Video Game Addiction Lawsuits and What Parents Should Know

If your child can’t seem to put a game down, and the spending or the stress at home keeps climbing, you may have heard that families are suing game companies. Those lawsuits claim that companies built and marketed games with features meant to push young players toward compulsive play and spending.

Twice, in June 2024 and again in December 2025, a federal panel was asked to pull groups of these lawsuits into one coordinated proceeding. It said no both times.^[1][2]

Neither ruling said gaming disorder isn’t real. Neither ruling found that any company injured any particular child. The panel was deciding how to handle the cases in court, which is a separate matter from a diagnosis or from what a game’s design may have done.^[3][1][2]

A court’s handling of these cases can’t tell you whether your own family has a claim. The more useful first step is to look closely at what is happening with your child and get support in place.

The Claims Behind These Lawsuits

The panel’s June 5, 2024 order described separate personal-injury suits. In this kind of suit, a person says someone else’s conduct hurt them. These suits named game developers, app stores, and other tech companies as defendants.^[1]

The plaintiffs, the people who filed, said the companies built psychologically addictive features on purpose, aiming for long, compulsive sessions among kids, teens, and young adults.^[1]

When the panel summarized the filings, it mentioned reward systems and other features the plaintiffs believe keep players hooked. Those points were treated as the plaintiffs’ arguments for combining the cases. The panel made no finding that any one feature led to addiction.^[1]

The December 10, 2025 request was tighter. It zeroed in on Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, games the plaintiffs labeled “gateway” games. According to the panel, the complaints raised issues with warnings about excessive use, safeguards, marketing aimed at minors, parental controls, and age checks. The panel did not accept “gateway” as a clinical conclusion.^[2]

Keep these two ideas apart as you think about your child. A lawsuit claims that a company’s actions led to harm. A clinical framework describes what a disorder looks like. Knowing which game your child plays, or that a lawsuit exists, does not answer either question for one person.^[2][3]

When Heavy Gaming Becomes a Health Problem

Gaming disorder is listed in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). The WHO describes three core features.^[3]

• Trouble controlling gaming.
• Gaming taking more and more priority over other interests and daily activities.
• Continuing, or playing even more, after harm shows up.

For a diagnosis, the pattern has to be serious enough to significantly impair life at home, with family, with friends, at school, at work, or in another important area. It would usually be visible for at least 12 months.^[3]

The WHO notes that only a small share of people who play video or digital games develop the disorder. It suggests watching whether gaming crowds out other activities, or whether it lines up with changes in physical health, emotional well-being, or social life.^[3]

Signs Worth Writing Down

Hours on a screen only tell part of the story. Ask yourself whether your child can still stop when needed, whether gaming keeps winning out over things that matter, and whether play continues even after real consequences. These questions track the areas the WHO names. They are a starting point for a conversation, and they can’t stand in for a professional assessment.^[3]

Try to capture specific changes. How are school, friendships, sleep, and chores going? Which limits have you already tried? What has your child told you about how hard it is to stop? Bring these notes to a professional as observations. They are not a score that confirms a diagnosis. If you want a structured place to begin, a video game addiction test can help you organize what you are seeing.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) suggests seeking help when a child’s emotions or behavior last for weeks or more, cause distress, or get in the way of daily functioning. It also says to get help right away if behavior is unsafe or a child talks about harming themselves or anyone else. That guidance is about when to reach out for care. It is a different thing from the time frame used for a diagnosis.^[5]

Loot Boxes, In-Game Purchases, and the Research

A microtransaction is any purchase made inside a game. Some let the player pick exactly what they are buying. Others hand out a random reward, usually called a loot box. The research review discussed here treats these as different kinds of purchases.^[4]

That review was systematic, meaning it collected and weighed the findings of many studies in an organized way. It looked at 14 studies published from 2013 to 2021.^[4]

Across those studies, more involvement with microtransactions went along with higher scores on measures of Internet Gaming Disorder and of gambling disorder. Gambling disorder is excessive gambling that creates problems in personal, work, or family life. The links were stronger for loot boxes than for other in-game purchases.^[4]

