Dutch Consumer Group Seeks EUR100 Million From Epic Over Fortnite Purchases by Minors

A Dutch consumer organization is seeking EUR100 million from Epic Games over allegations connected to spending by minors in Fortnite. The action argues that the game's in-game store was intentionally designed in a way that pushed young players toward purchases made with real money, and it also raises concerns about the collection of children's personal data without parental consent.

Stichting Massaschade & Consument, known as SMC, has served Epic with a notice of liability and proposed a settlement. If those discussions do not lead to an agreement, the group says it intends to take the matter to court. Its requested total covers refunds and damages for affected players, placing the dispute among the more significant consumer claims tied to game monetization in Europe.

The case does not seek to remove Fortnite from the market. Instead, SMC's position is that players and families should be compensated if the company's commercial practices breached rules designed to protect children. Epic disputes the characterization of its systems and says the game provides parents with controls, spending protections, and account restrictions for younger users.

The core allegation: pressure to buy

At the center of the proposed claim is the way Fortnite presents and sells digital goods. Cosmetics and other items in the game are purchased using V-Bucks, a virtual currency acquired with real money. Consumer advocates have long argued that converting cash into an in-game currency can make the cost of a purchase feel less immediate, particularly for younger players.

For useful background on this topic, read Resident Evil's New Movie Shows Why Game Adaptations Don't Need to Retell the Games.

SMC cites research involving 1,000 Dutch teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19. In that research, six in 10 respondents who bought currencies such as V-Bucks reportedly said the purchases did not feel like spending real money. Half said they had regretted making a purchase while under time pressure.

Those findings are central to the group's argument that the design of virtual shops can influence consumer decisions beyond a straightforward choice to buy an item. The issue is not merely whether a player can complete a purchase, but whether the route to that purchase is presented in a manner that creates urgency, obscures the real-world cost, or exploits the limited experience of younger consumers.

SMC chair Lucia Melcherts said the organization is not calling for a ban on Fortnite. Her argument is that Dutch authorities have already determined that Epic's practices broke applicable rules and that a court has confirmed that decision. In her view, repayment to players is the appropriate next step rather than placing responsibility on children or their parents.

"We aren't asking for Fortnite to be banned. But a Dutch regulator found that Epic broke the rules, and a court has confirmed it. The logical next step is for Epic to pay players back," Melcherts said.

Melcherts further alleged that Epic deliberately designed the game to apply pressure to players considering purchases. She said young consumers are meant to receive legal protection from such practices and argued that the financial consequences should fall on the company rather than on individual players and families.

A dispute shaped by earlier Dutch enforcement

The EUR100 million claim arrives after a series of regulatory disputes involving Epic's monetization and protections for children. In 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets, or ACM, imposed a EUR1.2 million fine on Epic for what it described as unfair commercial practices aimed at children.

That decision was upheld by a Rotterdam court in January 2026. The earlier fine and the court ruling provide important context for SMC's approach, because the consumer group is building its compensation argument around conduct that Dutch authorities have already examined.

Regulatory findings and a consumer damages claim are not the same thing. A fine punishes a company for a violation identified by a regulator, while a mass claim can seek money for consumers who allegedly experienced losses or harm. SMC is therefore pursuing a different remedy: refunds and damages for players affected by the practices at issue.

The amount sought, EUR100 million, does not mean Epic has been ordered to pay that sum. At this stage, SMC has issued a notice of liability and made an offer to settle. Court proceedings would follow only if negotiations fail, and the allegations would still need to be tested through the legal process.

Epic highlights account and purchase controls

Epic has defended its approach by emphasizing the parental and account-level safeguards available in Fortnite. The company says parents can control how their children make purchases and can set limits on play time.

It also challenged the idea that the Item Shop uses a timer. Epic said the Fortnite Item Shop does not have a timer, while outlining specific protections applied to younger users in the Netherlands. The company said players under 18 there cannot view or purchase shop items that have been available for fewer than 48 hours.

For players under 16 in the Netherlands, Epic said account creation results in a Cabined Account. Such accounts cannot make real-money purchases unless a parent or guardian gives consent. That restriction is intended to put a clear approval step between a child's account and a transaction involving real funds.

Epic also pointed to several broader measures intended to prevent accidental or unwanted transactions:

• A PIN requirement can be enabled for real-money purchases.
• Purchases use a two-step confirmation process.
• Players can cancel purchases immediately.
• Self-service returns are available for Item Shop purchases.
• Players make an explicit choice about whether payment information is saved.

These protections are likely to be a major part of any defense if the dispute reaches court. The legal question may not be limited to whether safeguards existed, but could also involve how visible, accessible, and effective they were for children and their parents, as well as whether they addressed the consumer concerns identified by Dutch authorities.

Fortnite joins a wider debate over children and microtransactions

The Dutch action is far from Epic's first high-profile dispute involving children's privacy or in-game purchases. In 2022, the company agreed to pay $520 million to resolve two complaints brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission. Those complaints included allegations involving children's privacy law violations and so-called dark patterns that allegedly led millions of players into unintended purchases.

Dark patterns is a term frequently used in consumer protection discussions to describe interface choices that can steer people into decisions they may not otherwise make. In games, the debate can involve confirmation screens, currency bundles, rotating store inventories, prompts to save payment details, and the presentation of limited-time offers. Developers may characterize these systems as normal store features, while regulators and advocates can question whether they are sufficiently transparent, especially for minors.

The case also illustrates why virtual currency remains a sensitive subject. A player who spends V-Bucks may not experience the decision in the same way as someone entering a cash or card amount at the moment of purchase. That does not by itself establish misconduct, but it is a recurring concern when the audience includes teenagers and younger children.

Fortnite is a particularly consequential game in this discussion because of its vast audience and the central role cosmetics play in its business model. Skins and other digital items do not generally alter competitive performance, but they are closely connected to identity, social expression, events, and the game's constantly changing culture. For younger players, the desire to own a popular item can be shaped by peers as much as by the shop interface itself.

What happens next

The immediate next step is the settlement process initiated by SMC's notice of liability. Epic could reach an agreement with the group, dispute the claim in negotiations, or face litigation if no settlement is achieved. No outcome has been determined, and the EUR100 million figure remains the amount sought by the consumer organization rather than an awarded judgment.

Whatever follows, the dispute will keep attention on how games present real-money spending to minors. Epic's stated protections will be weighed against allegations that store design and virtual currency encouraged purchases young players later regretted. For parents, players, publishers, and regulators, the case is another reminder that child safety in games extends beyond chat tools and play-time limits to include the clarity and fairness of every step in a purchase flow.