The quality of the game isn't why The Crew makes a good target. It's because it's made by Ubisoft, which is based in France. And France has some pretty strict consumer protection laws. Were this, say, EA, which is based in the US, the lawsuit would be a non-starter. In adddition to that, France is a part of EU, which means Ubisoft has to comply with EU law in addition to the aforementioned French laws. So if this goes through, they will have to fight this on at least two fronts. The Crew is also a singleplayer game with an online component, which shouldn't be necessary for the game to function, but here we are.

So to sum up: the lawsuit is not because people are super passionate for The Crew (though some probably are), but because if you're going to make an example of a game, your best shot is suing a company which is located in a country with good customer protection laws. The Crew just happened to fit that bill.

I've never played The Crew nor The Crew 2, but I hate this guilt-by-association type of argument with every fiber of my heart.

Not because it defends Ubisoft (in this case), but because it completely accepts the asshole's premise that the successor of a product is necessarily a valid substitute for the product itself, and the latter is not worth keeping around - it's like eating an apple that has been cooked in an oven at 300°C for 5 hours, then arguing that apples are bad for your health.

See:

• Overwatch vs Overwatch 2
• Halo CE/2/3/W/ODST/R vs Halo 4/5/I (idk about H:W2)
• Halo: CE vs Halo: CEA (yes I'm listing Halo twice, sue me)
• Risk Of Rain vs Risk Of Rain 2 (both are very good games, but they are completely different from each other)
• Helldivers vs Helldivers 2 (same as above)

The crew is nothing like the crew 2. I have very very fond memories of the crew 1 which was an awesome game