Online Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Alleges Roblox, Epic Games Intentionally Targeted Minors

A California woman has filed a lawsuit claiming that the popular online video games Roblox and Fortnite are intentionally designed and marketed to minors, with little regard for the potential risks they pose to children’s health, including potential brain damage, cognitive decline and other adverse effects.

Evette Gibson filed the complaint (PDF) in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County on December 13, on behalf of herself and her 12-year-old son, identified only by the initials IHG.

Roblox is an online gaming platform launched in 2006, which allows players to explore virtual worlds, create their own games, and interact with others, featuring customizable avatars and in-game purchases. Fortnite was released in 2017 by Epic Games, as a popular battle royale and sandbox game that combines competitive gameplay with creative modes, offering players the ability to purchase character upgrades and exclusive content.

The lawsuit seeks damages from Roblox Corp., Epic Games and other unnamed defendants, alleging that the games are designed with addictive features and exploitative monetization strategies that target minors, leading to significant physical, mental and financial harm, including the promotion of excessive in-game purchases.

The case joins a growing number of similar online gaming addiction lawsuits now being pursued against various developers and publishers, including Microsoft, Epic, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Nintendo and others, claiming that they market products that are designed to create addictive properties.

Families claim these video games illegally monitor children’s activity online and use algorithms based on their behavior to keep them playing longer. They then attempt to sell players game improvements or “cosmetic” items for small, seemingly digestible amounts.

The complaint filed by Gibson alleges that Roblox and Fortnite were among the first video games played by IHG, who is now a 12-year-old child, and that these games contributed to the development of a severe online gaming addiction. The addiction is said to have caused severe emotional distress, social isolation, diminished interest in other hobbies and withdrawal symptoms such as rage, anger and emotional outbursts.

The makers of Roblox and Fortnite intentionally consulted with child development experts during the development and design of their online games, according to the lawsuit. Gibson claims that they analyzed user behavior and leveraged psychological insights to make their platforms more engaging and addictive.

The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants employed patented technology that was designed to maximize in-game spending, encourage users, including children, to purchase upgrades for character appearances and game progression.

According to the complaint, this system operates with little to no parental oversight, making it easy for minors to make repeated purchases without fully understanding the financial implications. This lack of safeguards, combined with the addictive nature of the games, allowed the defendants to generate substantial revenue at the expense of vulnerable children suffering from gaming addiction, according to Gibson.

“Defendants are aware that the more time an individual spends playing their respective games, the higher the likelihood that said individuals will make in-game purchases, thereby increasing Defendants’ revenues,” Gibson states in the lawsuit. “Furthermore, Defendants are aware that for nearly two decades, science has shown that prolonged use of video games by minors can result in brain damage, cognitive decline, and physical and emotional deficits.”

Despite this knowledge, the lawsuit claims that Roblox and Epic Games still marketed their games to minors without adequate parental controls, warnings or limits on how much money a minor could spend in one of their games.

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability for design defects and failure to warn, negligence in design and failure to warn, ordinary and statutory negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of California state laws.

Gibson’s complaint seeks compensation for general damages, including pain, suffering, and emotional distress, as well as future economic and special damages. Additionally, she seeks reimbursement for medical and related expenses incurred as a result of the alleged harm caused by the defendants’ actions.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

The video game addiction lawsuit filed by Gibson is similar to hundreds of social media lawsuits filed by the parents of minors, alleging that tech companies such as Meta, Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Snap Inc., TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. knowingly designed their platforms to exploit children’s vulnerabilities, leading to excessive use, emotional distress and other harmful effects without proper safeguards or parental oversight.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints filed through the federal court system, all social media lawsuits over teen addiction were consolidated in an MDL last year, centralizing the cases before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. This included both the individual injury lawsuits, as well as the school district lawsuits.

To help manage the litigation and gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout the claims, Judge Rogers has indicated that several bellwether trials will be held involving both individual student injuries and school district claims.

While the first social media addiction bellwether trial was scheduled to begin in October 2025, it is now expected to begin in 2026, according to a recent case management order issued by Judge Rogers.

The delay allows for an additional two months of fact discovery, which must now be completed by April 4, 2025. By May 23, 2025, the parties will identify a smaller pool of cases eligible for trial, followed by expert witness discovery and pretrial challenges through late 2025. After November 25, 2025, the court will hold Daubert hearings to assess expert testimony and determine the trial order for the bellwether cases.