What Plaintiffs Allege
The lawsuits allege that video game companies developed and sold games with psychologically addictive features designed to cause minors to become addicted in order to increase profits from in-game purchases.[6] Specifically, plaintiffs claim 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.[6] These are allegations. No court has ruled on them.[6]
The design features named in the complaints include feedback loops, reward systems, pay-to-win options, and artificial intelligence mechanisms, which plaintiffs allege cause addiction among minors and young adults.[2] Earlier complaints also alleged a civil conspiracy among more than 30 defendants including game developers, app stores, and console makers.[2] These are allegations. No court has ruled on them.[2]
Which Products and Companies Are Named
The primary products at issue are Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, which plaintiffs call gateway games.[6] Some actions also make similar allegations about the Xbox platform.[6] The named defendants include Roblox Corporation, Epic Games, Microsoft, and Mojang.[6]
Earlier federal cases involved more than 30 defendants including game developers, app stores, and console makers.[2]
Defenses the Companies Have Raised or Are Expected to Raise
The coordinated California proceeding has set a briefing schedule for several categories of defense motions.[5] Companies have filed or are expected to file motions to compel arbitration, which would require individual plaintiffs to resolve their claims in private arbitration rather than in court if they agreed to arbitration clauses in the games' terms of service.[5]
Defendants have also filed or are expected to file anti-SLAPP motions. Anti-SLAPP is a California procedure that allows defendants to seek early dismissal of claims that arise from protected speech or petitioning activity. If a defendant shows the claim arises from protected activity, the plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim or the case is dismissed.
Companies have also filed or are expected to file demurrers, which challenge whether the complaints state legally valid claims even if all the alleged facts are true.[5]
The court has flagged several legal issues for briefing: whether the First Amendment protects video games from these claims, whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields the companies, whether video games qualify as products for purposes of product liability law, and whether minors are legally bound by the end user license agreements and terms of service they accepted when playing the games.[5]
Section 230 is a federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability for content created by users. The First Amendment protects expressive works, including video games, from certain types of regulation. Whether these defenses apply to the allegations in these cases has not been decided.
The Federal Cases
Plaintiffs have twice sought to centralize the federal cases into a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, which would allow a single federal judge to manage pretrial proceedings for cases filed across the country. Both attempts were denied.[2][6]
In June 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 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 for 39 federal actions across eleven districts naming Roblox, Epic Games, Microsoft, and Mojang as defendants.[6] The Panel expressed concern that the litigation would grow to an unmanageable set of defendants and products, recommended informal coordination among the courts, and noted that all fifteen actions from the earlier motion had been dismissed or stayed pending arbitration since June 2024.[6]
The California Coordinated Proceeding
While the federal cases remain scattered, the California state court cases have been coordinated. In April 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a petition to coordinate six cases filed in August 2024 against the makers of Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft as Video Game Addiction Cases, JCCP No. 5363.[3] Judge Samantha P. Jessner served as the coordination motion judge.[3]
In July 2025, Judge Lawrence P. Riff approved coordination of 18 additional cases into JCCP No. 5363, from Los Angeles, Alameda, Riverside, and Fresno counties.[4] By September 2025, plaintiffs stated the coordinated proceeding consisted of 26 cases.[5]
A coordinated proceeding in California state court is similar to an MDL in federal court. It allows a single judge to manage related cases filed in different counties to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings, while preserving each case as a separate action.
What Gaming Disorder Is
The World Health Organization defines gaming disorder in its International Classification of Diseases (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.[1] 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.[1] The WHO also states that studies suggest gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who play video games.[1]
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show any rulings on the merits of the allegations. No court has determined whether the games are addictive, whether the companies failed to warn users, whether the design features caused harm, or whether any of the legal defenses succeed.
A demurrer hearing in JCCP No. 5363 has been reported as scheduled for February 2026, but the exact date and outcome have not been verified against the court record.
The record we track 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, but that figure has not been verified against a court record. The most recent verified counts are 26 cases in the California coordinated proceeding as of September 2025 and 39 federal actions as of December 2025.
Current Status
The California cases are proceeding as JCCP No. 5363 in Los Angeles Superior Court under Judge Lawrence P. Riff.[4][5] The cases are in the pleading stage, with briefing scheduled on motions to compel arbitration, anti-SLAPP motions, and demurrers.[5] The federal cases remain in individual district courts after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied centralization twice.[2][6] For the full chronology, see our page on timeline and current status.
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.