Gaming Addiction Litigation: Turner v. Epic Games & Roblox and What It Means for the Industry

An Alabama mother filed suit on April 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Roblox and Fortnite developer Epic Games, alleging that they design their platforms and games to be addictive through random reward tactics, especially targeting minors. The case is Turner et al. v. Epic Games Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02975.

The minor plaintiff, now 10 years old, began playing Roblox and Fortnite at age five and the complaint alleges he became addicted due to certain game design features. As a result, the lawsuit alleges, the child cannot control how much he games, has lost friendships, has spent money without permission, has poor grades, and suffers from social isolation, depression, and anxiety.

Turner v. Epic Games Inc. et al.,

Claims asserted. The complaint asserts 10 counts: strict product liability (design defect and failure to warn), negligent design, negligent failure to warn, intentional misrepresentation (two counts), negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs also preemptively disaffirm any arbitration agreement, arguing that the minor plaintiff lacked the capacity to contract. These claims are based on the following:

Operant conditioning as weaponized design. The complaint alleges that the defendants use “operant conditioning” to weaponize video games to increase revenue. “Operant conditioning” is a type of psychological treatment in which voluntary behaviors are modified by association with the addition (or removal) of rewards and reinforcement is used to increase the frequency or duration of the behavior. The complaint claims that the defendants enlisted licensed psychologists and psychiatrists to incorporate operant conditioning into its products, exposing minor children to the same psychological techniques used by casinos, without adequate warning and contrary to professional standards requiring informed consent.

The complaint alleges that the use of operant conditioning in gaming goes beyond directly increasing revenue; instead, its primary goal is increasing the number and length of play sessions, which may lead to additional play time or purchases to improve play. Specific mechanics called out include Roblox’s “core loop” and Fortnite’s “near miss” effect, both of which offer feedback loops and variable reward tactics — the same mechanisms used by casinos — to continuously draw in users.

Failure to warn and inadequate safeguards. The complaint alleges that, until 2024, Roblox Corp. did not provide parental controls for screentime and usage, although both were available. Plaintiff alleges that Fortnite still does not provide parental controls for screen time or gameplay and its website contains no warning labels. In addition, in contrast to Roblox, Fortnite allows in-game spending. However, for children 13 and under, the limit is $100 per day, meaning a child can spend $36,500 on Fortnite in a year without the necessity of parental consent.

“Educational” misrepresentation. Defendants are alleged to have known of the risks of Internet Gaming Disorder and accompanying medical conditions, and yet to have continued to market Roblox and Fortnite as “educational,” even promoting them to minors in school settings without parental knowledge or consent. Internet Gaming Disorder is alleged to cover multiple symptoms that include addiction, social isolation, depression, withdrawal symptoms that are often misdiagnosed as ADHD, exacerbation of ADHD, and anxiety, all of which may contribute to increased risk of suicide.

Prior and Parallel Litigation

Turner sits at the center of a growing and coordinated litigation campaign. A December 2024 suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Evette Gibson alleged that Epic Games and Roblox purposefully addict minors, with her now-12-year-old son addicted to both platforms and experiencing emotional difficulties, weakened social interactions, and rage. Evette Gibson v. Roblox Corp, Epic Games, case number 24STCV32897 in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

And in March 2026, juries in California and New Mexico both found against Meta, awarding $6 million in a social media addiction bellwether case, and $375 million in the New Mexico attorney general’s action over mental health harm to younger users — verdicts that will embolden gaming-addiction plaintiffs and shape jury expectations. Crowell & Moring reported on these cases here.

Key Lessons and Open Questions

Exposure assessment. Gaming and interactive tech companies should assess whether products specifically and purposefully directed at minor children incorporate operant conditioning or variable reward systems developed with behavioral psychologist input; whether parental controls are adequately implemented, if needed; and whether marketing materials characterize products as “educational” while internal records reflect known non-educational, and in fact, addictive risks.

Section 230. Section 230 immunity is a weaker defense in gaming cases than in social media cases because the addiction-related features, like variable reward loops and operant conditioning mechanics, are internally generated by the developers, not third-party content. The complaint’s product-design framing is deliberately structured to foreclose this defense.

First Amendment. Following Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), video games are protected expressive works. Defendants may argue that game mechanics constitute protected design expression. Plaintiffs counter that the challenged features are engineering choices, not creative content, analogous to a defectively designed physical product.

Arbitration. Defendants will seek to compel arbitration under their terms of service. The complaint preemptively disaffirms any arbitration agreement on grounds of unconscionability and plaintiff’s status as a minor who lacked capacity to contract. Courts are divided on minor-disaffirmance in the digital context.

Parental supervision. Defendants will invoke parental responsibility as a supervening cause. The complaint counters that parents, gamers, and schools did not know that operant conditioning was being used on players and no disclosure steps were taken to protect gamers from the harm of addiction. The concealment argument is designed to rebut this defense.

Bottom Line

Turner v. Epic Games and Roblox is not an isolated filing. It is part of a coordinated, expanding litigation campaign targeting the gaming industry on addictive design theories, with direct structural parallels to social media addiction litigation that has already produced nine-figure jury verdicts. The sector has arguable legal distinctions, weaker Section 230 exposure, and potential First Amendment arguments, but faces vulnerabilities: documented use of behavioral psychologists in product design, inadequate parental controls, and a target user base of developing minors. Companies in this space should be mindful of these filings and how the specific facts may warrant internal reviews.