original Journal article, the later Journal publications, or an independent evaluation demonstrating that the later material refuted the earlier reporting. The complaint’s characterization should therefore remain attributed to Kotick, rather than being treated as a settled conclusion or as evidence of a retraction.
What the California settlement language says
Game File journalist Stephen Totilo quoted language from the 2023 California settlement stating that “no court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations that: there has been systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard [or] that Activision Blizzard senior executives ignored, condoned, or tolerated a culture of systemic harassment, retaliation, or discrimination.” This is the settlement passage as reproduced by Totilo, not a blanket finding that every reported workplace incident was disproved.
The passage concerns what a court or independent investigation had substantiated in the terms quoted. It does not itself adjudicate the accuracy of the WSJ’s November 2021 article, nor does it constitute a retraction by the Journal. Kotick’s complaint advances broader interpretations of the settlement; those interpretations are allegations by a party to the dispute.
Totilo also reported a specific correction dispute: Clare Locke demanded a correction even though the requested California settlement language was already in the article. According to Totilo, the firm later apologized after saying it had reviewed an incomplete version. That account documents one episode as reported by the journalist; it does not establish a general motive or prove what occurred in every other matter.
Recommended Free Tools
The contemporaneous denial and a separate Journal story
In November 2021, Bloomberg Law reported the WSJ’s allegations and Activision’s response that the report presented a “misleading view” of Kotick and the company. Bloomberg Law also reported Activision’s statement that instances of sexual misconduct brought to Kotick’s attention were acted upon. These are the company’s denials and assertions, not independent findings that resolve the dispute.
A 2022 Guardian report concerned separate WSJ reporting about Sheryl Sandberg and the Daily Mail. It included denials and statements from Sandberg’s spokesperson, Kotick, his former partner, and the Activision board. That separate reporting involved different disputed claims and should not be used as evidence that the 2021 workplace story was retracted or refuted.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to read the competing claims
| Source and date | What it says | Status of the statement |
|---|---|---|
| Kotick complaint, 2025 | The Journal never took down its November 2021 article; later Journal coverage and an editorial-board article refuted its narrative. | Allegations and characterization by the plaintiff, not a court finding or an independent audit of publication history. |
| Activision response reported by Bloomberg Law, November 2021 | The WSJ report presented a “misleading view”; the company said misconduct brought to Kotick’s attention was acted upon. | Company response and denial, not independent verification. |
| California settlement passage quoted by Game File | The quoted language says no court or independent investigation had substantiated specified allegations of systemic or widespread harassment or senior executives’ tolerance of a systemic culture. | Settlement language as quoted by a journalist; not a finding on every incident or on the WSJ article. |
| Totilo’s Game File account | Clare Locke sought a correction over language Totilo said was already in the article, then apologized after reviewing an incomplete version. | A journalist’s report of a particular episode, not proof of a broader pattern. |
| Guardian, April 2022 | Reported statements and denials concerning separate WSJ reporting about Sandberg and the Daily Mail. | Different story and claims; not evidence about the editorial status of the November 2021 workplace article. |
What can responsibly be concluded
The available material supports a limited conclusion: the reviewed sources do not document a WSJ retraction, while Kotick’s complaint alleges that the Journal left the 2021 article up and that later coverage contradicted it. Without the original article’s full editorial history and the later Journal pieces, the competing characterization cannot be independently resolved here. Neither the complaint’s arguments nor the settlement passage should be presented as a Journal retraction or as proof that every allegation in the original reporting was false.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
