Riot Games locks nearly 300,000 League of Legends and VALORANT accounts for ranked cheating

Riot Games has announced a large-scale enforcement action against ranked cheating in two of its flagship titles: League of Legends and VALORANT. According to official information from the publisher, nearly 300,000 accounts have been locked or disciplined for involvement in cheating behaviors, including boosting, unauthorized account sharing, and other forms of ranked system manipulation. This figure comes after the Vanguard anti-cheat system was integrated into League of Legends servers in September 2026, expanding its scope from VALORANT to Riot's largest MOBA title. This is considered one of the largest enforcement actions in Riot Games' operational history, marking a significant shift in the company's strategy to protect the integrity of the ranked system. However, the 300,000 figure needs to be placed in a broader context: according to unofficial estimates, the total monthly active player base for both titles is around 140 million, with League of Legends accounting for approximately 120 million and VALORANT around 20 million. This means the proportion of accounts actioned is only about 0.2% of the total player base, a relatively small figure compared to the community's scale. This event is not merely an administrative punishment but also reflects a deep shift in Riot Games' operational philosophy. The company is expanding Vanguard's role from purely combating software cheats to controlling ranked system manipulation behaviors, a much more complex field that requires deep understanding of player behavior. Vanguard is an anti-cheat system that operates at the kernel level of the operating system, first developed and deployed by Riot Games on VALORANT. The system is known for its ability to detect cheating software at a very deep level, but it has also sparked privacy controversies due to direct interference with users' systems. The expansion of Vanguard to League of Legends marks the first time a kernel-level anti-cheat system has been applied to a major MOBA title, creating an important precedent for the entire industry. According to expert analysis, the integration of Vanguard into League of Legends is not solely aimed at combating software cheats but is also part of a long-term strategy to comprehensively control the ranked ecosystem. Riot Games is transitioning from a reactive model to a proactive one, where the system not only detects cheating but also prevents manipulation behaviors from an early stage. One of the most important aspects of this enforcement action is Riot Games' clear identification of the types of behaviors being actioned. First is boosting, a paid service in which a high-skilled player logs into another person's account to climb to higher ranks. This is a thriving black market in the gaming community, especially in regions with economic disparities. Second is hitchhiking, a new concept introduced by Riot Games. A hitchhiker is a player who uses their own account but queues together with an account being boosted. Although this player does not directly violate software rules, they can still have their ranked points (LP) revoked in matches involving the cheating account. This is an expanded liability standard that raises significant fairness and due process concerns. Third is behaviors related to multi-accounting and main accounts. Riot Games stated that repeat offenders may face suspension of their main accounts, not just secondary accounts. This creates significant risk for professional and semi-professional players who often maintain multiple accounts for practice. Notably, Riot Games also provided a clear stance on smurfing - the practice of playing on a secondary account at a lower rank than one's true skill level. According to the announcement, smurfing is not automatically considered cheating. Riot Games listed at least 8 legitimate use cases, including protecting one's highest achievement on the main account, practicing new champions or agents, and playing with friends of lower skill levels. This is a boundary designed based on intent and behavior, rather than account count, creating a flexible policy that is difficult to enforce consistently. Another important factor is the LP protection mechanism. Riot Games stated that in matches where cheating or leavers are detected, legitimate players will not lose ranked points. This is a positive change for player experience, reducing frustration when encountering unfair matches. This mechanism also reduces variance in the ranked climb process, making LP a more accurate skill signal in the long run. However, the most notable point in Riot Games' announcement is the future identity verification plans. The company is researching the implementation of multi-factor authentication (MFA), TPM 2.0 hardware security standard, and hardware authentication for accounts. These measures aim to make creating one-time accounts much more difficult, thereby reducing system abuse potential. In particular, Riot Games is considering applying different authentication requirements based on player rank. This means players at higher ranks will face stricter requirements, creating a two-tier governance model within the player community. In theory, this can be justified because the risk of cheating at higher ranks is greater, but it also raises questions about fairness and equal treatment among players. The use of TPM 2.0 and hardware authentication could create an identity link between accounts and physical devices. This has far-reaching implications for the cost of creating new accounts, making one-time accounts much more expensive. However, it also raises privacy and accessibility concerns, especially for players using public computers or internet café machines - a significant part of the League of Legends community in many regions. One of the biggest risks identified by experts is that Riot Games simultaneously serves as the rule-maker, enforcement body, data source for enforcement statistics, and