Welcome back to the Millennial Lawyer Podcast with Mark Shirian. Mark is a New

York litigation attorney and founder of Mark David Shirian PC, known for securing seven figure results in personal injury, employment, and complex civil cases. My name is Kevin Rosenquist and today we’re

talking about a really interesting and timely topic, video game addiction litigation. Mark, welcome back. It’s

good to see you.

Great seeing you too, Kevin. 

So, what exactly is video game addiction litigation and why are companies like Epic Games, Activision, Blizzard, and Roblox Corporation, huge huge companies being sued for their role in teen addiction?

So, video game litigation is an emerging legal field where plaintiffs, often parents, sue gaming companies for designing games that allegedly foster addiction. So leading to psychological, social, and financial harm. Companies like Epic Games, Activision, Blizzard and Roblox are targeted because their games use mechanics like loot boxes, time-limited rewards, and social features that exploit teens developing brains

encouraging compulsive play. So, a lot of these lawsuits claim that these companies prioritize profits over

player well-being with cases like those in California alleging negligence and deceptive practices.

Yeah, that’s interesting. You know, I have a four-year-old. He’s already into games and stuff.  It’s fun to reward stuff and I mean, he’s four and they keep popping up with things like, “Hey, buy this, do this, you know, extend this.” So, is there an aspect of it where parental oversight or personal choice might negate liability or how are courts evaluating like the causation in the addiction cases?

Well, courts assess causation by requiring plaintiffs to show a direct link between the design and the addiction often through evidence like excessive playtime logs. So like 10 plus hours daily, medical diagnosis of gaming disorder, or expert testimony on how mechanics exploit dopamine systems. So the defendants like Microsoft, if we’re talking about Minecraft or electronic arts, EA, they counter that addiction stems from personal choices or inadequate parental supervision, not game design necessarily. So courts often scrutinize whether plaintiffs can prove that games are uniquely addictive beyond general entertainment. Making causation a difficult high hurdle.

Yeah. I mean I’ve played my fair share of video games in my life and let’s be honest, I definitely wouldn’t call it an addiction, but I definitely had moments where I was like, “Oh my god, it’s five o’clock.” Like I thought it was like noon, where you just completely lose track of time. And I can definitely see the addictive qualities about it. You mentioned loot boxes and daily rewards. What are some of the specific game mechanics like those that are cited in lawsuits against some of these companies like Epic Games and and 10 cent and how do they contribute to teen addiction or how do the plaintiffs say that they contribute?

So, lawsuits against Epic Games, so Fortnite or, 10 cent highlight mechanics like loot boxes, which

mimic gambling with random rewards and daily rewards that incentivize frequent login. So, these features

exploit teens’s psychological vulnerabilities by triggering dopamine-driven feedback loops encouraging compulsive play to unlock rewards. So, for example, with Fortnite’s battle pass, a limited time cosmetics create urgency. While other games randomize crates keep teens engaged alleging addiction symptoms like neglecting responsibilities. 

Piggybacking off of that, what are the key signs of video game addiction in teens and how are these symptoms used to strengthen legal claims? 

So key signs of teen video game addiction include social withdrawal. So avoiding friends or family, academic decline obviously, dropping grades due to gaming, irritability when not playing is a big one. So that we call that gamer rage and obsession with in-game achievements. So in litigation, these symptoms are documented through school records, parental testimony, or psychological  evaluations to demonstrate harm. So for instance, a teen’s failing grades or social isolation linked to excessive Fortnite playtime strengthens claims that companies like Epic Games designed addictive products without adequate warnings. And that’s what these cases are really about.

Okay. How has the World Health Organization’s classification of gaming disorder as an actual mental health condition influenced lawsuits targeting teen addiction against companies, even companies like Sony and Nintendo?

That’s a good question. So the WHO’s 2018 recognition of gaming disorder as a mental health condition has significantly bolstered lawsuits by providing a medical framework to legitimize these sorts of claims. So against companies like Sony, when you’re talking about like PlayStation titles like God of War and

Nintendo with Animal Crossing, plaintiffs use this classification to argue that addiction is a diagnosable condition caused by game design, not just poor self-control. So courts are more likely to consider expert testimony citing who criteria in which, you know, ultimately enhances the credibility of these claims against these developers.

