How Krafton’s CEO allegedly used ChatGPT to dodge a $250M earn-out

Key Takeaways

• This isn’t just legal drama—AI is seeping into high-stakes corporate deals that shape your favorite games.
• Court filings allege Krafton’s CEO asked ChatGPT how to dodge a $250M earn-out after acquiring Unknown Worlds in 2021.
• If true, players could see creative shifts, delays, and weaker support on Subnautica 2. Developers need stronger contracts and AI policies.

Why this story actually matters to players (and not just lawyers)

In July 2025, newly unsealed court documents revealed a surprising twist in the Krafton-Unknown Worlds saga: CEO Changhan Kim allegedly used ChatGPT to explore legal loopholes for avoiding a $250 million earn-out payment. This isn’t your typical boardroom scuffle—it’s AI being deployed to influence decisions that ripple all the way to how games are made, supported, and experienced. The fallout could mean everything from unexpected delays and feature cuts to a fundamental reshaping of Subnautica 2’s creative vision.

Breaking down the allegation

According to the lawsuit filed in a U.S. district court in July 2025, Krafton acquired Unknown Worlds in August 2021 with an earn-out clause: if the studio hit certain sales and performance targets, its founders would receive up to $250 million. As those milestones approached, the complaint claims the founders were abruptly dismissed and an internal initiative code-named “Project X” was launched to wrest control of assets and intellectual property away from them. Crucially, a screenshot in the filings purports to show Kim asking ChatGPT whether it was legal to avoid paying out the earn-out—an AI-backed audit of contractual fine print.

What is an earn-out, and why it matters

An earn-out is a contractual mechanism in mergers and acquisitions where sellers receive additional compensation if the acquired business meets predefined goals, like revenue targets or product launches. It’s designed to keep founders and new owners aligned. But it also hands the buyer leverage: if they can delay or dispute those targets, they can potentially avoid paying. Turning to AI for legal counsel raises new questions about accountability and the lengths companies might go to protect—or pad—their bottom lines.

Why players should care — beyond the headline

When a studio’s leadership and original vision are upended after an acquisition, games can suffer. Unknown Worlds’ founders built Subnautica’s unique blend of exploration, atmosphere, and community engagement. Removing that leadership risks turning Subnautica 2 into a safer, more conventional sequel—one driven by market projections rather than pure creativity. On top of that, development upheaval usually means delays and feature cuts. Gamers who’ve been waiting years for a follow-up stand to lose months of playtime, fresh content, or even key mechanics they’ve been hyped for.

Why developers should pay attention

Studio autonomy often evaporates when big publishers swoop in. Earn-outs are meant to align incentives but can also become tools for leverage. If corporate executives are using generative AI like ChatGPT to hunt for loopholes, developers need to demand airtight contracts, clear definitions of milestones, and proper legal oversight. On top of that, this case highlights the need for transparent AI policies: archiving AI-driven correspondence could become a crucial line of defense in any future dispute.

What players and devs can do now

• Support independent studios directly—pre-order or buy games at launch to boost their bargaining power.
• Monitor community channels and developer updates for early signs of corporate interference.
• Push for public AI-use policies from publishers—know when and how AI is shaping creative or legal decisions.
• For devs: insist on legal counsel during acquisition talks, document AI interactions, and secure well-defined earn-out clauses.

Why “asking ChatGPT” is the new red flag

Using AI to handle routine tasks or prototype features is one thing; treating it like an off-the-clock legal advisor is another. The complaint doesn’t accuse ChatGPT of drafting nefarious clauses, but it does suggest executives leaned on AI to rationalize aggressive contract tactics. That sets a worrying precedent where machine-generated advice could be weaponized to erode human agreements.

Looking ahead — regulation, transparency, and community power

If this lawsuit gains momentum, it could spur regulators and industry bodies to tighten rules around earn-outs and mandate clearer disclosures on AI’s role in corporate governance. Until then, the most effective levers remain community pressure, conscious purchasing choices, and robust workplace advocacy. Otherwise, we risk a gaming ecosystem increasingly optimized for accounting spreadsheets instead of creative innovation.

Conclusion

This alleged ChatGPT episode underscores how fragile studio independence can be post-acquisition—and how AI might be co-opted for boardroom maneuvering. For players, the stakes are delayed releases and diluted game visions; for developers, it’s about securing fair deals and transparent AI practices. The only real safeguard is vigilance—from studio floors to your gaming rig.