Gaming Law Tracker: The Lawsuits and Laws Shaping Video Games
Summary
- Video games now sit in courtrooms and statehouses as often as they sit on store shelves.
- Last checked: October 31, 2026.
- The question in these cases is simple to state and hard to settle: is paying for a random in-game item a form of gambling?
Video games now sit in courtrooms and statehouses as often as they sit on store shelves. Valve is defending its loot boxes in two courts and Steam in a UK class action, Roblox faces a wave of child-safety suits, and the Supreme Court will decide part of Apple’s long fight with Epic Games. This tracker lists the cases and laws that matter most to players, with the case number, the court and where each one stands.
Last checked: October 31, 2026. We read every row on the court docket, the legislature’s bill page or the regulator’s own release, and each one links to that record.
Dates to watch
- November 13, 2026: Epic Games’ brief is due at the Supreme Court in Apple v. Epic Games (No. 25-1311).
- November 16, 2026: further case management conference in the federal Roblox child-safety litigation (MDL 3166), by video before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg. Roblox’s and Discord’s replies on arbitration are due November 20.
- December 1, 2026: scheduling conference in the Valve antitrust case (Wolfire Games) before Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle.
- December 9, 2026: case management conference in the UK class action against Valve at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.
- January 13, 2027: hearing on Roblox’s and Discord’s motions to send the child-safety claims to arbitration (MDL 3166), before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco.
What changed in the past two weeks
- On October 23, the judge in the Valve antitrust case set a scheduling conference for December 1, the first date on the record since the sealed summary-judgment rulings.
- On October 27, the families in the Roblox litigation filed their opposition to Roblox’s and Discord’s motions to compel arbitration. A magistrate judge heard a dispute over the protective order on October 28; the record we checked shows no written ruling yet.
- We added four state cases against Roblox: Iowa and Tennessee, where judges have let the states’ claims go forward, and Nebraska and Indiana, which were filed this year. We also added the UK class action against Valve over Steam.
- New cases keep joining the Roblox child-safety litigation in San Francisco; we counted at least 13 new Roblox lawsuits in two weeks in October.
Loot boxes and gacha
The question in these cases is simple to state and hard to settle: is paying for a random in-game item a form of gambling? Two lawsuits say Valve’s Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 cases are. Valve says its mystery boxes are not gambling.
| Case or law | Court and number | Where it stands (October 31, 2026) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re Valve Loot Box Litigation (lead case Flauto v. Valve). Players say paid case-opening in CS2, Dota 2 and TF2 is illegal gambling under Washington law. | U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, No. 2:26-cv-00788-JHC | Valve’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed on July 23, 2026. The court record on CourtListener (last refreshed September 8) shows no ruling. | Docket |
| People of the State of New York v. Valve. The attorney general says paid case-opening in the same three games is illegal gambling and seeks an injunction and fines. | New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 450952/2026 | Filed February 25, 2026. | AG release |
| United States v. Cognosphere (Genshin Impact). Federal case over gacha sales to children and children’s data. | U.S. District Court, C.D. California, No. 2:25-cv-00447 | Closed. A January 21, 2025 court order set a $20 million civil penalty, barred accounts of players under 16 from spending real money in the game without a parent’s consent, and required a way to buy loot-box pulls directly with real money rather than only through virtual currency. | Order |
| Brazil’s ECA Digital, Article 20. Bans loot boxes in games aimed at, or likely to be used by, children and teenagers. | Law No. 15.211/2025, signed September 17, 2025 | In force since March 17, 2026. | Law text |
Sweepstakes casinos
Sweepstakes casinos let people play slot-style games with virtual coins that can be swapped for cash prizes. Three big states have now banned the model by law, and New York’s attorney general has started collecting penalties. Florida has also pressed the ad platforms; read how its attorney general asked Google, Meta and TikTok to stop sweepstakes casino ads.
| Case or law | Court and number | Where it stands (October 31, 2026) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| California AB 831. Extends the state’s ban on simulated-gambling sweepstakes to websites and apps. | California Legislature, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2025 | Signed by the governor on October 11, 2025. | Bill status |
| New York S5935-A. Bans online sweepstakes games; the State Gaming Commission and the attorney general enforce it. | New York Legislature, Chapter 605 of 2025 | Signed by the governor on December 5, 2025. | Bill page |
| New Jersey A5447. Bans the sweepstakes model of wagering and sets new penalties for unlawful gambling operations. | New Jersey Legislature, P.L.2025, c.128 | Signed on August 15, 2025, after passing the Assembly 69-10-1 and the Senate 34-5. | Bill page |
| New York AG and VGW (Chumba Casino, Global Poker, LuckyLand Slots). | New York Attorney General, settlement | VGW agreed to pay $8 million, announced September 9, 2026. It had stopped offering virtual-coin games in New York after a June 2025 cease-and-desist letter. | AG release |
Child safety and gaming addiction
This is the busiest corner of gaming law. Federal judges have grouped the Roblox child-exploitation suits in one court, while at least seven states have sued Roblox in their own courts. Addiction claims against game makers are moving more slowly: a federal panel refused to combine them in one court.
