Overview
Lawsuits alleging that video games cause addiction in minors and young adults have been filed in state and federal courts since at least 2024. The cases target makers of popular games including Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, as well as platform operators. Plaintiffs have twice asked a federal panel to consolidate the cases into a single proceeding for efficiency, and twice the panel has declined. A state coordination is proceeding in California. No court has yet ruled on the merits of the claims, and the cases remain in early procedural stages.[2][6]
June 2024: First Federal Consolidation Denied
On June 5, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion to centralize fifteen individual personal injury actions pending in ten federal districts. The cases, which named more than 30 defendants, were docketed as In re Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3109. The Panel found that the differences among the actions outweighed any efficiencies that centralization would bring.[2]
The complaints in those early federal cases alleged that design features including feedback loops, reward systems, pay-to-win options, and artificial intelligence mechanisms caused addiction among minors and young adults. The complaints also alleged a civil conspiracy among more than 30 defendants, including game developers, app stores, and console makers. These are allegations summarized by the JPML. No court has ruled on them.[3]
August 2024: State Cases Filed in California
In August 2024, six cases were filed in California state court against the makers of Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft. Those cases would later become the foundation of a coordinated state proceeding.[3]
April 2025: California Coordination Granted
On April 11, 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a petition to coordinate the six cases filed in August 2024. Judge Samantha P. Jessner, sitting as coordination motion judge, approved coordination under the title Video Game Addiction Cases, JCCP No. 5363.[3]
A coordination is a procedure under California law that allows related cases filed in different counties to be assigned to a single judge for pretrial purposes. It is similar in function to a federal multidistrict litigation, but operates within the state court system.
July 2025: Coordination Expands
On July 17, 2025, a notice of court order was filed showing that Judge Lawrence P. Riff approved coordination of 18 additional cases into JCCP No. 5363. The new cases came from Los Angeles, Alameda, Riverside, and Fresno counties.[4]
September 2025: Coordinated Briefing Schedule Set
On September 10, 2025, an omnibus order in JCCP No. 5363 set a coordinated briefing schedule for several categories of pretrial motions: motions to compel arbitration, anti-SLAPP motions, and demurrers. At that point, plaintiffs stated that the coordination consisted of 26 cases.[5]
A motion to compel arbitration asks the court to send a dispute to private arbitration rather than allow it to proceed in court, typically based on an agreement the plaintiff signed or accepted. An anti-SLAPP motion, under California law, seeks dismissal of claims that arise from protected speech or petitioning activity and that lack a probability of success. A demurrer challenges whether a complaint states a valid legal claim even if all its factual allegations are assumed true.
The omnibus order flagged several issues for coordinated briefing: whether the First Amendment protects the design and content of video games, whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars the claims, whether video games qualify as products for purposes of products liability law, and whether minors are bound by end user license agreements and terms of service.[5]
September 2025: Second Federal Consolidation Sought
On September 25, 2025, a plaintiff in Tomlin v. Roblox Corp., pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, moved under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize what the motion called the gateway video game cases. The motion sought to consolidate cases involving Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft as MDL No. 3168. At the time of filing, the motion identified seventeen actions in seven federal districts.[5]
December 2025: Second Federal Consolidation Denied
On December 10, 2025, the JPML denied the motion to centralize. By that time, 39 federal actions were pending across eleven districts, with 29 of them concentrated in two courts. The defendants named were Roblox, Epic Games, Microsoft, and Mojang. The Panel expressed concern that the litigation would grow to include an unmanageable set of defendants and products. It recommended informal coordination among the courts instead. The Panel also noted that all fifteen actions from the earlier MDL No. 3109 had been dismissed or stayed pending arbitration since June 2024.[6]
The JPML summarized what plaintiffs in the gateway cases 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. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to warn minors and parents about the risks of excessive use or include available safeguards to curb it, that marketing strategies specifically target minors, and that the products lack sufficient parental controls, including age verification. The products at issue are Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, which plaintiffs call gateway games; some actions also make similar allegations about the Xbox platform. These are allegations. No court has ruled on them.[6]
Medical and Regulatory Context
The World Health Organization defines gaming disorder in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) as a pattern of gaming behavior marked by impaired control over gaming, gaming taking priority over other interests and daily activities, and continuing or escalating despite negative consequences. For a diagnosis, the pattern must cause significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, or occupational functioning and would normally be evident for at least 12 months. WHO also states that studies suggest gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who play video games.[1]
Where Things Stand Today
The litigation is proceeding in two separate tracks. In federal court, 39 actions are pending in eleven districts with no centralization. In California state court, JCCP No. 5363 is assigned to Judge Lawrence P. Riff in Los Angeles Superior Court and includes at least 26 coordinated cases as of September 2025.[5][6]
The California coordination is in the pleading stage. Defendants have filed or are preparing to file motions to compel arbitration, anti-SLAPP motions, and demurrers. A coordinated briefing schedule has been set.[5]
The record we track does not show that any settlement has been reached, that any bellwether trial has been scheduled, or that any court has ruled on the merits of the allegations.
What Is Not Known Yet
Some sources report that a demurrer hearing in JCCP No. 5363 is scheduled for February 2026, but the exact date and any outcome have not been verified against the court record.
The total number of plaintiffs is not verified. Court records show 26 cases in the California coordination as of September 2025 and 39 federal actions as of December 2025. Some law firm websites refer to more than 100 cases, but that figure has not been verified against a court record.
No discovery schedule, expert deadlines, or trial dates have been recorded in the materials we track.
For more on the specific claims being made, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For information on the types of plaintiffs involved in the filed cases, see who the filed cases involve. For background on gaming disorder as a medical concept, see the medical picture.
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.