When a United States congressman weighs in on your video game controversy, you know things have gotten bad. That’s exactly what happened when Representative Ro Khanna from California publicly blasted Activision for using AI-generated artwork in Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, calling for regulations to stop companies from using artificial intelligence to eliminate jobs and extract greater profits.
The timing couldn’t be worse for Activision. Black Ops 7 just became the lowest-rated Call of Duty game in franchise history with a 1.6 user score on Metacritic, and now they’ve got members of Congress using them as an example of everything wrong with how corporations deploy AI technology.
What Congressman Khanna Actually Said
Representative Khanna didn’t hold back when responding to social media posts showing Call of Duty’s AI-generated calling cards. On X (formerly Twitter), he stated bluntly that we need regulations preventing companies from using AI to eliminate jobs to extract greater profits.
But he didn’t stop there. Khanna laid out specific policy proposals that go beyond vague calls for oversight. He argued that artists at gaming companies need to have a say in how AI is deployed within their studios. They should share in the profits generated by AI tools. And perhaps most controversially, he called for a tax on mass displacement of workers by artificial intelligence.
This isn’t a new position for the California Democrat. Khanna has been advocating for AI regulations since before generative tools became mainstream. In a 2024 interview with The Verge, he criticized how AI models are trained on internet data without distinguishing truth from falsehood, how the technology facilitates misinformation, and the labor displacement issues it creates.
He’s not anti-AI entirely. Khanna acknowledged potential beneficial uses like politicians speaking in multiple languages to reach diverse constituents. But he emphasized that viewers should know when they’re watching AI-generated content rather than the real person speaking.
The Studio Ghibli AI Disaster
To understand why this blew up into a congressional-level controversy, you need to see what Activision actually did. Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 launched with calling cards – those animated poster rewards players earn – that are blatantly AI-generated in the style of Studio Ghibli films like Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro.
Anyone who’s spent five minutes on social media since early 2025 recognizes the signature look of AI-generated Ghibli-style art. It’s become so common that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman uses one as his profile picture, despite Japan’s largest manga publisher recently accusing OpenAI of trampling on the dignity of artists with their Sora 2 video app.
But here’s what makes the Call of Duty situation particularly egregious. Why would you use Ghibli-style imagery in a military shooter about black ops missions? The visual disconnect is jarring and makes zero thematic sense. Fallout gets away with stylistic mashups because retro-futurism is baked into its DNA. But Call of Duty has never been about whimsical Japanese animation aesthetics.
The obvious answer is that Activision used AI generation because it was cheap and fast, with no consideration for whether it actually fit the game. And players noticed immediately.
This Wasn’t Their First Time
Activision has a history with AI-generated assets. Both Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops 6 contained AI-generated images, though those were subtler and it took months of suspicion before the company admitted it. Players spotted telltale signs like malformed hands with incorrect numbers of fingers, the classic giveaway of early generative AI tools.
But the Black Ops 7 calling cards are different. They’re not subtle. They’re not attempting to hide what they are. The Studio Ghibli aesthetic is so distinctive and so obviously AI-generated that it feels like Activision stopped caring whether anyone noticed. Where previous games used AI quietly, Black Ops 7 is rubbing players’ faces in it.
The Review Bomb From Hell
Players responded with one of the most brutal review campaigns in Call of Duty history. On Metacritic, Black Ops 7 currently sits at a 1.6 user score. That’s not a typo. One point six out of ten. It’s the lowest-rated Call of Duty game ever released on the platform.
For context, Call of Duty: Vanguard scored 3.7 despite being widely panned. Modern Warfare 3 managed 2.3. Black Ops 7 is performing worse than games that were already considered franchise low points. Steam reviews tell a similar story with only 42-43 percent positive ratings, giving the game a Mixed overall rating.
While some of the negativity stems from other issues like the campaign structure, always-online requirements, and multiplayer problems, the AI controversy is prominently featured in negative reviews. Players are calling the game soulless, saying it feels created by AI rather than humans, and specifically citing the calling cards as evidence Activision doesn’t respect its audience.
Some players on Steam successfully secured refunds even after completing the entire campaign, arguing that AI-generated assets weren’t disclosed in marketing materials. That’s a legitimate consumer protection argument that could have broader implications if it gains traction.
Activision’s Non-Response
Activision issued a statement that perfectly captures corporate non-answers. They said they use a variety of digital tools including AI tools to empower and support teams to create the best gaming experiences for players, and that their creative process continues to be led by talented individuals in their studios.
That statement says absolutely nothing. It doesn’t address which assets are AI-generated, how much of the game uses AI, what oversight exists for AI usage, or whether human artists had their work replaced by algorithms. It’s pure deflection designed to sound reasonable without committing to anything substantive.
The Steam page for Black Ops 7 includes an AI-generated content disclosure stating that their team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in-game assets. Again, that’s intentionally vague. Some could mean 5 percent or 95 percent. Without specifics, it’s impossible for consumers to make informed decisions.
Why This Matters Beyond Gaming
Representative Khanna didn’t randomly decide to comment on a video game controversy. He’s using Call of Duty as a high-profile example to illustrate larger problems with how corporations are deploying AI across industries.
The gaming industry employs tens of thousands of artists, animators, and creatives. When a company the size of Activision Blizzard starts replacing human-created art with AI-generated alternatives, it sends a signal to the entire sector that this is acceptable business practice. Other studios see it and think they can do the same without consequences.
