Sued for Being Too Addictive: How the Makers of Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft Ended Up in Court

In the United States, parents are suing the creators of Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, and other games. They claim the companies deliberately keep children playing and encourage them to spend money. More than 100 such cases are being considered together in California. Some lawsuits have already been dismissed, however: in August 2025, a court ruled in one case that the plaintiffs were essentially trying to hold developers liable for making games that were “too engaging.” We look at the mechanics parents object to, where loot boxes fit in, and why proving that a particular game caused harm is so difficult in court.

Psychologists studied random rewards long before video games existed. In experiments by Burrhus Frederic Skinner and his colleagues, animals performed actions to get food: rats pressed a lever, while pigeons pecked a button. When food arrived after an unpredictable number of attempts, they kept going even after several attempts produced nothing.

Slot machines use a similar principle. In games, it appears when players open loot boxes, receive random items, or try to pull a rare character in a gacha game. Players do not know what they will get this time, so they try again. A random reward can also be free, though: the mechanic alone does not make a game a form of gambling.

These experiments help explain why random rewards hold people’s attention. They do not prove that a particular game causes addiction. Plaintiffs must show that the mechanic was present, that it caused harm, and why the developer should be held responsible.

The debate over paid random rewards spread far beyond the gaming community after Star Wars: Battlefront 2 launched in 2017. Players objected to loot boxes that offered advantages for money and to the long grind required to unlock heroes such as Darth Vader. EA’s response about providing a “sense of pride and accomplishment” became the most downvoted comment in Reddit history. Microtransactions were disabled shortly before launch.

The main objection to a paid loot box is straightforward: someone spends money without knowing what they will receive. A study by David Zendle and Paul Cairns found a link between spending on loot boxes and signs of problem gambling. Participants without those signs spent an average of $11 a month on loot boxes, while those with more severe gambling problems spent about $38.

The study does not show which is cause and which is effect. Loot boxes might increase someone’s interest in gambling, or people already inclined to gamble might be more likely to buy them. The link gives researchers reason to investigate the risk, but it does not prove that loot boxes cause addiction.

People often claim that rewards in games trigger the same dopamine release as drugs. Research does not support that claim. A PET study found evidence of dopamine release during video game play, but its authors did not compare gaming with food, sex, or stimulants. Results from different studies cannot be placed on a single scale: the tasks, measurement methods, and brain regions differ.

Dopamine plays a role in learning and the anticipation of rewards. Its release during play does not, by itself, indicate addiction. To assess harm, a person’s behavior matters more: how much time and money they spend, whether they can stop, and whether gaming interferes with their daily life.

Various engagement tactics build on the anticipation of a reward. In Snapchat and Duolingo, users want to keep their daily streak going; in games, players want to claim their battle pass rewards before the season ends. A precursor to the battle pass appeared in Dota 2 back in 2013, and Fortnite brought the format to a mass audience. Gacha games offer another chance to pull a rare character. Outside games, the infinite scroll of social media serves a similar purpose. One of its creators, Aza Raskin, later spoke publicly about its harmful effects.

Similar techniques do not necessarily have the same consequences, however. Tristan Harris and other technology critics were speaking primarily about social media; their statements cannot be used as proof that a particular game causes harm. Nor does the mere presence of daily rewards or a battle pass prove addiction. The dispute is over how these mechanics affect players, especially children, and where the line falls between enjoyment and harm.

The main wave consists of private lawsuits filed by parents. In April 2026, for example, an Alabama mother sued Epic Games and Roblox on behalf of her 10-year-old son. More than 100 similar cases have been grouped in Los Angeles Superior Court under proceeding No. 5363. The defendants include Epic, Roblox, Microsoft, Mojang, Activision, Electronic Arts, Sony, and Nintendo.

The plaintiffs claim that the companies deliberately use random rewards, daily challenges, and other mechanics that keep children playing for long periods. In their view, developers do not adequately warn users about the risks or place sufficient limits on children’s spending. One lawsuit against Fortnite includes a calculation suggesting that, without a spending limit, a child under 13 could theoretically spend up to $36,500 in a year. That is a claim made by the plaintiffs, not an amount of spending established by a court.

So far, the plaintiffs have not secured a favorable ruling. A judicial panel has twice declined to consolidate the cases into a single federal proceeding, finding that the games and the circumstances differed too much. That does not affect the separate proceeding in California state court. In August 2025, a Missouri court dismissed some of the claims in Courtright. Google and Roblox received protection as platforms hosting content created by others, while the court found that the claims against two developers conflicted with free speech protections. In the court’s view, the plaintiffs were effectively trying to hold the studios liable for making games that were “too engaging.” In other cases, companies are seeking to move disputes to arbitration. No court has yet awarded damages specifically for game design alleged to cause addiction.

Loot box disputes are proceeding separately. In February 2026, New York’s attorney general sued Valve, arguing that paid case openings violate gambling laws. EA also faces lawsuits over packs containing random items. But the legal treatment of loot boxes varies: courts in the Netherlands and Austria ruled that FIFA packs are not a separate form of gambling and must be considered in the context of the game as a whole. Those rulings concern a specific mechanic, not every type of loot box.

The operator of Genshin Impact faced a different dispute with a US regulator. In January 2025, the company agreed to pay $20 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations concerning its collection of children’s data and misleading descriptions of purchase costs and the odds of obtaining rare rewards. It was also barred from selling loot boxes to children under 16 without parental consent.

