The Dutch consumer watchdog Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SMC) has launched a class‑action lawsuit against Epic Games, accusing the developer of misleading minors who play the popular battle‑royale title Fortnite. The legal action targets Dutch users who accessed the game before reaching the age of 21, and the claim seeks more than €100 million in refunds, damages, and compensation for the alleged unlawful collection of children’s personal data without parental approval. According to a study commissioned by SMC that surveyed over a thousand Dutch teenagers aged 16 to 19, a striking six out of ten respondents who bought the in‑game currency known as V‑Bucks reported that the purchase did not feel like spending real money.
Moreover, half of those surveyed said they regretted a purchase that they made while feeling pressured by time‑limited offers. These findings underpin the association’s argument that the game’s design exploits youthful vulnerability and creates a false perception of affordability.
SMC has formally notified Epic of its liability and has opened the door for settlement negotiations. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement, the association has pledged to advance the case to a Dutch court. This move follows a series of regulatory actions against Epic in the Netherlands.
In 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) imposed a €1,125,000 fine on Epic, branding the company’s item‑shop mechanics as "unfair commercial practices" that took advantage of children’s susceptibility to persuasive design. The fine was upheld by a Rotterdam court in January 2026.
The judgment split the penalty into two equal parts: €562,500 for the use of urgent language such as "get it now" and "buy now" in the shop, and another €562,500 for employing countdown timers that gave the impression that items would disappear once the timer ran out, even though the items remained available. Lucia Melcherts, chairperson of SMC, clarified the organization’s stance: "We are not calling for Fortnite to be banned.
However, a Dutch regulator has already determined that Epic violated the law, and a court has confirmed that finding. The logical next step is for Epic to reimburse the affected players." She added, "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 lawsuit against Epic, SMC filed a collective action against Sony in 2025, alleging that the console maker abused its dominant market position. The claim asserted that at least 1.7 million Dutch PlayStation owners had overpaid for digital titles on Sony’s platform, further highlighting concerns about pricing transparency and consumer rights in the gaming ecosystem. Epic Games responded to the allegations through a spokesperson, Phil Mahoney, who supplied a detailed statement to GamesIndustry.biz. Mahoney emphasized that Epic provides a suite of parental‑control tools designed to limit how children can spend money and how long they can play.
He noted that the Fortnite Item Shop does not feature a countdown timer and that parents can require a PIN for any real‑money transaction. Additionally, players under 18 in the Netherlands are barred from seeing or purchasing items that have been listed in the shop for less than 48 hours. Mahoney further explained that accounts created by users younger than 16 in the Netherlands are designated as "Cabined Accounts." These accounts are restricted from making real‑money purchases until a parent or guardian explicitly grants consent.
The company also offers safeguards against accidental purchases, including a two‑step confirmation process, immediate purchase cancellations, self‑service refunds for shop items, and an option for users to decide whether to store payment details for future use. The lawsuit underscores a broader debate about the ethics of monetisation strategies in free‑to‑play games, especially those that target younger audiences. Critics argue that loot‑box‑style mechanics, limited‑time offers, and virtual currencies can blur the line between entertainment and gambling, making it difficult for minors to discern the real financial cost of their in‑game actions.
Proponents, including many game developers, contend that such features are optional and that robust parental controls can mitigate potential abuse. Legal experts note that the outcome of SMC’s case could set a precedent for how European regulators and courts treat digital micro‑transactions aimed at children.
If the court orders Epic to pay the requested €100 million plus additional damages, it could trigger a wave of similar lawsuits across the EU, prompting game publishers to reassess their pricing models, user‑interface designs, and data‑collection practices. Meanwhile, consumer advocacy groups continue to push for stricter legislation that would require clearer disclosure of virtual‑currency costs, mandatory age verification, and tighter limits on time‑pressured sales tactics. The European Union is already discussing updates to its Digital Services Act, which may incorporate provisions specifically addressing in‑app purchases and the protection of minors online.
For now, the Dutch legal battle remains ongoing. Epic has signalled its willingness to engage in dialogue, but the final decision will rest with the courts. The case serves as a reminder that the intersection of gaming, commerce, and youth protection is an evolving landscape, where regulatory scrutiny and consumer awareness are increasingly shaping the way digital entertainment is delivered and monetised.