Not necessarily. It depends if there's a contract between her and GDS (or his company) and what the terms are.
Generally speaking, since there was consent for a long time, over several games/products, and she's only the writer (unless otherwise specified in a contract), not the owner of the character or game (unless specified otherwise in a legally binding contract), she would have very little rights to speak of.
Considering we are talking about over a decade now (
Thread Updated: 2019-03-08 for the first Chloe 18 game on here), it would be extremely difficult for her to defend any litigation, unless there was a written contract/binding agreement leaving her the rights, which would be quite unusual, as you usually draft those so this kind of issues never arise.
This would be comparable to a writer hired for a movie or a series, or a an actor having rights to the characters they portray, or a model owning rights to the shots for a magazine that she was hired for.
On a single game, it would be defensible, but at this point, considering the time passed, with her knowledge and consent, and amount of games already done, I don't think she'd have much, if any rights, to anything, especially if she had monetary rewards, directly or indirectly, because of said games over the past decade.
While GDS did agree Chloe is based off her, if you compare her and Chloe, there are more than enough differences to dismiss a claim there too in my opinion, although that would be left to a judge, I don't think anyone would really think those two are "the same person."
View attachment 1617845
If she somehow owns the actual character, as in owns the IP and copyrights to it, but allowed GDS to use them for this length of time, as his main character, it's more than likely a court would allow the current projects to be finished, but not allow future products under that brand/character. I am guessing it would depend on local laws regarding IPs and the entertainment industries in the country the owner of the game IP is (or the studio if in a different country.)
If there was a case on this, it would more than likely take a rather long time, and without an injunction from the court, GDS would be allowed to carry on until the court said otherwise. Basically, with the time this would take, GDS could potentially finish the game before the case is over, which would render the case moot, since it would be a small claim to begin with.
An example similar to this, was Crytek Vs CIG, one of the first thing Crytek tried, was trying to get an injunction to stop the development (which was of course denied near instantly). Unless you've got a rock hard case, most judges would not grant an injunction to stop a business, unless they had some serious doubts to begin with. In this case, I doubt it would happen either.
Chances are the costs for such a case, would not be worth it for either parties, as we're not talking about a big movie or something with that kind of revenues or exposure.
I believe Bella's made money from it also, which would make any kind of loss of revenue claim near impossible to prove also.
Once again, this all if she does not legally own the IP and copyright of Chloe the character. If she does, she can cease the rights to it of course, however, if the project is far enough, a court would usually allow the project to continue unless an agreement was breached (not paid for the license and so on.)
