By Jeffrey Levine, JD, PhD – Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Sport Business Esport Business Program Lead, Drexel University
A recent class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brings renewed legal scrutiny to a widely used monetization strategy in esports and gaming. On March 5, 2025, two minors and their guardians filed a complaint against Epic Games, the developer and publisher of Fortnite, Valorant, and Rocket League. The suit centers on Fortnite and alleges that Epic engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices aimed at minors by using misleading countdown timers in the game’s Item Shop to drive in-game purchases. This article offers a brief explainer of the Fortnite Item Shop and a summary of the lawsuit’s key claims, viewed through the lens of youth-focused consumer protection law.
Background: Fortnite and the Item Shop
Fortnite is among the esports ecosystem’s most successful game titles, as there are reportedly over 650 million registered users globally (Kumar, 2025). It operates under a free-to-play model, meaning users do not pay to access the base game. Instead, Epic generates substantial revenue, as the complaint alleges the amount to be over $5 billion annually, through the sale of in-game cosmetic items such as character “skins,” emotes, weapons, and other virtual accessories (J.J. et al. v. Epic Games, Inc., 2025). These are primarily sold through the game’s “Item Shop,” a digital storefront accessible from within the game client.
The Item Shop is updated daily and frequently features rotating collections of cosmetic items. While these items do not confer competitive advantages, they are deeply embedded in the cultural and social fabric of the game. Players, especially younger users, frequently treat skins and other digital accessories as markers of identity, status, and participation in limited-time events. The rarer or more exclusive the item appears, the greater its perceived value. Given its cultural saliency, item shops can become a significant revenue driver for game developers.
The Allegations: Countdown Timers and the Illusion of Scarcity
The plaintiffs, identified as J.J. and S.G., are minors from Texas and California, respectively. The crux of the plaintiffs’ complaint is that Epic misled consumers, specifically minor-aged players, by falsely suggesting that certain Item Shop offerings were only available for a limited time. The lawsuit focuses on Epic’s use of prominent 24-hour countdown timers next to select items, often in conjunction with graphics suggesting a limited-time discount, implying that either the item itself or its discounted price would expire once the timer ran out. However, according to the plaintiffs, these items frequently remained available well after the countdown ended, often at the same price. The complaint alleges that this practice created a false sense of urgency, sometimes referred to as “fake urgency,” that played on the psychological vulnerabilities of young users, particularly through FOMO, or the fear of missing out. Plaintiffs argue that this design decision was not incidental, but part of a deliberate strategy to prompt impulsive purchases from children.
The proposed class includes all U.S. residents under 18 who purchased Item Shop products that included countdown timers. The complaint also proposes state-specific subclasses for minors residing in California and Texas. Claims include alleged violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and related state consumer protection statutes. According to the plaintiffs, Epic’s marketing and design practices were not only misleading but were aimed at a youth demographic known to be particularly susceptible to scarcity-based messaging and behavioral triggers. The complaint also references prior legal scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe over similar design practices in the Fortnite Item Shop.
Legal Basis for the Complaint: Overview of Key Statutes
The plaintiffs allege that Epic violated the following consumer protection statutes:
- North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq.): Prohibits deceptive acts in commerce and provides for treble damages and attorneys’ fees if plaintiffs prevail. It is cited here because Epic is headquartered in North Carolina.
- California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq): Prohibits a range of deceptive practices in transactions for the sale or lease of goods or services, including misrepresenting the nature, price, or availability of products. Plaintiffs may seek damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and, in some cases, punitive damages.
- California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.): Prohibits advertising that is untrue or misleading and that is known, or should be known, to be deceptive. The FAL allows for remedies such as restitution and injunctive relief and applies broadly to both express and implied misrepresentations.
- California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.): Prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, including those that violate other statutes like the CLRA or FAL. The UCL is often used as a “catch-all” consumer protection tool in California, offering equitable remedies such as injunctions and restitution.
- Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq.): Provides redress for consumers subjected to specific forms of misrepresentation or deception in trade or commerce. Plaintiffs claim Epic’s use of timers falls within the statute’s listed deceptive acts.
Epic’s Response and Implications
Epic Games has denied the allegations, stating that the complaint contains “factual errors” and does not reflect the current operation of Fortnite’s Item Shop (Carpenter, 2025). In a public statement, the company emphasized that it removed countdown timers in 2024 and now offers a range of consumer protection features, including a “hold-to-purchase” mechanism, self-service refunds, purchase cancellations, and parental PIN controls (Litchfield, 2025). It also noted that players under the age of 13 cannot make real-money purchases without verified parental consent (Carpenter, 2025). Epic has not admitted wrongdoing and maintains that these safeguards are designed to prevent unintended purchases by minors.
This lawsuit is not the first time Epic has faced scrutiny over its monetization practices. In 2022, the company reached a $520 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it used deceptive interface design and violated children’s privacy laws (Federal Trade Commission, 2022). In 2024, Dutch regulators fined Epic €1,125,000 (approximately $1.2 million) for similarly misleading practices in the Fortnite shop, including the use of countdown timers to create a false sense of urgency (Litchfield, 2025). These prior incidents also advance ongoing questions about how behavioral design in digital games should be regulated, particularly when it intersects with child-directed marketing.
What may become the focal point of the current case is the issue of design-driven deception, particularly in the context of youth-centered digital marketplaces. The plaintiffs argue that interface elements like timers, rotating inventories, and sale graphics go beyond persuasive marketing and may amount to manipulative design when used on a platform heavily populated by children. The complaint ties in behavioral science literature, noting that minors are especially vulnerable to scarcity cues, particularly those involving time pressure, which can trigger impulsive or regrettable purchases (J.J. et al. v. Epic Games, Inc., 2025, ¶¶ 23-24). Whether the court views these practices as unlawful may hinge on how it defines the boundary between effective advertising and deceptive trade practices. In that sense, the case highlights a broader conversation about the legal and ethical limits of monetization in video games, particularly when the most responsive consumers may also be the least equipped to fully grasp the implications of their choices.
References
Carpenter, N. (2025, May 7). Fortnite maker Epic Games sued over ‘deceptive’ Item Shop timers. Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/535850/fortnite-epic-games-item-shop-lawsuit
Federal Trade Commission. (2022, December 19). Fortnite video game maker Epic Games to pay more than half a billion dollars over FTC allegations. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations
J.J. et al. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02254 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Kumar, N. (2025, May 7). Fortnite statistics 2025 — Revenue & player demographics. DemandSage. https://www.demandsage.com/fortnite-statistics/
Litchfield, T. (2025, March 8). Parents are suing Epic over Fortnite item shop ‘FOMO’ timers they say are inaccurate and manipulative. PC Gamer. https://www.pcgamer.com/games/battle-royale/parents-are-suing-epic-over-fortnite-item-shop-fomo-timers-they-say-are-inaccurate-and-manipulative/