Why was the attempt to consolidate video game addiction lawsuits into a multi-dist litigation denied and how does California’s coordinated proceeding impact cases against multiple developers? 

So the MDL was denied because the judicial panel on multi-dist litigation found insufficient commonality among the claims against different developers like Epic Games and Activision Blizzard due to varied game design and state laws. So, California’s coordinated proceeding, however, allows related claims to be managed together in state court, streamlining discovery and pre-trial motions. This benefits plaintiffs by reducing costs and ensuring consistent rulings across targeting multiple developers.

What about First Amendment defenses? Do those get raised by some of these companies? And if so, do they affect the litigation over teen addiction, particularly when games are being compared to protected speech?

Absolutely. So, companies like Roblox Corporation and Microsoft have argued that video games are expressive content like books or films protected by the first amendment as upheld in Brown versus entertainment merchants association. So, in an Illinois case against Roblox, the court partially dismissed claims citing this protection, but allowed reframed defective design arguments to proceed. So these defenses force plaintiffs to focus on specific mechanics causing harm, not necessarily game content, which complicates litigation, but doesn’t fully shield these developers, if that makes sense. 

What type of damages are they seeking in lawsuits against these companies? And how do factors

like in-game spending, mental health treatment costs, how do these sorts of things influence these claims?

Um, so plaintiffs seek economic damages like microtransaction costs. So money that’s spent within the game, like you know with Fortnite, there are skins in Fortnite. So those are damages that are recoverable, therapy expenses, and non-economic damages like emotional distress from addiction related issues. So severe cases involving hospitalization or significant life disruption, you could claim, you know, $100,000 to $300,000. In-game spending records and mental health treatment costs are critical evidence as they quantify financial harm and demonstrate the extent of the addiction, strengthening the claims against Epic Games and others.

We touched on some of the signs of video game addiction earlier. How do lawyers use these to build the cases against some of these developers? 

Okay. So, physical signs include sleep  deprivation from late night gaming, eye strain, or poor hygiene. While psychological signs include anxiety, depression, or compulsive gaming despite negative consequences. Lawyers use these through medical records, parental affidavits, or expert testimony to show addiction’s impact. So, for example, a teen’s chronic fatigue from playing a game can be linked to game mechanics like time-sensitive challenges, arguing that the developers are negligent in their design. 

So, it really does come down to the design because I’m curious like, you know, if it wasn’t really an issue at least that I knew of you know back in the day. I knew people who were, you could argue, were addicted to video games, but there weren’t time-sensitive challenges. You just had to do stuff. They just couldn’t stop playing it. So really what a lot of this stems from is the way the design, the UX and the UI are in order to keep people playing and spending money, right? And I think the key thing is back when video games were first introduced, whether I think it was late 70s, early 80s with Nintendo and then you had Sega and then you had Xbox, but for a long time these consoles were not connected to the internet, right?

Very true. You buy the game, you play the game, you may even finish up the game, but you couldn’t really make in-game purchases and it wasn’t connected to the internet. Now that these games, you could purchase them on the internet and they are accessible through the internet obviously and you could play other people on the internet. 

Mhm. All of these lead to a more addictive product which is dangerous especially for teens. I mean some of the games are free, you know, like they you don’t even have to pay for them. It’s just that they get your money when you go in and you get those rewards and those in app purchases, right? So what industry changes do you think might result from successful lawsuits against some of these major gaming companies like Sony, Nintendo, Epic, particularly when it relates to protecting teams from addictive game design?

So successful lawsuits could force companies like Sony, Nintendo, and Epic Games to add addiction warnings and limit addictive mechanics. So removing the loot boxes or implementing playtime restrictions for minors. They might also spur regulations like mandatory disclosures about psychological risks similar to gambling warnings. The industry could shift toward less exploitive designs as seen in some European regulations in order to protect teens and avoid future liability.

Wow. Interesting stuff. It’ll be really fascinating to see where this goes from here. Alright well, thank you

very much for joining us today. If you’d like to connect with Mark, visit shirianpc.com and also be sure to leave us a review, subscribe to our channel. We really appreciate having you here. Mark, that was a great topic. Really interesting stuff. Thanks so much for your time.

Pleasure to be here. Thank you, Kevin.

Thanks for watching. Be sure to hit that like and subscribe button and leave us a review in the comments.