Suing video game companies for gaming disorder and related injuries

Beginning in late 2023, families across the United States started filing product liability lawsuits against some of the largest companies in the gaming industry.

These cases do not argue that video games are inherently harmful or that companies should be held responsible simply for making games that people enjoy.

They argue something more specific: that certain games were deliberately engineered with psychological design features that foreseeably produce compulsive use, and that the developers who built those features failed to warn players or parents about the risks they carried.

Which companies are being sued

Lawsuits have named most of the largest publishers and platform operators in the industry. Defendants across active cases include:

• Epic Games (Fortnite)
• Roblox Corporation (Roblox)
• Microsoft and Mojang Studios (Minecraft)
• Activision Blizzard (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Overwatch)
• Electronic Arts (Apex Legends, Battlefield)
• Ubisoft (Rainbow Six Siege)
• Rockstar Games (Grand Theft Auto)
• Take-Two Interactive
• Valve Corporation
• Nintendo
• Sony Interactive Entertainment

Not every lawsuit names every company. The defendants in any individual case depend on which games the plaintiff was using and which design features are alleged to have caused the harm.

What plaintiffs allege these companies did

The central allegation across most complaints is that developers knowingly incorporated design mechanics intended to maximize compulsive engagement while failing to warn consumers that those mechanics could produce addiction-like behavior, particularly in children and adolescents whose brains are still developing. Among the features cited most often are:

• Variable reward systems and loot boxes are designed to produce unpredictable outcomes that trigger dopamine responses
• Battle passes and endless progression systems that always leave players with something unfinished to come back to
• Daily login rewards and limited-time events that make not playing feel like a loss
• Social pressure mechanics like competitive rankings, guilds, and multiplayer structures make disengaging feel like letting teammates down
• Personalized matchmaking and ongoing notifications are built to minimize natural stopping points
• Microtransactions that use virtual currencies to obscure what players are actually spending

Plaintiffs argue these mechanics exploit the same psychological vulnerabilities targeted by casino gambling design, applied deliberately to an audience that includes millions of children.

What injuries are families alleging

The alleged harms in these active lawsuits touch on mental health, physical health, and financial damage:

• Gaming disorder, recognized in the ICD-11 by the World Health Organization as impaired control over gaming that takes priority over other life interests despite negative consequences
• Depression, anxiety, mood disorders, and emotional dysregulation
• Social isolation and pulling away from offline relationships
• Academic struggles and absenteeism from school
• Sleep deprivation and disrupted development
• Repetitive strain injuries affecting the hands, wrists, shoulders, and elbows
• Major financial losses from ongoing microtransactions and in-game purchases

Some complaints describe psychiatric hospitalization, counseling, and in more severe cases, suicide attempts. For defendants in these cases, causation is still in dispute.

What the game companies are saying

Most developers have denied any liability and raised defenses that courts are now weighing:

• Video games are protected speech under the First Amendment, and treating them as defective products would raise free speech issues
• Players agreed to arbitration agreements that require disputes to be resolved outside of court
• Parents must monitor their children's gaming
• Plaintiffs have not adequately shown a causal connection between specific design features and the alleged injuries

Some defendants have argued the lawsuits are targeting companies simply for creating products that players find compelling. Plaintiffs dispute this, arguing the cases are really about specific engineering choices rather than enjoyment.

Where the litigation stands now

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation turned down consolidation into a federal MDL, citing the wide variation in defendants, products, and factual issues across the cases. More than 100 cases are now moving forward individually in different jurisdictions. There's no global settlement and no trial verdict establishing industry-wide liability, with many cases still in early stages while defendants pursue dismissal or arbitration motions.

Legal observers frequently compare this litigation to the social media addiction lawsuits, where courts drew a line between protected content and unprotected design decisions. The same argument is being developed in video game cases, with plaintiffs targeting the engineering choices behind addictive mechanics rather than the games' creative content.

Atraxia Law will evaluate your video game addiction claim

If your child developed a clinically diagnosed condition after compulsive gaming and required medical treatment, therapy, or hospitalization as a result, the design decisions behind those games may support a legal claim. Our team has spent more than 35 years helping families assess whether they have a viable case and connecting those who qualify with attorneys prepared to represent them. Reach out today for a free and confidential case evaluation.