commercial beneficiary. There is no independent arbitration mechanism in this system. This creates a structural conflict of interest, inherent to publisher-run esports ecosystems. Riot Games' announcement also lacks data on false positive rates, appeals mechanisms, and independent verification processes. With a scale of 300,000 accounts, the absence of a clear appeals mechanism is a significant transparency gap. Wrongfully actioned players would have no path to restore their reputation, creating potential legal and ethical risks. Economically, this enforcement action reflects a significant investment in anti-cheat infrastructure. Riot Games is bearing the technical and infrastructure costs of implementing device-level authentication across two titles. However, this investment is justified by player retention economics: players who are cheated on tend to leave the game, and this departure directly erodes the monetization base in a free-to-play model. An important secondary effect of moving to hardware authentication is the potential to suppress the account resale market. This is an untapped gray economy sitting on top of Riot's IP. Increasing the cost of account creation will reduce the supply of cheap accounts, thereby increasing the price of boosting services in the black market. In the broader context, this event has ripple effects across the entire esports industry. Riot Games' expansion of Vanguard from VALORANT to League of Legends transforms a single-title anti-cheat tool into a platform-level governance layer. This raises the bar for competing publishers, forcing them to invest more in their anti-cheat systems. In particular, the impact on talent scouting is an important but underappreciated transmission channel. If ranked system integrity improves, scouting signals based on ladder rankings will become more reliable. This is a net benefit for academies and player development systems across all regions. Conversely, if enforcement is uneven across regions, talent identification quality will diverge by server. Another systemic risk is the displacement of the black market. Aggressive enforcement in League of Legends and VALORANT could push boosting service providers to titles with lower enforcement levels. This means the industry-level problem will be displaced, not solved. In the long run, this displacement could create an integrity disparity phenomenon between titles. Publisher power concentration also increases significantly. Riot Games now holds patch control, tournament control, client-level system access, and hardware identity attestation. This is the most complete vertical stack in esports governance, reducing the already thin space for independent oversight. For professional players, the risk lies in maintaining practice accounts. Although Riot Games has listed legitimate use cases for smurfing, the boundary between legitimate practice and behavior considered manipulation remains ambiguous. Professional players queuing with friends who have flagged accounts could face significant media risk. Another important aspect is the impact on the streaming and content ecosystem. Enforcement against boosting and smurfing will create friction for elo-boost and smurf-streaming content, while verified high-rank gameplay content will gain greater credibility. This creates a new content opportunity for creators focused on integrity. However, it should be noted that Riot Games' announcement lacks any data on community reactions. There are no figures on viewership, engagement, or player feedback. This is a significant omission for a news article of this type, as it does not show the full picture of how the community receives the information. From a media perspective, the headline of this story is a classic example of framing large absolute numbers. The 300,000 figure creates the impression of a serious problem, but the 0.2% ratio provided by the article itself shows a relatively small relative scale. This creates an internal tension between headline impact and stated materiality. The most under-covered element is the future verification regime. MFA, TPM 2.0, hardware authentication, and rank-based requirements are much larger structural changes than the 300,000 bans, yet they receive comparatively less emphasis. If implemented, this would be a major shift in account economics, sparking privacy debates. The smurfing nuance will also be the most contested element in the community. Riot Games is making it clear that they are not doing what a large part of the player base demands - a comprehensive crackdown on smurfing. This creates a gap between media narrative and actual policy, potentially causing community frustration. In the long-term context, Riot Games publishing periodic enforcement data could establish a de facto industry integrity-reporting standard, similar to anti-doping reporting norms in traditional sports. However, it remains unclear whether the 300,000 figure is a one-time disclosure or the start of periodic reporting. Another notable risk is the potential expansion of Vanguard's authority. Riot Games' expansion from software cheat combat to ranked behavior control creates a precedent for using anti-cheat tools as general-purpose behavioral enforcement infrastructure. This is a slippery-slope governance signal worth monitoring. For sponsors and commercial partners, improving ranked system integrity is a positive signal. It supports brand safety for endemic sponsors, as they can be more confident about the quality of the ecosystem they are investing in. However, this impact is only indirect and long-term. Finally, it must be emphasized that all quantitative figures in this story originate from a single interested source - Riot Games. No independent audit has been conducted. Therefore, the numbers should be treated as directional indicators, not verified claims. In the rapidly evolving esports landscape, closely monitoring these signals will help better understand the future of the ranked system and competitive integrity.