Since 2020, Epic Games has been the defendant or plaintiff in a string of major legal actions: a $520 million Federal Trade Commission settlement over Fortnite’s treatment of children and its billing practices, antitrust suits against Apple and Google over app store commissions, class actions over loot boxes and alleged gaming addiction, copyright fights over Fortnite dance emotes, and a labor complaint tied to the sale of Bandcamp. The Epic Games lawsuits have produced binding federal court orders, jury verdicts, hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to Fortnite players, and structural changes to how the Apple App Store and Google Play Store operate.
The $520 Million FTC Settlement
In December 2022, Epic agreed to pay $520 million to resolve two related FTC actions: a $275 million civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and a $245 million fund earmarked for consumer refunds tied to deceptive billing in Fortnite.1Epic Games. Epic FTC Settlement and Moving Beyond Long-Standing Industry Practices
Children’s Privacy Violations
The $275 million penalty was the largest ever imposed for violating an FTC rule. The FTC alleged Epic collected personal information from children under 13 without notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent, and enabled real-time voice and text chat by default for children and teens, exposing them to bullying and harassment from strangers. When parents tried to review or delete their children’s data, Epic imposed burdensome verification requirements, including demands for IP addresses, invoice IDs, and copies of government identification.2FTC. Fortnite Video Game Maker Epic Games to Pay More Than Half a Billion Dollars Over FTC Allegations
The federal court order, entered February 7, 2023, requires Epic to turn off voice and text communications by default for children and teens, obtain affirmative consent before enabling them, delete personal information collected in violation of COPPA, implement a comprehensive privacy program, and undergo independent privacy audits every two years for 20 years. Epic’s CEO must personally certify compliance to the FTC each year for the same period.3CoSN. Epic Penalties for Epic Privacy Violations
Dark Patterns and Billing Practices
The separate $245 million action targeted what the FTC called “counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing” button configurations in Fortnite’s item shop. Players could trigger purchases with a single button press while waking the game from sleep mode or previewing an item. Epic saved credit card information after a player’s first purchase without explicit consent, which until 2018 let children buy V-Bucks without parental involvement. When players disputed charges with their credit card companies, Epic locked their accounts, cutting off access to content they had already bought. The FTC found Epic hid cancel and refund features and ignored more than one million user complaints about unwanted charges.4FTC. FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite Maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users Into Making Unwanted Purchases
The FTC’s final order, approved unanimously on March 14, 2023, bars Epic from using dark patterns to charge consumers, requires affirmative consent before any purchase, and permanently prohibits locking accounts in retaliation for disputed charges. It runs 20 years.5FTC. Epic Games Administrative Consent and Compliance Order
Where the Refunds Stand
The FTC began distributing refunds in December 2024, sending more than $72 million in a first round of 629,344 payments. A second round in June 2025 issued about 969,173 payments totaling over $126 million. Nearly $200 million has been disbursed in total.6FTC. FTC Sends $126 Million in Refunds to Fortnite Players Who Were Charged for Unwanted Items, Reopens Claims
Eligibility covered consumers charged for unwanted in-game items between January 2017 and September 2022, parents whose children made unauthorized credit card charges between January 2017 and November 2018, and players whose accounts were locked after disputing charges during those periods. The claims deadline was July 9, 2025. Claims filed after February 14, 2025, remain under review, with additional payments expected in 2026.7FTC. Fortnite Refunds
Epic Games v. Apple
In August 2020, Epic deliberately bypassed Apple’s in-app payment system in the iOS version of Fortnite. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic sued the same day, arguing that Apple’s control over iOS distribution and its 30% commission amounted to an illegal monopoly.
What the Courts Decided
After a three-week bench trial in 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled largely in Apple’s favor on the antitrust claims but found that Apple’s “anti-steering” rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Those rules had prevented developers from telling users about cheaper purchasing options outside the App Store. The judge ordered Apple to let developers include links and calls to action directing users to external payment methods.8Justia. Epic Games v. Apple Inc.
On April 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Epic lost its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance. The anti-steering injunction stayed in place. The appellate court also reversed on attorney fees, ruling that Apple could recover legal costs from Epic under their Developer Program Licensing Agreement.8Justia. Epic Games v. Apple Inc.
The Contempt Fight
Apple’s implementation of the injunction became a second legal battle. Apple allowed external links but applied a 27% commission to purchases made through them, along with restrictive design requirements and warning screens the court found were meant to discourage users from leaving the App Store. On April 30, 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers held Apple in civil contempt, finding the company acted in “bad faith” and “deliberately violated the injunction,” and that an Apple vice-president had “outright lied under oath.”9BBC. Apple Violated Court Order Says Judge in Epic Games Case
The judge ordered that Apple could no longer charge any commission on purchases made outside an app, could not restrict the style, placement, or quantity of external links, and had to replace its warning screens with a neutral, court-approved message. She sanctioned Apple for Epic’s full attorney fees and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California for a possible criminal contempt investigation.10MacRumors. Apple App Store Anti-Steering Injunction Violation
On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt finding and most of the sanctions but ruled that the blanket ban on commissions for external purchases was “overbroad and more punitive than coercive,” sending that piece back for further tailoring. The core injunction requiring Apple to allow external purchasing links remains in force.11Justia. Epic Games v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2935
In May 2026, Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s application to pause the civil contempt order pending further appeals.12SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt Apple filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on May 21, 2026. Epic urged the Court to deny it on June 4, 2026. The petition was distributed for conference and remained pending as of late June 2026.13SCOTUSblog. Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc.