Claims about addiction are often discussed alongside allegations concerning child safety. In 2026, Roblox settled disputes with three states for a total of $35.8 million, but those cases concerned protecting minors from dangerous interactions on the platform. Epic Games’ $520 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission concerned children’s data and purchases prompted by a misleading interface. Neither is a court ruling that a game causes addiction.

There is no single approach to random rewards. In 2018, Belgium’s Gaming Commission classified paid loot boxes in several games as a form of gambling. Enforcing the rules has proved difficult, however: a study published in 2023 found paid loot boxes in 82 of the country’s 100 highest-grossing iPhone games. In the Netherlands, a regulator fined EA over FIFA packs, but a court overturned the fine, ruling that the packs should be considered as part of the game as a whole.

Since September 2024, Australia has given games with paid random items a rating of at least M, meaning they are not recommended for children under 15. Games that simulate gambling receive an R 18+ rating. The United Kingdom currently relies on rules set by the industry itself. The European Union is preparing a Digital Fairness Act that is expected to address mechanics designed to keep users engaged, among other issues, but a bill has yet to be introduced.

Rules also vary across Asia. Since March 2024, South Korea has required games to disclose the odds of receiving random items. Japan has banned “complete gacha,” a system in which players must collect a full set of random rewards to win a prize. In 2021, China limited minors’ gaming time to three hours a week. In late 2023, authorities also proposed limits on spending and daily rewards, but the draft was removed from the regulator’s website after gaming companies’ shares fell sharply.

A father in China who has sued Tencent, NetEase, miHoYo, and 37 Interactive Entertainment is trying to test how well those restrictions work. He is seeking symbolic compensation of 10 yuan and wants the companies to comply with rules protecting minors. According to the father, his son previously bypassed age checks by using his older sister’s identification documents. By the time the lawsuit was filed, the son had already turned 18.

The World Health Organization included gaming disorder in the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-11, which took effect in 2022. The diagnosis does not apply simply because someone plays a lot: gaming behavior must seriously interfere with school, work, relationships, or other areas of life and usually persist for at least a year. The WHO estimates that the disorder affects only a small proportion of players.

The American Psychiatric Association lists “internet gaming disorder” as a condition requiring further study. Researchers continue to debate the criteria: a definition that is too broad could label people who are simply enthusiastic about games as having a disorder. Recognizing the diagnosis therefore does not mean that long play sessions or loot box purchases are, by themselves, signs of it.

No damages have yet been awarded in private lawsuits over game design alleged to keep players hooked. The large settlements discussed above concern other allegations: violations of children’s privacy, unwanted purchases, and user safety. These are separate cases, and their outcomes should not be treated as interchangeable.

Rules for game companies are already changing, however. Since June 2026, PEGI has considered paid random items when assigning age ratings to new games: the baseline rating is 16+, rising to 18+ in some cases. Further requirements for the mechanics themselves are also under discussion. The European Commission is preparing a Digital Fairness Act that is expected to address tactics used to keep people engaged with digital services. Its provisions for games will become clear once the bill is published.

Another notable example comes from social media. In 2026, Meta reached a settlement with US states over allegations concerning child safety and design features intended to keep people using Instagram and Facebook. The company will pay at least $12.1 billion over ten years; the amount could reach $17.1 billion if additional conditions are met. This is not a ruling in a lawsuit against a game developer, but it shows how large such disputes can become.

For players, the central question remains open. Research helps explain why random rewards hold people’s attention, and the WHO recognizes gaming disorder as a diagnosis. But loot boxes, long play sessions, and dopamine release do not, by themselves, prove addiction. In court, plaintiffs will have to show how a specific mechanic affected a specific person and why the company should be held responsible for the consequences.

Yes. In the United States, parents have sued the creators of Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, Call of Duty, and other games. They claim the companies deliberately use mechanics that keep children playing. Some cases have already been dismissed or sent to arbitration; no damages have yet been awarded on these claims.

The lawsuits focus on specific mechanics: random rewards, daily challenges, time-limited battle passes, and ways to encourage players to spend money. The plaintiffs argue that companies use them to prolong play sessions without warning users about possible harm. The presence of these mechanics alone does not prove that a game causes addiction.

That depends on the country and how the game works. Belgium’s regulator classified paid loot boxes in several games as gambling. New York’s attorney general has made a similar allegation against Valve. But courts in the Netherlands and Austria ruled that FIFA packs could not be considered separately from the game and did not qualify as gambling in the cases before them.

The WHO included gaming disorder in ICD-11 but notes that it affects a small proportion of players. For a diagnosis, gaming behavior must seriously interfere with daily life, usually for at least a year. Dopamine release during play or a long play session is not, by itself, a sign of the disorder.

Yes. Studies have found a link: people with higher scores on problem gambling measures spend more on loot boxes on average. But researchers have not established whether loot boxes contribute to the problem or whether people already inclined to gamble are more likely to buy them.

There is no blanket ban. Countries have adopted different measures, including requiring games to disclose the odds of receiving items, changing age ratings, and restricting children’s access to certain purchases. The European Union is preparing a Digital Fairness Act, but its exact provisions have yet to be published. PEGI already gives new games with paid random items a rating of at least 16+.