Fortnite Maker Sued Over In-Game Purchases by Minors
The proposed class action claims North Carolina-based Epic Games Inc. doesn't include any built-in parental controls in Fortnite that would allow guardians of minors to make informed decisions regarding in-app purchases.
June 24, 2019 at 03:08 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The company behind the popular multiplayer online videogame Fortnite has been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that it induces minors to make in-game purchases that don't have the approval of a guardian.
Fortnite is available for free for download on multiple game-playing platforms, but since 2017 players have been able to purchase virtual currency or “V-bucks” to buy things within the game such as virtual supplies, ammunition and costumes—called “skins” in the Fortnite parlance.
The new lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at One LLP, claims North Carolina-based Epic Games Inc. doesn't include any built-in parental controls in Fortnite that would allow guardians of minors to make informed decisions regarding in-app purchases. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment finding that Epic violates California consumer protection statutes by not allowing parents to “disaffirm” certain purchases by minors. The suit also brings claims of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentation against Epic.
“That Epic collects millions of dollars from plaintiff and the class, by luring their children to download bait Apps and then spend vast sums on game currency without parental knowledge or permission, is the quintessence of bad faith and unfair dealing with plaintiff and the class,” wrote the lawyers at One LLP, who sued on behalf of a client proceeding anonymously as Johnny Doe and his Jane Doe mother.
Representatives of Epic didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the lawsuit Monday.
According to the lawsuit, Epic does allow for a refund of up to three total items per user, but only extends that offer to purchases made within the past 30 days. The suit says that some items, including Battle Passes or Battle Pass tiers, are completely nonrefundable in violation of multiple states' child consumer protection statutes. The complaint claims that Epic doesn't give players a history of the in-game purchases, making it possible for minor players to spend an “exorbitant” amount without giving parents a way to track what was spent when.
“Epic induces players into making more purchases by making the purchase process incredibly easy,” the complaint says. “Once a player enters and saves a payment method, that player can purchase more V-Bucks at a whim almost instantly. In practice, that means minors can use their parents' credit cards to make an endless number of purchases, with or without permission.”
The suit seeks to certify a class of players under the age of 18 in the U.S. and California who made an in-app purchase that was nonrefundable or made a purchase with their own gift card.
Peter Afrasiabi in One LLP's Newport Beach office didn't immediately respond to a message Monday morning.
Read the complaint:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250