Epic Games v. Google
Epic filed a parallel antitrust suit against Google in 2020, challenging Google Play Store’s mandatory use of Google Play Billing and its 15-30% commission structure. Unlike the Apple case, this one went to a jury.
The Verdict and Injunction
On December 11, 2023, a federal jury in the Northern District of California unanimously found Google had violated federal and California antitrust law. The jury concluded that Google willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services, unreasonably restrained trade, and unlawfully tied the Play Store to Google Play Billing.14International Bar Association. Epic v Google: A Major Turning Point in Big Tech Regulation
In October 2024, Judge James Donato entered a three-year permanent injunction ordering Google to stop paying app distributors, device makers, or carriers to favor the Play Store, to let developers direct users to alternative billing and distribution, to allow third-party app stores access to the Play Store’s catalog, and to permit rival app stores to be distributed through the Play Store. A three-person Technical Committee was appointed to oversee compliance.15Ninth Circuit. Epic Games v. Google LLC, No. 24-6256
The Ninth Circuit affirmed both the verdict and the injunction on July 31, 2025. Google filed a petition for certiorari in October 2025, but the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss it, and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on March 9, 2026.16SCOTUSblog. Google LLC v. Epic Games, Inc.
The Pending Settlement
The dismissal at the Supreme Court reflected a settlement in the lower court. On November 4, 2025, Epic and Google filed a joint motion to modify the permanent injunction, announcing a comprehensive settlement to end the five-year dispute. Under the proposed terms, Google would cap Play Store fees at between 9% and 20% depending on transaction type and introduce a “Registered App Store” program, replacing the original catalog-mirroring remedy with a low-friction process for users to install competing app stores. The terms would extend through 2032.17U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Epic Games and Google Joint Motion to Modify Permanent Injunction
Google began implementing Play Store changes ahead of formal approval. By late October 2025, U.S. developers could use alternative in-app payment methods, share pricing for options outside the Play Store, and provide external download links.18Google. Changes Related to Epic Games v. Google A new fee structure announced in March 2026 includes a 5% billing fee plus a 15% service fee for new in-app purchases, with lower rates for subscriptions. As of mid-2026, the settlement remains subject to Judge Donato’s final approval.19Ars Technica. Google and Epic Look to Bury the Hatchet With New App Store Settlement
A companion case Epic filed against Samsung in September 2024 over Samsung’s “Auto Blocker” feature settled on July 7, 2025, after Samsung agreed to address Epic’s concerns. Terms were not disclosed.20Reuters. Epic Games Settles Lawsuit Against Samsung Over App Controls
Loot Box Class Action
Separate from the FTC actions, Epic faced class actions in the U.S. and Canada over randomized loot boxes in Fortnite’s “Save the World” mode and in Rocket League. Plaintiffs alleged the mechanics manipulated young players and amounted to unlicensed gambling.
A U.S. settlement received preliminary approval in February 2021 in the Superior Court of North Carolina, providing up to $26.5 million in cash and other benefits. Eligible players received automatic distributions of 1,000 V-Bucks for Fortnite or 1,000 credits for Rocket League, reaching an estimated 6.5 million Fortnite players and 2.9 million Rocket League players. Players who could show consumer fraud or breach of contract could claim cash refunds of up to $50.21The Verge. Epic Games Fortnite Loot Box Lawsuit Settlement A parallel Canadian settlement covering Quebec and British Columbia had an opt-out deadline of January 2023.22Slater Vecchio. Epic Games Settlement Epic had already removed randomized loot boxes from both games by late 2019.
Gaming Addiction Lawsuits
A newer wave of litigation targets Epic and other developers over allegations that Fortnite, Minecraft, and Roblox are designed to be addictive to minors. Plaintiffs claim the games use loot boxes, pay-to-win upgrades, cosmetic rewards, and extended play sessions to foster dependency, and bring product liability and failure-to-warn claims.23Classaction.org. Lawsuit Claims Minecraft, Fortnite Are Addictive to Minors
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rejected consolidation of these cases in June 2024, and denied a second, narrower request on December 10, 2025. More than 100 lawsuits have instead been coordinated in California state court under Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5363. Courts have allowed failure-to-warn claims to survive initial motions to dismiss. No settlements or trial dates have been announced as of mid-2026.24AboutLawsuits.com. Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft Gaming Addiction JPML Hearing
Other Pending Disputes
Fortnite’s use of real-world dances as purchasable emotes produced several copyright suits. Actor Alfonso Ribeiro’s 2019 claim over “The Carlton” and saxophonist Leo Pellegrino’s case were both dropped or dismissed after the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the underlying registrations. The picture shifted with choreographer Kyle Hanagami: after a district court dismissed his claim in 2022, the Ninth Circuit reversed in November 2023, holding that choreography can be protected as an arrangement of movements into a “coherent whole” beyond individual poses. Epic settled with Hanagami in February 2024 on undisclosed terms.25European IP Helpdesk. Epic Games Settles Fortnite Dance Copyright Dispute
Epic also drew a labor complaint tied to its sale of Bandcamp to Songtradr in September 2023. The sale coincided with the layoff of about half of Bandcamp’s staff, including 40 members of the Bandcamp United bargaining unit and all eight elected members of its bargaining committee. On October 31, 2023, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against both Songtradr and Epic. The union and Epic later reached a tentative severance agreement for the affected workers.26The Fader. Bandcamp United Files Unfair Labor Practice Violation Claim Against Songtradr and Epic Games