The Dutch consumer watchdog, Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SMC), has launched a class‑action lawsuit against Epic Games, contending that the company misled minors and young adults who play the popular battle‑royale title Fortnite. The legal claim is being brought on behalf of Dutch individuals who engaged with Fortnite before reaching the age of 21, and it seeks more than €100 million in refunds, damages, and reparations for the alleged unlawful collection of children’s personal data without the required parental consent.
SMC’s complaint is anchored in a study the foundation cited, which surveyed over a thousand Dutch teenagers aged 16 to 19. The findings revealed that six out of ten respondents who purchased in‑game currency—known as V‑Bucks—felt that the money they spent did not feel like “real” money, indicating a disconnect between virtual spending and perceived financial impact. Moreover, half of those surveyed reported experiencing regret after making a purchase that was made under the pressure of a limited‑time offer or countdown timer. In response to these findings, SMC has formally served Epic Games with a notice of liability, outlining the alleged breaches and opening a channel for settlement negotiations.
The consumer group has made clear that if an amicable agreement cannot be reached, it will advance the case to a Dutch court for adjudication. The backdrop to this lawsuit includes a prior enforcement action by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). In 2024, the ACM levied a fine of €1,125,000 against Epic Games, branding the company’s design choices in its in‑game shop as "unfair commercial practices" that exploited the vulnerabilities of children. The fine was split evenly: €562,500 for the use of persuasive language such as "get it now" and "buy now," and another €562,500 for employing countdown timers that created a false impression that items would disappear once the timer elapsed.
A Rotterdam district court upheld the ACM’s decision in January 2026, confirming that the regulatory body’s assessment was sound and that Epic’s practices violated Dutch consumer protection law. This judicial affirmation adds weight to SMC’s current claim, as it demonstrates a precedent where the courts recognized the company’s conduct as unlawful. Lucia Melcherts, chairperson of SMC, emphasized that the organization is not seeking to ban Fortnite outright.
Instead, she argued that the logical consequence of the regulator’s finding and the court’s affirmation is that Epic must compensate the affected players. "We aren’t asking for Fortnite to be banned.
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 said. Melcherts further criticized Epic’s design strategy, stating, "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." In addition to the action against Epic, SMC has previously taken legal steps against Sony. In 2025, the consumer group filed a collective lawsuit alleging that Sony abused its dominant position in the Dutch market to overcharge consumers.
The claim asserted that at least 1.7 million PlayStation owners in the Netherlands paid inflated prices for digital games on Sony’s platform, suggesting a pattern of anti‑competitive behavior that further harms consumers. The SMC’s broader agenda reflects growing concerns across Europe about the monetisation tactics employed by video‑game developers, especially those that target younger audiences. Critics argue that features such as loot boxes, time‑limited offers, and aggressive in‑game advertising blur the line between entertainment and predatory marketing. By seeking substantial financial redress, SMC hopes to set a deterrent precedent that will encourage game publishers to adopt more transparent and responsible monetisation models.
If the case proceeds to trial, it could have far‑reaching implications for the global gaming industry. Epic Games, best known for Fortnite’s massive player base and cultural impact, may face pressure to redesign its in‑game shop, implement clearer consent mechanisms for data collection, and introduce safeguards that limit impulsive spending by minors. Moreover, the lawsuit could inspire similar actions in other jurisdictions where consumer groups are increasingly scrutinising the ethical dimensions of digital entertainment. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the importance of robust consumer protection frameworks in the digital age.
As video games continue to evolve into complex ecosystems that blend social interaction, commerce, and immersive storytelling, regulators and advocacy groups alike are calling for stronger oversight to ensure that vulnerable users—particularly children and teenagers—are not exploited for profit. The SMC’s filing serves as a reminder that companies operating in the European market must align their business practices with the stringent standards set forth by consumer protection laws.
Whether Epic chooses to settle the claim out of court or defend its practices in a courtroom, the litigation will undoubtedly shape the conversation around ethical game design and the responsibilities of developers toward younger audiences.