Why the Chance Element Stands Out

When a child opens a loot box, they don’t get to choose what comes out. The studies describe rewards left to chance and the hope of landing something rare or valuable. In some games, players can also earn loot boxes or keys without spending real money, so the specific game and purchase make a difference.^[4]

The review found that players who spent more tended to have a higher risk of gambling disorder. That does not show a single purchase caused a disorder. It also does not mean every child who buys a random item has a gambling problem. Most of the evidence was cross-sectional, so it could not show which came first.^[4]

Cross-sectional studies capture a snapshot at one moment. They can’t track how things change over time. The review also pointed to convenience sampling, where researchers enroll whoever is easy to reach or volunteers, and to samples that were mostly Western and not representative. Those gaps are worth keeping in mind before applying the results to every child, every game, or your own household.^[4]

Spending Questions for Your Household

When you look at what your child has spent, sort purchases where they knew what they were getting from purchases with a random outcome. The review explains why those two groups shouldn’t be lumped together.^[4]

• What exactly was purchased?
• Did your child know the result before paying?
• How many times was the same kind of purchase made?
• Was real money used?
• Did the spending keep going after your child wanted to quit?
• What payment access or spending limits were set up?

Your answers paint a picture of what happened. They don’t settle a diagnosis or a legal outcome. For more on how game design keeps kids playing, see why Roblox is so addictive for kids.

The 2024 Ruling on MDL No. 3109

On June 5, 2024, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation turned down a request to combine cases as multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 3109. The request covered five named actions plus ten related ones. That made 15 cases, spread over ten federal districts at the time.^[1]

Centralization, in this setting, means gathering cases so their pretrial stages are handled together. That is what the request asked for.^[1]

The panel decided the cases were too different for centralization to pay off. They involved varied mixes of games and more than 30 defendants, the companies and other parties being sued. Some defendants showed up in just one or two of the cases.^[1]

The plaintiffs said an industry-wide conspiracy tied the cases together. The panel responded that each case alleged a conspiracy involving different companies and products. It added that forecasts of many more future filings could not make up for too few shared factual questions.^[1]

Instead, the order pointed to informal coordination. It observed some overlap among the plaintiffs’ lawyers, and noted that defense lawyers had said they would coordinate discovery where it overlapped. Discovery is the stage where each side gathers information about the case.^[1]

The 2025 Ruling on the “Gateway” Games Request

On December 10, 2025, the panel turned down a second request, filed as MDL No. 3168 and titled Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation. This one centered on Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft. Some of the complaints also brought in Xbox.^[2]

At the time of that order, the panel counted 39 cases in 11 districts. That number reflects December 2025. It should not be read as the number of cases pending in September 2026.^[2]

Narrowing the focus did not change the outcome. The panel still expected more games, platforms, and defendants to come into play, including on the question of causation. It also found the plaintiffs had not shown enough in common to justify one proceeding that would have to juggle competing companies and several products.^[2]

Once more, the panel named informal coordination as a workable path. It pointed out that 29 of the 39 cases were already in two courts, and that some plaintiffs had lawyers in common.^[2]

Where the Earlier 15 Cases Ended Up

The December 2025 order reported that, after the June 2024 denial, all 15 earlier actions and any potentially related ones had been either dismissed or stayed pending arbitration.^[2]

A few terms help here. A stay puts a case on pause. Arbitration sends a dispute to an arbitrator instead. Being dismissed and being paused for arbitration are not the same result.^[2]

So the 2024 decision against combining the cases did not, on its own, throw every case out. And the original count of 15 shouldn’t be quoted as if all of them were still moving forward in court. The 2025 order gives the clearer picture of where they stood as of December 2025.^[1][2]

What These Rulings Leave Open

Both orders looked only at whether combining the cases would make the litigation more convenient and efficient. They did not decide whether a certain game caused a certain injury, whether any plaintiff can prove their claim, or what compensation, if any, might result.^[1][2]

If you are following one particular case, find out its current status and whether other orders apply to it. The 2025 note that earlier cases were dismissed or paused for arbitration is a reminder that the centralization ruling is just one piece of a case’s history in court.^[2]

