Who the Filed Cases Involve
No court has set eligibility criteria for the video game addiction litigation. There is no settlement fund and no claims process. The cases are in the pleading stage, with motions to compel arbitration, anti-SLAPP motions, and demurrers pending.[5]
What follows describes what the filed cases have in common according to court records, the practical hurdles those records show, and questions to ask if you are gathering information.
What the Filed Cases Allege in Common
The lawsuits involve minors and young adults who plaintiffs say became addicted to video games. The cases coordinated in California state court and the federal actions reviewed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation focus on three games: Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft. Some actions also name the Xbox platform.[6]
Plaintiffs allege that to increase profits from in-game purchases, the defendants developed and sold video games with psychologically addictive features designed to cause minors to become addicted. The allegations include three main claims: first, that defendants failed to warn minors and parents about the risks of excessive use or include available safeguards to curb it; second, that marketing strategies specifically target minors; and third, that the products lack sufficient parental controls, including age verification.[6]
Earlier federal cases also named design features including feedback loops, reward systems, pay-to-win options, and artificial intelligence mechanisms, which plaintiffs alleged cause addiction among minors and young adults. Those 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][6]
The Medical Definition Referenced
The World Health Organization defines gaming disorder in 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]
For more on the medical picture, see our page on the medical picture.
The Current Procedural Posture
Six cases filed in August 2024 against the makers of Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft were coordinated in Los Angeles Superior Court as JCCP No. 5363 in April 2025.[3] Eighteen additional cases from Los Angeles, Alameda, Riverside, and Fresno counties were added to the coordination in July 2025.[4] By September 2025, plaintiffs stated the coordination consisted of 26 cases.[5]
In federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied centralization twice. In June 2024, the Panel denied centralization of fifteen individual actions in ten districts against more than 30 defendants, finding the differences among the actions outweighed any efficiencies from centralization.[2] In December 2025, the Panel denied centralization again. At that time there were 39 federal actions across eleven districts, 29 of them in two courts. The Panel was concerned the litigation would grow to an unmanageable set of defendants and products, recommended informal coordination, and noted that all fifteen actions from the earlier motion had been dismissed or stayed pending arbitration since June 2024.[6]
For the current timeline, see our page on timeline and current status.
Practical Hurdles the Record Shows
The most significant hurdle visible in the court record is arbitration. All fifteen actions in the first federal MDL motion had been dismissed or stayed pending arbitration by December 2025.[6] The California coordination has set a briefing schedule for motions to compel arbitration, among other motions.[5]
Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process. Many video game terms of service and end user license agreements include clauses requiring users to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than in court. Whether minors are bound by those agreements is one of the issues flagged for briefing in the California coordination.[5]
Other issues flagged for coordinated briefing include anti-SLAPP motions (a procedural tool defendants may use to challenge claims they argue implicate protected speech), demurrers (a challenge to whether the complaint states a valid legal claim), First Amendment defenses, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which provides immunity to online platforms for certain content), and whether video games are products under product liability law.[5]
These are complex legal questions. The record does not yet show how any court has ruled on them in this litigation.
What the Allegations Describe
The allegations describe situations in which a young person's gaming behavior caused significant problems. The WHO definition requires that the pattern cause significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, or occupational functioning and be evident for at least 12 months.[1]
The lawsuits do not define a minimum number of hours played, a specific dollar amount spent on in-game purchases, or a particular set of consequences. The cases involve individual facts about individual young people.
For what the lawsuits allege about the games and the companies, see our page on what the lawsuits allege.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show any rulings on the merits of the claims. The cases are in the pleading stage. Demurrer hearings in the California coordination have been reported as scheduled for February 2026, but the exact date and outcome are not verified from the court record.
The record does not show any settlement discussions, any discovery exchanged, any bellwether trial dates, or any findings of fact by a judge or jury.
Law firm websites report more than 100 cases filed, but that figure is not verified 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.[5][6]
The record does not show how many young people are involved, their ages, the length of time they played, the amounts spent, or the nature of the impairments alleged. Those details are in individual complaints, which are not summarized in the coordination or MDL orders we have reviewed.
Records to Gather and Questions to Ask
If you are considering speaking with a lawyer, the following records may be relevant. This is not legal advice. Each law firm sets its own criteria for the cases it will accept, and those criteria are not court rulings.
Records that may be relevant:
- Account activity logs or purchase histories from the game platform, if available
- Medical or mental health records documenting evaluation or treatment related to gaming behavior
- School records showing changes in attendance or academic performance during the period of concern
- Any communications with the game company about the young person's account, including requests for refunds or account restrictions
- Records of any parental controls set on the account or device, and when
- A timeline you have written down: when the gaming began, when you noticed changes, what interventions you tried, what happened
Questions to ask any lawyer:
- What are your criteria for accepting a video game addiction case?
- Which games and platforms are you filing cases about?
- How do you evaluate whether arbitration will apply?
- What is your experience with cases involving minors and terms of service?
- What is the status of the cases you have filed? Have any been dismissed or stayed?
- What costs will I be responsible for, and when?
- How long do you expect this litigation to take, given the current procedural posture?
- What happens if the case is sent to arbitration?
- Have you taken any of these cases to trial or arbitration hearing? What was the result?
Remember that no court has set eligibility criteria, and law firms set their own. A firm's decision to accept or decline a case is not a prediction of outcome.
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.