Khanna’s proposed solutions address this directly. Requiring companies to give artists a say in AI deployment means workers have input before their jobs get eliminated. Ensuring they share in profits from AI tools acknowledges that those systems were trained on human creativity. And taxing mass displacement creates financial disincentives for companies to replace workers en masse.
These aren’t just gaming issues. Similar dynamics are playing out in film, television, publishing, journalism, and countless other creative fields. Call of Duty became the visible example because the AI usage was so obvious and the player backlash so immediate, but the underlying problems exist across the economy.
The Timing With Game Industry Layoffs
This controversy hits especially hard given the ongoing layoffs throughout the gaming industry. Twenty-four percent of game developers were affected by layoffs in the past two years according to the recent GDC report, with half of those people still unemployed.
When studios are firing artists en masse while simultaneously implementing AI tools to replace their work, it’s not hard to see why both workers and politicians are furious. The message to creative professionals is clear – your skills don’t matter anymore because algorithms can do it cheaper.
The Critical Versus User Split
One fascinating aspect of the Black Ops 7 situation is the massive gap between critic and user reviews. Professional reviewers gave the game an 84 Metacritic score, praising its deep content across Zombies, multiplayer, and the new Endgame mode. That would make it one of the highest-rated Black Ops games from a critical perspective.
Meanwhile players are demolishing it with that 1.6 user score. The disconnect suggests that professional critics either don’t care about AI-generated content or are prioritizing other aspects of the game over ethical concerns about how it was created. Players clearly feel differently and are willing to tank the game’s reputation over it.
This gap also reveals how mainstream gaming media often fails to reflect audience priorities. When your review doesn’t mention or minimize the biggest controversy surrounding a game’s launch, it suggests a disconnect from the community you’re supposed to serve.
What Happens Next
Activision hasn’t indicated whether they’ll replace the controversial calling cards or change their approach to AI usage. Given their defensive statement, it seems unlikely they’ll back down without significant pressure. And with record-breaking sales despite the negative reviews, that pressure may not materialize in ways that hurt their bottom line.
Representative Khanna’s call for regulations faces an uphill battle in Congress. AI policy remains contentious with strong disagreement about whether and how to regulate the technology. Any legislation would need to navigate complex questions about copyright, fair use, labor protections, and corporate rights.
But the fact that a sitting congressman is publicly calling out a specific video game for its AI usage represents a new phase in this debate. Politicians are paying attention. The backlash isn’t just happening in gaming forums and Reddit threads anymore. It’s reaching people with the power to actually implement the regulations Khanna is proposing.
FAQs
Which congressman criticized Call of Duty Black Ops 7?
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California’s 17th congressional district, publicly criticized the game’s use of AI-generated artwork and called for new regulations on artificial intelligence in the workplace.
What is wrong with Call of Duty Black Ops 7?
The game launched with obviously AI-generated calling cards styled after Studio Ghibli artwork, which players found inappropriate for a military shooter. It also faces criticism for campaign issues, always-online requirements, and various technical problems.
What user score does Black Ops 7 have?
Black Ops 7 currently has a 1.6 user score on Metacritic for PC, making it the lowest-rated Call of Duty game in franchise history. Steam reviews show only 42-43 percent positive, giving it a Mixed rating.
What regulations is Congressman Khanna proposing?
Khanna called for regulations preventing companies from using AI to eliminate jobs for profit, requirements that artists have input on AI deployment, ensuring workers share in AI-generated profits, and implementing a tax on mass displacement of workers by AI.
Has Activision used AI in previous Call of Duty games?
Yes, both Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops 6 contained AI-generated assets, though these were more subtle and took months before Activision admitted to their use. Black Ops 7’s AI usage is much more obvious and widespread.
What does Activision say about using AI?
Activision stated they use various digital tools including AI to empower teams and create gaming experiences, but that their creative process is led by talented individuals. They haven’t provided specifics about which assets use AI or how extensively.
Can players get refunds for Black Ops 7?
Some Steam players have successfully obtained refunds even after completing the campaign, citing undisclosed AI-generated content. However, refund eligibility depends on platform policies and individual circumstances.
Why are the calling cards Studio Ghibli style?
There’s no official explanation for why Activision chose this aesthetic for a military shooter. The style appears to be because Studio Ghibli AI-generated art became popular online, not because it fits Call of Duty thematically.
Conclusion
The Call of Duty Black Ops 7 AI controversy represents a turning point in how the gaming industry and broader public think about artificial intelligence in creative work. What started as players noticing some weird-looking calling cards has escalated into congressional calls for regulation and the worst user reviews in franchise history.
Activision gambled that players either wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care about AI-generated content. They were spectacularly wrong on both counts. The backlash has been swift, brutal, and now extends beyond gaming communities into actual political discourse about labor rights and corporate responsibility.
Whether Representative Khanna’s proposed regulations gain traction remains to be seen. Congress moves slowly and AI policy is contentious. But the fact that a sitting member of Congress is using Call of Duty as an example of everything wrong with corporate AI deployment shows this issue has escaped the confines of gaming forums.
For Activision, the damage may already be done. Black Ops 7 will be remembered as the Call of Duty game that a congressman criticized for replacing artists with algorithms. That’s not the legacy any developer wants, regardless of how many copies it sells.
The gaming industry is watching closely. If Activision faces real consequences for this decision, other studios might think twice before going all-in on AI-generated content. If they get away with it and the controversy fades, expect AI usage to accelerate across the sector. Either way, the Call of Duty franchise just became the testing ground for how far companies can push AI replacement of human creativity before customers and politicians push back.