The Recognized Medical Definition
The World Health Organization defines gaming disorder in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). According to the WHO, gaming disorder is a pattern of gaming behavior marked by three features: impaired control over gaming, gaming taking priority over other interests and daily activities, and continuing or escalating despite negative consequences.[1]
For a diagnosis to be made, the pattern must cause significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, or occupational functioning. The behavior would normally need to be evident for at least 12 months before a diagnosis is appropriate.[1]
The WHO also states that studies suggest gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who play video games.[1]
This is the medical definition. It describes a recognized condition and the threshold a clinician would use to diagnose it. The existence of this diagnosis does not mean that any particular product caused it, or that any company is legally responsible for it. Those are separate questions that courts decide based on evidence and law.
What the Lawsuits Allege About Product Design
The video game addiction lawsuits make allegations about how certain games were designed and sold. These are claims made by plaintiffs. No court has ruled on whether they are true.[3]
According to the summary provided by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in its December 2025 order, plaintiffs allege that to increase profits from in-game purchases, defendants developed and sold video games with psychologically addictive features designed to cause minors to become addicted.[6]
The allegations have three main parts. First, plaintiffs claim that defendants failed to warn minors and parents about the risks of excessive use or include available safeguards to curb it. Second, they allege that marketing strategies specifically target minors. Third, they claim the products lack sufficient parental controls, including age verification.[6]
The products named in these allegations are Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, which plaintiffs call gateway games. Some actions also make similar allegations about the Xbox platform.[6]
In an earlier round of federal cases that the JPML reviewed in June 2024, plaintiffs named specific design features: feedback loops, reward systems, pay-to-win options, and artificial intelligence mechanisms. Those complaints alleged these features cause addiction among minors and young adults. Those earlier complaints also alleged a civil conspiracy among more than 30 defendants including game developers, app stores, and console makers.[2]
These remain allegations. No court has ruled on them.[2][6]
The Distinction Between Diagnosis and Causation
It is important to understand what these lawsuits do and do not claim, and what has and has not been decided.
The WHO has recognized gaming disorder as a diagnosable condition. That recognition is a medical classification. It means that clinicians around the world can use a common set of criteria to identify patients whose gaming behavior has become harmful and persistent.
The lawsuits allege that specific video games were designed in ways that cause this condition, particularly in minors. That is a legal claim about product design, marketing, and failure to warn. It is not a medical diagnosis. It is an accusation that certain companies are responsible for harm.
A court finding that a product caused a diagnosed condition requires proof. Plaintiffs must show that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, that the defendant knew or should have known about the risk, that the product caused the plaintiff's injury, and that the defendant had a legal duty to prevent that harm. These are questions of evidence, expert testimony, and law.
As of the record we track, no court has made findings on the merits of these claims. The cases are in early stages. In the California coordination, the court has set a schedule for motions to compel arbitration, anti-SLAPP motions, and demurrers.[6] Issues flagged for briefing include whether video games are products subject to products liability law, First Amendment defenses, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and whether minors are bound by end user license agreements and terms of service.[5]
All fifteen actions from an earlier federal MDL petition filed in 2024 had been dismissed or stayed pending arbitration by December 2025.[6]
What the Record Shows About the Litigation
The video game addiction litigation is proceeding in two main tracks: a coordinated state court proceeding in California and individual federal actions that have not been centralized.
In California, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted coordination of cases in April 2025, creating JCCP No. 5363.[3] By July 2025, 18 additional cases from Los Angeles, Alameda, Riverside, and Fresno counties had been added to the coordination.[4] By September 2025, plaintiffs stated the coordination consisted of 26 cases.[5]
In federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has twice declined to centralize the cases. In June 2024, the Panel denied centralization of fifteen individual personal injury actions in ten districts against more than 30 defendants, finding that the differences among the actions outweighed any efficiencies from centralization.[2] In December 2025, the Panel again denied centralization, this time involving 39 federal actions across eleven districts, with 29 of them in two courts. The Panel was concerned the litigation would grow to an unmanageable set of defendants and products, and recommended informal coordination instead.[6]
The defendants named in the current wave of cases are Roblox Corporation, Epic Games, Microsoft, and Mojang.[6]
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show any rulings on the merits of the allegations. The cases are at the pleading stage.
A demurrer hearing in the California coordination has been reported as scheduled for February 2026, but the exact date and outcome have not been verified against the court record.
The record does not show any settlement discussions, any bellwether trial dates, or any discovery rulings.
Many law firm websites state that more than 100 cases have been filed. We have not verified that figure against a court record. The most recent verified counts are 26 cases in the California coordination as of September 2025 and 39 federal actions as of December 2025.
The record does not show how many individual plaintiffs are involved, their ages, the length of time they played the games at issue, whether they received a formal diagnosis of gaming disorder, or the nature of the impairment they allege.
For more on what the complaints allege, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For a chronological account of the litigation, see our page on timeline and current status. For information about the plaintiffs in filed cases, see our page on who the filed cases involve.
Sources
- WHO Q&A: Gaming disorder (2020-10-22). Primary document: who.int
- MDL No. 3109, Doc. 92 (2024-06-05). Primary document: jpml.uscourts.gov
- JCCP No. 5363 (2025-04-11). Secondary report: doyleapc.com
- JCCP No. 5363 (2025-07-17). Secondary report: aboutlawsuits.com
- MDL No. 3168, Doc. 1-1 at 13 (citing Ex. B) (2025-09-10). Primary document: mdlcases.com
- MDL No. 3168, Doc. 86 (2025-12-10). Primary document: jpml.uscourts.gov
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-09-20. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.