A Separate Roblox Case Track

The Roblox child sexual-exploitation litigation is a different matter. It was handled in its own transfer order, MDL No. 3166, in December 2025. The gaming-addiction request was MDL No. 3168. The numbers are close, but the two proceedings are about different things.^[6][2]

Getting Your Child Help Now

Your child’s care doesn’t need to wait on a product-liability case, the kind of lawsuit that claims a product or its design caused harm. NIMH describes a child mental-health evaluation as something that may include talking with parents, gathering information from school, and assessing the child directly. That gives a fuller view than a game title or a count of hours.^[5][1][2]

Researchers have tested family-based treatment for teens with Internet Gaming Disorder. One small randomized trial took place in Geneva, Switzerland, enrolling from December 2016 to December 2018. Of 71 adolescents screened, 42 joined. They were 12 to 19 years old, met at least five Internet Gaming Disorder criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and had a parent willing to take part.^[7]

The trial compared multidimensional family therapy against the usual family therapy. The multidimensional approach worked on the teen’s personal life along with parents, family, peers, school or work, and free time. The comparison was the standard family therapy offered at the Geneva center, which centered on family relationships and communication.^[7]

Over one year, teens in both groups improved in whether they met gaming-disorder criteria and in how many criteria they met. Multidimensional family therapy cut the number of criteria more and kept more families in treatment.^[7]

The trial found no effect on how much time teens spent gaming. The authors noted that gaming time may have been hard to measure, and they said a larger study is needed to confirm the results. The trial offers real but limited evidence, and it does not show that one method works for every child.^[7]

When you talk with a possible therapist, ask what they evaluate, how they include the family, which results they measure, and what they do if the first plan isn’t working. Share any worries about mood, school, relationships, or safety too. You can learn more about video game addiction treatment or find a therapist who works with families.

If your child is struggling or having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 in the United States. If there is immediate danger to life, call 911.^[8]

If Someone Online Threatened or Exploited Your Child

When a child faces sexual threats or blackmail, the priority is responding to exploitation, beyond any talk about screen time. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) advises reaching out for help before paying or doing what the person demands, blocking the suspect, and keeping the profile and messages as they are. You can report suspected child sexual exploitation to the CyberTipline.^[9]

If the situation involves explicit images taken when your child was under 18, NCMEC’s Take It Down service can help participating platforms find matching material through a digital fingerprint. The image never leaves your device. Don’t send, share, or download an image to use the service. It only reaches participating platforms that are public or unencrypted.^[10]

Talking With a Lawyer About a Gaming Claim

Start from your child’s own circumstances. Not every gaming problem fits the same lawsuit. Both centralization orders stressed how much games, companies, usage histories, and possible causation questions differ.^[1][2]

Questions you might bring to a lawyer:

• Which company, game, feature, and injury would the claim be about?
• What would have to be proven about how the product connects to the harm?
• What records should we save, and how should sensitive material be handled?
• Are there deadlines or arbitration agreements that limit our choices?
• Where does the specific proceeding stand right now?
• What fees or other costs might come with representation?

These questions are meant to help you get advice. They are not a test of whether you qualify. The centralization orders denied transfer, and they offer no estimate of payment and no prediction of how an unnamed case would turn out.^[1][2]

Sources

1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2024, June 5). In re: Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation — Order Denying Transfer, MDL No. 3109.
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2025, December 10). In re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation — Order Denying Transfer, MDL No. 3168.
3. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gaming Disorder in ICD-11.
4. Raneri, P. C., Montag, C., Rozgonjuk, D., Satel, J., & Pontes, H. M. (2022). The role of microtransactions in Internet Gaming Disorder and Gambling Disorder: A preregistered systematic review. Addictive behaviors reports.
5. National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Children and Mental Health: Is This Just a Stage?
6. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2025, December 12). In re: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation — Transfer Order, MDL No. 3166.
7. Nielsen, P., Christensen, M., Henderson, C., Liddle, H. A., Croquette-Krokar, M., Favez, N., & Rigter, H. (2021). Multidimensional family therapy reduces problematic gaming in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of behavioral addictions.
8. National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
9. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. (n.d.). Sextortion.
10. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. (n.d.). Take It Down.