IN RE: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: GATEWAY VIDEO GAME ADDICTION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3168
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Tomlin action, listed
on Schedule A, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. This litigation consists of seventeen actions pending in seven districts, as listed
on Schedule A. 	Since the filing of the motion, the parties have notified the Panel of 22 related
actions filed in seven districts. In total, 39 cases are pending across eleven districts.
Plaintiffs in fifteen actions and potentially-related actions support centralization and
variously suggest centralization in one or more of the following districts: the Northern District of
California, the District of Colorado, the District of Maine, the District of Maryland, the District of
Nevada, or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 	Defendants1 oppose centralization and,
alternatively, suggest centralization in the Western District of Missouri.
All actions are individual personal injury actions in which plaintiffs allege that, to increase
profits from in-game purchases, defendants developed and sold video games with psychologically
addictive features designed to cause minors to become addicted to video games. The products at
issue are what plaintiffs term in their briefs the “gateway” video games Roblox, Fortnite, and
Minecraft.2 Plaintiffs allege (1) defendants failed to warn minors and their parents about the risks
associated with excessive use of their video game products or include available safeguards to curb
excessive use; (2) defendants’ marketing strategies specifically target minors; and (3) the products
lack sufficient parental controls, including age verification. We previously denied centralization
of a smaller group of similar cases in which plaintiffs alleged an industrywide practice to
intentionally design video games with psychologically addictive features for the purpose of
generating prolonged, compulsive use among game players and fueling in-game purchases. See
* 	Judge David C. Norton and Judge Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision
of this matter.
1 	Roblox Corp. (Roblox); Epic Games, Inc. (Epic); Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft), and Mojang
AB (Mojang)
2 	Some actions also include similar allegations about the Xbox platform, which is also
manufactured by Microsoft.
Case MDL No. 3168 Document 86 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
In re Video Game Addiction Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3109, 737 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1354
(J.P.M.L. 2024). 	The litigation involved over 30 different defendants, many of which were
involved in just one or two actions. We found that the differences among the cases outweighed
any efficiencies to be gained by centralization. See id.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. We remain concerned that the scope of this litigation may quickly grow too large,
as plaintiffs who played different games on different platforms—in addition to the “gateway”
video games at issue in the cases currently pending— file new actions. There are now more actions
before the Panel than in the previous iteration of this litigation, and they are ostensibly more
narrowly focused to just three groups of defendants. But we are not persuaded that the litigation
will not grow to encompass a large tangle of defendants and products, similar to what was before
us in In re Video Game Addiction, which risks creating an MDL too unwieldy for any single judge
to manage. 	We typically are “hesitant to centralize litigation against multiple, competing
defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products.” 	In re Yellow Brass
Plumbing Component Prods. Liab. Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Where, as
here, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants acted in concert, proponents bear a heavier burden of
persuading 	us 	that 	common 	allegations 	and 	discovery 	will 	outweigh 	the 	attendant 	case
management complications of a multi-product, multi-defendant MDL.
As defendants note, several plaintiffs have named unspecified Doe defendants, leaving
open the possibility that they will amend their actions to include additional defendants, games, and
gaming platforms. 	Movant requests the Panel limit the scope of this litigation solely to the
defendants that designed and manufactured Roblox, Minecraft, and Fortnite, but movant does not
sufficiently address how to keep the litigation so limited. As defendants argue, even if the actions
do not name other defendants that designed and manufactured additional games and gaming
platforms, these myriad other companies, games, and gaming platforms still may be relevant to
the causation inquiry. Plaintiffs also have not persuaded us that these three games are sufficiently
unique from other video games such that future plaintiffs would similarly limit their complaints to
allegations about only these games. Plaintiffs assert that these specific games work as “gateways”
to video game addiction. 	But they do not allege that the minor plaintiffs in these actions only
played Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft or even that these were the first games each minor plaintiff
played—they merely assert that these three games are among the first games that children play.
At oral argument, movant argued that Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft are unique because the
manufacturer of each game targets youth through educational channels. 	But this slim reed of
commonality does not outweigh the likelihood that other companies and products will be drawn
into this litigation, injecting a host of individualized issues and diminishing the efficiency of
centralized proceedings. 	Finally, many of the complaints include allegations about the Xbox
platform, but plaintiffs do not justify why claims concerning this gaming platform over any other
should be included in the litigation.
Informal coordination seems a practicable alternative to centralization of these cases.
While there are 39 related actions now pending, 29 of them are pending in just two courts, and
Case MDL No. 3168 Document 86 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
there is some overlap among plaintiffs’ counsel. We also find it notable that, of the fifteen actions
and potentially-related actions at issue in MDL No. 3109, all were dismissed or stayed pending
arbitration since we denied centralization in June 2024. Where related actions have not “required
significant judicial attention,” we have found that “centralization may in fact thwart the orderly
resolution” of the cases. 	In re ArrivalStar S.A. Fleet Mgmt. Sys. Patent Litig., 802 F. Supp. 2d
1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is
denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez 	Dale A. Kimball
Case MDL No. 3168 Document 86 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: GATEWAY VIDEO GAME ADDICTION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3168
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of California
J.S. v. EPIC GAMES, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−02727
Northern District of California
LITTON, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−03088
GALARZA v. EPIC GAMES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−06245
CHANDLER v. EPIC GAMES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−06877
BROWN v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−07660
JESSE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07964
AUSTIN v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:25−08122
District of Colorado
WHITTAKER v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−02967
District of Maryland
MERRIMAN v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:25−03130
District of Maine
HENDERSON v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−00467
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
TOMLIN v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−04301
FRENCH v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−05306
SPENNATO v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−05436
WEST v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−05471
Z.A.E., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25−05249
SCARPULLA, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25−05477
Middle District of Pennsylvania
HICKS, ET AL. v. EPIC GAMES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−01789
Case MDL No. 3168 Document 86 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4