Fortnite and Roblox have been named in a new lawsuit filed in San Francisco by a Louisiana mother who’s alleging her child may have experienced structural brain changes due to prolonged exposure to online games.
Descheca Jackson claims in the lawsuit brought to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on December 30 that her child, a minor only identified by the initials “MA,” has developed symptoms consistent with internet gaming disorder (IGD) since playing video games at a young age. This includes behavioral challenges such as her loss of impulse control, withdrawal symptoms, irritability, anxiety, and difficulty disengaging from gameplay. The lawsuit also alleges that MA suffered addiction, social isolation, depression, loss of friends and relationships, and damage to her grades, leading to “an academic dismissal from school.”
According to a February 2025 study reported on by About Lawsuits, IGD is described as a pattern in which gaming negatively impacts a person’s daily activities, including school, work, relationships, and family life. The symptoms tend to include nonstop gaming, irritability when access to games is restricted, and continued use despite its negative consequences. The research suggests IGD affects one in 10 adolescent boys, with Minecraft and Roblox often the culprits of the disorder.
Jackson alleges that MA played games like Fortnite and Roblox for years (primarily on Xbox consoles), resulting in a compulsive gaming behavior largely driven by reward-based features designed to exploit the dopamine pathways of a young brain that’s still growing. Citing neuroimaging studies linked to IGD, Jackson claims that MA’s developing brain has undergone similar structural changes in her prefrontal cortex, the region of the cerebrum responsible for decision-making, emotional regulation, and reward processing.
While the lawsuit states that the plaintiffs–Jackson and MA–knew of the effects that prolonged exposure to online gaming can have on adolescent brains, the filing still alleges that MA, as a minor, lacked the legal knowledge and understanding to agree to the terms and conditions within the agreements found in those very games. As such, the complaint claims that those contracts are invalid and unenforceable, specifically because games like these are designed to maximize engagement and screen time through systems like in-game currencies, progression loops, social-pressure mechanisms (remember the “default skin” debacle?), limited-time events, and reward schedules.
“MA never agreed to be harmed or exposed to an addictive Product,” according to the lawsuit. “Neither Plaintiff nor MA ever entered into a contract with any of the Defendants, and/or to the extent that any Defendant claims MA attempted to accept an electronic terms and conditions clause by clicking buttons on a screen which included language Plaintiff did not understand, read, or language which was conscionable, and has been made void by virtue of its unconscionability and the power of disaffirmance. This unconscionability and disaffirmance is demonstrated and secured by the filing of this Complaint.”
Raising issues around negligence, design defects, failure to warn, and fraud, the lawsuit seeks general and punitive damages–as well as injunctive relief–for 10 counts.