| Case or law | Court and number | Where it stands (October 31, 2026) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation. Families say Roblox, and in many cases Discord, failed to protect children from predators. | U.S. District Court, N.D. California, MDL No. 3166 | Roblox and Discord moved to compel arbitration on September 22, 2026. The families filed their opposition on October 27; the companies’ replies are due November 20, and the motions will be heard January 13, 2027. New cases are still being added. | Docket |
| Florida v. Roblox. The attorney general says Roblox misled parents about safety. | U.S. District Court, M.D. Florida, No. 3:26-cv-00057 (moved from Baker County state court) | Briefing on whether the case goes back to state court, and on Roblox’s motion to dismiss, is complete. The CourtListener record shows no ruling on either. | Docket |
| Oklahoma v. Roblox. Consumer protection suit over child safety; seeks civil penalties and an injunction. | Cleveland County District Court, No. CJ-2026-810 | Filed May 14, 2026. | AG release |
| Texas v. Roblox. Deceptive trade practices suit over child safety. | Texas state district court (King County, per the petition) | The attorney general announced the suit on November 7, 2025. | AG release |
| Iowa v. Roblox. Consumer fraud suit saying Roblox deceived parents about safety. | Iowa District Court for Polk County, No. EQCE092346 | On May 13, 2026, the court granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss only as to the claims about content moderation, age-appropriate content, chat-filter bypasses and addictive gameplay, and denied the rest. The case continues. | Ruling |
| Tennessee v. Roblox. Consumer protection suit over Roblox’s safety promises. | Chancery Court for Williamson County, No. 25CV-55330 | Roblox’s motion to dismiss was denied in an order entered September 17, 2026. The court said the case is about Roblox’s own statements, so neither Section 230 nor the First Amendment bars it. | AG release |
| Nebraska v. Roblox. Consumer protection and deceptive trade practices suit over child safety. | District Court of Adams County, No. D14CI260000074 | Filed March 4, 2026. | Complaint |
| Indiana v. Roblox and Discord. Deceptive consumer sales suit seeking an injunction, penalties and restitution. | Hamilton Superior Court 1, No. 29D01-2605-PL-005581 | Filed May 6, 2026. | Complaint |
| In re Gateway Video Game Addiction Litigation. Bid to combine addiction suits against Roblox, Epic Games, Microsoft and Mojang. | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 3168 | Denied on December 10, 2025. The panel counted 39 cases in 11 districts; they continue separately. | Order |
| Nassau County v. Meta and others. County complaint in the social media addiction litigation that also names Roblox and Discord. | U.S. District Court, N.D. California, No. 3:26-cv-11802 (part of MDL 3047) | Filed October 13, 2026. | Complaint |
App stores, Steam and the big platforms
These cases decide how much platforms can charge game makers and how players are allowed to pay. Epic’s fights with Apple and Google have already produced court orders on how their app stores must operate.
| Case or law | Court and number | Where it stands (October 31, 2026) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple v. Epic Games. Whether a court can hold a company in contempt for breaking the “spirit” of an order that did not clearly ban the conduct. | U.S. Supreme Court, No. 25-1311 | The Court agreed on June 30, 2026 to hear this one question only. Apple filed its brief on September 14; Epic’s is due November 13. No argument date yet on the docket. | Docket |
| Epic Games v. Google. After Epic’s jury win, Google must open the Play Store to rival stores and other billing. | U.S. District Court, N.D. California, No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD | The court is monitoring Google’s compliance through monthly reports and status conferences, under a July 24, 2026 order. | Docket |
| In re Valve Antitrust Litigation (Wolfire Games). Publishers say Valve used Steam’s market power, including its 30% cut, to hold back competition. | U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW | A publisher class is certified. Rulings on summary judgment were filed under seal on March 31 and April 10, 2026, so their contents are not public. On October 23 the judge set a scheduling conference for December 1, 2026; no trial date appears on the record yet. | Docket |
| Vicki Shotbolt v. Valve. UK opt-out class action for PC game buyers, saying Valve abused a dominant position through Steam. | Competition Appeal Tribunal (London), Case No. 1640/7/7/24 | The tribunal certified the class in a January 26, 2026 judgment ([2026] CAT 4). Case management conferences are set for December 9, 2026 and March 18, 2027. | Tribunal page |
| FTC Fortnite refunds. Money from Epic’s $245 million settlement over unwanted Fortnite charges. | Federal Trade Commission | The FTC sent more than $126 million to players in June 2025. Its refund page, last updated in July 2025, says more payments are expected in 2026. | FTC page |
| FTC v. Microsoft (Activision Blizzard deal). | FTC Docket No. 9412; Ninth Circuit No. 23-15992 | Closed. The appeals court upheld the denial of an injunction on May 7, 2025, and the FTC dismissed its complaint on May 22, 2025. | FTC record |
Esports integrity
Both cases below were decided by the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC), a private integrity body. Its bans are disciplinary decisions, not criminal convictions.
| Case or law | Court and number | Where it stands (October 31, 2026) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESIC v. NOMERCY players (Counter-Strike 2). Four matches at Roman Imperium Cup VII targeted by a large handicap bet. | Esports Integrity Commission | Bans announced October 15, 2026: one lifetime, two for five years, two for three years. On October 16 one three-year ban became a lifetime ban. | ESIC decision |
| ESIC v. PTime players (Dota 2, Esports World Cup 2026). An effort to lose a series against Team Liquid for money. | Esports Integrity Commission; appeals go to the International Games and Esports Tribunal | Announced September 10, 2026: a lifetime ban for Juan David “Vintage” Angulo Nicho and five years for Oswaldo “DarkMago” Herrera Martínez. | ESIC decision |
How we keep this tracker
- Every status comes from the primary record: the federal docket (through CourtListener’s copy of PACER), the Supreme Court docket, a state court filing or ruling, the UK tribunal’s case page, the legislature’s bill page, or the attorney general’s or regulator’s own release.
- CourtListener’s copy of a docket can lag behind the court, so “no ruling” means none appeared in the record we checked on that date.
- Where a state court docket was not available to us, we list only what the official filing or release shows, such as the filing date.
- We leave out reports we could not confirm on a primary source, and we never describe sealed court orders.
Know of a gaming case or law we should add? Send the case number or bill number to rahis[at]gameempress[dot]com and we will check it against the record.