Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, is tied up in four distinct legal fights that have reshaped how mobile app stores operate and put hundreds of millions of dollars back into players’ pockets. The major Epic Games lawsuits include a $520 million Federal Trade Commission settlement over deceptive billing and children’s privacy, a long-running antitrust case against Apple that ended in a contempt finding, a sweeping antitrust win against Google that forced open the Play Store, and a growing set of individual suits claiming Fortnite is designed to addict children.
The FTC Case and What Epic Is Paying
In December 2022, the FTC announced two separate actions against Epic that together totaled $520 million, a record in both the deceptive-practices and children’s privacy categories.
The first action, settled for $245 million, targeted Fortnite’s purchase interface. The FTC alleged that a single button press could trigger a real-money charge, that players could accidentally buy items while waking the game from sleep, sitting through a loading screen, or previewing a cosmetic, and that the game saved credit card information by default with no verification step like a CVV code. Epic received more than one million complaints about unwanted charges. Players who disputed charges through their credit card companies had their accounts locked, losing access to items they had already bought, and Epic threatened lifetime bans for future disputes.1FTC. FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite Maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million2Loeb & Loeb. Fortnite Video Game Maker Settles FTC Privacy, Deception Claims for Record $520 Million
Under the consent order, which runs for 20 years, Epic cannot charge players without informed affirmative consent, cannot use interfaces designed to undermine decision-making, and cannot lock accounts to retaliate for payment disputes.3FTC. Epic Games Amended Consent Order, File No. 192 3203
The second action, filed by the Department of Justice in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleged that Epic collected names, emails, and usernames from children under 13 without notifying parents or getting consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The FTC also faulted Fortnite for enabling real-time voice and text chat by default for all players, including children, exposing minors to bullying and harassment.4FTC. Fortnite Video Game Maker Epic Games to Pay More Than Half a Billion Dollars Over FTC Allegations
Epic paid a $275 million civil penalty, the largest ever for violating an FTC rule. Voice and text chat must now stay off by default for children and teens, and Epic must delete personal information collected in violation of COPPA unless it obtains parental consent or the user passes a neutral age gate confirming they are 13 or older. Independent privacy audits are required every two years for 20 years, and Epic’s CEO must personally certify compliance to the FTC each year.5FTC. Epic Games, Inc., U.S. v., Case No. 22230876CoSN. Epic Penalties for Epic Privacy Violations
Where the Fortnite Refunds Stand
The $245 million refund fund has gone out in two rounds. In December 2024, the FTC sent 629,344 payments totaling more than $72 million, averaging roughly $114 each.7FTC. FTC Sends Refund Payments to Consumers Impacted by Epic Games Unlawful Billing Practices A second round in late June 2025 sent 969,173 payments worth more than $126 million by check and PayPal on June 25 and 26.8FTC. FTC Sends $126 Million in Refunds to Fortnite Players Who Were Charged for Unwanted Items, Reopens Claims
The FTC reopened the claims window for the second round, but that window closed on July 9, 2025. The agency is now reviewing the remaining claims filed before that cutoff, with additional payments expected in 2026. The refund program is administered by Rust Consulting, Inc., at 1-833-915-0880.9FTC. Fortnite Refunds106abc. FTC Sends More Than $126M to Fortnite Gamers Charged for Unwanted Purchases
The Apple App Store Fight
Epic sued Apple in August 2020 after deliberately bypassing Apple’s in-app payment system in Fortnite, which prompted Apple to pull the game from the App Store. Following a 2021 trial, the district court sided with Apple on most antitrust claims but found that Apple’s “anti-steering” rules — which barred developers from telling users about cheaper purchasing options elsewhere — violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court ordered Apple to let developers include links to external payment methods, and the Supreme Court declined to hear either side’s appeal in early 2024.
