The Dutch consumer advocacy group Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SMC) has officially initiated a major class action lawsuit against Epic Games, the developer behind the global gaming phenomenon Fortnite. The legal challenge centers on allegations that the company intentionally misled young players, utilizing predatory design choices that effectively pressured minors into making unauthorized or impulsive in-game purchases.
SMC, which acts on behalf of a significant cohort of Dutch players who were under the age of 21 at the time they engaged with the platform, is seeking more than €100 million in damages. The claim covers two primary areas of grievance: the demand for refunds regarding in-game currency purchases and compensation for the alleged collection of children’s personal data without the necessary parental consent.
The lawsuit follows a turbulent period for Epic Games in the Netherlands, marked by regulatory scrutiny and legal losses regarding its commercial practices. By launching this collective action, SMC is escalating the pressure on the gaming giant, moving beyond the regulatory fines already imposed by Dutch authorities and pushing for direct financial restitution for the affected user base.
Research Highlights Psychological Impact on Minors
The legal basis for the lawsuit is supported by data concerning the psychological impact of Fortnite’s monetization model on younger demographics. According to research cited by the foundation, which surveyed over 1,000 Dutch teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19, the game’s interface creates a specific kind of consumer vulnerability.
The survey results indicated that six out of every ten players who purchased virtual currencies, such as the game’s "V-Bucks," reported that the digital nature of the transactions made the money feel abstract rather than real. Furthermore, half of the respondents acknowledged that they had experienced regret following a purchase, specifically noting that the pressure induced by the game’s time-limited offers—often presented via countdown timers—had influenced their decision-making process.
Lucia Melcherts, the chair of SMC, has been vocal about the necessity of this legal action. "We aren’t asking for Fortnite to be banned," Melcherts stated. "But a Dutch regulator found that Epic broke the rules, and a court has confirmed it. The logical next step is for Epic to pay players back."
Melcherts emphasized that the issue is not merely a matter of individual spending habits, but one of corporate responsibility. "Epic deliberately designed the game to pressure players into buying. Young consumers are supposed to be protected from exactly that. The bill belongs with the company that made the game, not with the players or their parents."
A History of Regulatory Conflict
The current lawsuit is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between Epic Games and Dutch regulators. In 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) issued a fine of €1,125,000 against the company. The regulator determined that Epic had engaged in "unfair commercial practices" through specific design choices in its digital Item Shop that were found to exploit the inherent vulnerabilities of children.
The ACM’s investigation highlighted two primary methods used by Epic that violated consumer protection laws. First, the regulator penalized the company for the use of high-pressure language in the shop, such as "get it now" and "buy now," which encouraged impulsive spending. Second, the regulator sanctioned the use of artificial countdown timers. These timers were found to be misleading, as they suggested to the user that specific items would disappear from the store forever once the timer expired, a tactic designed to trigger a "fear of missing out" in young users.
This regulatory decision was contested by Epic Games, but in January 2026, a Rotterdam court upheld the ACM fine, reinforcing the ruling that the company’s interface design had crossed legal boundaries. The fine was split equally, with €562,500 attributed to the use of coercive language and an additional €562,500 related to the deceptive countdown timers.
Broader Legal Context
SMC’s litigation against Epic Games appears to be part of a wider strategy by the organization to hold major tech and gaming corporations accountable for their business practices in the Netherlands. In 2025, the group also filed a collective lawsuit against Sony. In that case, the organization alleged that Sony abused its dominant market position to maintain artificially high prices for digital content on the PlayStation Store.
The foundation claimed that approximately 1.7 million PlayStation users in the Netherlands were negatively impacted by this pricing structure, effectively overpaying for digital games. These concurrent actions suggest that Dutch consumer advocates are increasingly focused on the intersection of digital storefront design, market dominance, and the protection of consumer rights within the gaming industry.
For now, the Epic Games case remains in its initial stages. SMC has served the company with a formal notice of liability and has indicated a willingness to negotiate a settlement. Should those discussions prove unsuccessful, the organization is prepared to take the matter to court to seek the full €100 million in damages.
Epic Games Responds to Allegations
In response to the lawsuit, Epic Games has maintained that it takes the safety and security of its younger users seriously and that it has implemented various tools to empower parents to manage their children’s gaming experiences.
Phil Mahoney, a spokesperson for Epic Games, provided a detailed statement to GamesIndustry.biz outlining the protective measures currently available on the platform. "Epic has protections and tools so parents can control how their child makes purchases and set limits for how long they can play," Mahoney said.
Addressing the specific concerns raised by the lawsuit, the spokesperson noted, "The Fortnite Item Shop does not have a timer, parents can require a PIN to make real money purchases and players under 18 in the Netherlands cannot see or purchase items that are available in the Shop for less than 48 hours."
Mahoney also pointed to the "Cabined Account" system as a critical safeguard for minors. When a player under the age of 16 in the Netherlands creates an account, it defaults to a restricted state. In this mode, the user is unable to perform real-money transactions until a parent or legal guardian has provided explicit consent.
Beyond these account-level restrictions, Epic highlighted several features designed to prevent accidental or unwanted spending. These include a two-step confirmation process required for all purchases, the ability for users to perform instant purchase cancellations, and a self-service return policy for items bought within the shop. Additionally, the company emphasized that players are given an explicit choice regarding whether or not to save their payment information, a move intended to prevent recurring or unauthorized charges.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case highlights an ongoing tension between the sophisticated engagement strategies employed by digital game developers and the evolving standards of consumer protection. With the Dutch court system having already affirmed that specific design choices were in violation of consumer law, the upcoming litigation will likely serve as a litmus test for how much liability companies can be held to for the psychological design of their digital marketplaces. For now, both the plaintiffs and the defense remain at a standoff, with the potential for a massive settlement or a lengthy, precedent-setting court battle looming on the horizon.