The Contempt Ruling
Epic argued that Apple was gutting the injunction by imposing a 27 percent fee on purchases made through external links and by using warning screens to scare users away from leaving the App Store.11NBC News. US Judge Rules Apple Violated Order to Reform App Store
On April 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an 80-page ruling finding that Apple had “willfully violated” the injunction. She held Apple in civil contempt, permanently barred it from forcing developers to use its in-app purchase system, prohibited interface or policy roadblocks aimed at deterring external payments, and barred commissions on purchases made through external links. She also referred Apple and its Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation, calling Roman’s testimony “replete with misdirection and outright lies,” while emphasizing she took “no view on whether a criminal case should be opened.” As of mid-2026, there is no public indication that prosecutors have acted on the referral.12BBC. US Judge Refers Apple for Criminal Contempt Investigation
Appeal and the Commission Question
In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the ruling. It affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the blanket ban on commissions, holding that Apple may charge a “reasonable commission” tied to its costs of facilitating external-link transactions. The case was remanded to the district court to set that figure. In April 2026, the Ninth Circuit lifted a stay on the remand proceedings.13Cleverbridge. Apple vs Epic: A Legal Turning Point
Apple filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court on May 4, 2026 asking to pause the contempt order. Two days later, Justice Elena Kagan denied it without referring it to the full court. Apple has said it still intends to seek full Supreme Court review, but the contempt order stands for now.14SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt
Fortnite returned to the U.S. App Store on May 20, 2025, its first appearance there since 2020. Amazon and Spotify also began using in-app links to external purchase options after the ruling.15CNBC. Apple Fortnite App Store Epic Games By May 2026, Fortnite was back on the App Store worldwide with one exception: Australia, where a separate court found Apple’s developer terms unlawful but Apple continues to enforce them pending further proceedings.16Epic Games. Fortnite Is Back on the App Store Around the World
The Google Play Store Case
Epic’s parallel suit against Google went further than the Apple case. In December 2023, a jury unanimously found that Google had illegally monopolized the markets for Android app distribution and in-app billing worldwide (excluding China), violating federal and California antitrust laws.17Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 24-6256
In October 2024, U.S. District Judge James Donato issued a three-year permanent injunction. It stopped Google from paying companies to favor the Play Store, forced Google to allow rival app stores to distribute through Google Play and access its catalog, and barred Google from requiring developers to use Google Play Billing. A three-person Technical Committee was set up to oversee implementation.
On July 31, 2025, a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed both the verdict and the injunction. Google briefly won an emergency administrative pause on August 1, but on September 12, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the changes would move forward. Compliance measures began on October 29, 2025, and as of December 9, 2025, U.S. developers are no longer required to use Google Play Billing, can offer alternative in-app payment methods, and can link users to external download and transaction options without restriction.18Google Play Developer Support. Updates to Google Play Policies Regarding Epic Games Injunction
The Settlement
On November 4, 2025, Epic and Google filed a joint motion to modify the injunction, reflecting a broader settlement that extends the remedies through 2032. Under the modified terms, Google must simplify the installation process for third-party app stores that meet neutral safety criteria and must accept maximum commission rates of either 9 or 20 percent depending on the type of transaction, a sharp drop from Google’s prior 30 percent standard rate. Google is also barred from sharing Play Store revenue with potential competing app stores, from requiring apps to launch first or exclusively on Google Play, and from paying phone manufacturers or carriers to make Google Play the sole preinstalled store.19CBS17. Epic Games v. Google Joint Motion to Modify Permanent Injunction
In March 2026, the two sides announced a further settlement agreement and asked the court to enter a revised modified injunction. Fortnite returned to the Google Play Store worldwide on March 19, 2026.20Tech Insider. Epic Google Play Store Changes 2026
The Fortnite Addiction Lawsuits
Beyond the platform fights, Epic faces a growing set of individual suits alleging Fortnite is designed to addict children, causing mental health harm and compulsive spending. Plaintiffs have twice asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these cases, and the panel has denied the request both times, most recently on December 10, 2025. The panel found consolidation would be “unwieldy” because the litigation covers different games from different companies, plaintiffs did not allege the defendants acted together, and the cases raise individualized questions about causation. Thirty-nine cases were pending across eleven federal districts at the time of the second ruling.21JPML. In Re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3168
Individual suits continue to be filed in 2026 in Alabama, New York, and other states. In several instances, federal courts have granted Epic’s motions to send addiction cases to mandatory arbitration based on Fortnite’s terms of service.22About Lawsuits. Judges Reject Second Attempt to Centralize Video Game Addiction Lawsuits A separate class action in Quebec, Canada, authorized in December 2022, alleges that Epic designed Fortnite to be addictive and that its in-game currency exploits minors. The opt-out deadline passed on November 12, 2025, and the case is heading toward a hearing on the merits. No liability determination has been made.23Proactio. Class Action: Video Games