Call of Duty Addiction Lawsuit

Gaming addiction litigation follows the roadmap established by the social media adolescent addiction MDL in federal court, where hundreds of cases against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube have been consolidated.

Product liability theories originally developed for social media platforms are now being adapted to addictive gameplay mechanics, with plaintiffs arguing that games like Call of Duty employ the same psychological manipulation techniques that created liability exposure for social media companies.

The legal framework centers on proving that publishers intentionally designed features that cause behavioral addictions while concealing known risks from consumers.

Plaintiffs are advancing several legal theories in these cases:

• Product Liability (Design Defect): Games are allegedly defectively designed because their engagement mechanics create unreasonable risks of addiction not offset by benefits. Plaintiffs argue Activision could have designed less harmful alternatives
• Failure to Warn: Publishers allegedly knew about addiction risks from internal research and player data but failed to adequately warn users or parents about the dangers
• Negligence: Claims that publishers of Call of Duty games owed a duty of care to players, particularly minors, and breached that duty by optimizing for engagement over safety
• Consumer Protection Violations: State UDAP (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices) claims alleging misleading marketing that conceals addictive properties
• Claims Targeting Minors: Specific allegations that design choices intentionally exploit adolescent brain development vulnerabilities, with particular focus on matchmaking systems, reward timing, and social pressure mechanics

The legal hurdle remains Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has historically shielded tech platforms from liability for third-party content.

However, plaintiffs argue product liability claims for addictive design fall outside Section 230’s scope – a theory gaining traction as courts distinguish between content moderation decisions and fundamental product design choices.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in a Snapchat design case held that design defect claims treat companies as product manufacturers rather than content publishers, potentially opening the door for similar arguments against game publishers.

Scientific literature identifies specific game design patterns that trigger compulsive behavior in modern video games, and Call of Duty implements many of these systems.

Research on loot box mechanics demonstrates that these features share similarities with gambling, designed to encourage excessive gaming habits and create uncontrollable spending patterns.

Grasping these psychological tactics is central to both legal claims and scientific evidence, as plaintiffs argue Activision deliberately engineered psychological exploitation into gameplay systems rather than accidentally creating engaging entertainment.

Battle Pass Systems Create Artificial Time Pressure

The seasonal battle pass model (typically 100 tiers unlocked over 6-8 weeks for approximately $10-15) deliberately exploits several psychological principles.

Players who purchase must invest 50-100 hours per season to unlock all content, creating time-pressure that transforms leisure into obligation.

The battle pass model deliberately targets several psychological vulnerabilities:

• Sunk Cost Fallacy: Having paid for the pass, players feel compelled to justify the money spent through continued play even when enjoyment diminishes
• Loss Aversion: When seasons end, unpurchased tiers disappear permanently, weaponizing a cognitive bias where research shows losses feel twice as painful as equivalent gains feel pleasurable
• Time Pressure: Limited seasonal windows create artificial urgency that forces players into extended gaming sessions, prioritizing game progression over other activities including sleep, academics, or social relationships

Seasonal resets weaponize fear of missing out by ensuring incomplete content vanishes forever.

This transforms entertainment into obligation, with players reporting they continue playing not because they want to, but because they feel they must to justify their investment.

SBMM Allegedly Manipulates Emotional States Through Match Outcomes

Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM) controversy centers on allegations that Activision uses engagement-optimized matchmaking (EOMM) algorithms that prioritize player retention over fair competition, deliberately cycling players through win and loss patterns to optimize playtime.

Allegations center on the following manipulation techniques:

• Win/Loss Cycling: Algorithms allegedly place players in easier matches after losses to trigger dopamine responses, then harder matches after wins to create frustration during intense competitive gameplay that demands “just one more game” to restore positive feelings
• Frustration Engineering: Intentional creation of negative emotional states that players feel compelled to resolve through continued play rather than disengagement
• Dopamine Triggering: Strategic delivery of victories that create neurochemical rewards on unpredictable schedules, mimicking the variable-ratio reinforcement schedules found in slot machines that promote compulsive behavior

Variable ratio reinforcement (where rewards arrive after unpredictable attempts) represents one of the most powerful behavioral conditioning tools.

If you believe manipulative matchmaking systems contributed to your gaming addiction, you may have grounds for legal action.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to pursue a video game addiction lawsuit against Activision.

Daily and Weekly Systems Establish Compulsive Checking Behavior

Call of Duty employs appointment mechanics through daily challenges that reset every 24 hours and weekly objectives tied to battle pass progression, exploiting habit formation psychology that trains players to check in at intervals regardless of genuine desire to play.

The following appointment mechanics drive compulsive checking behavior:

• Daily Challenges: Reset every 24 hours to force regular logins, with rewards that expire if not claimed, creating anxiety about missing opportunities
• Weekly Objectives: Tied to battle pass advancement, requiring consistent engagement across seven-day periods that normalize daily play as expected behavior
• Prestige Resets: After reaching maximum level, players can reset progress for status-conferring prestige icons visible to others, leveraging social comparison drives to extend engagement indefinitely

Research demonstrates that engagement with these mechanics shows patterns consistent with problem gambling, with effect sizes indicating substantial behavioral impact.

These systems transform voluntary entertainment into scheduled obligations that punish absence rather than reward presence.

Limited-Time Content Weaponizes Fear of Missing Out

Rotating store bundles, limited-time game modes, seasonal exclusive cosmetics, and time-gated events create artificial scarcity designed to exploit fear of missing out rather than deliver genuine entertainment value.

Call of Duty deploys several FOMO-driven tactics:

• Rotating Bundles: Store items that disappear after 24-48 hours, creating pressure to purchase immediately without time for considered decision-making
• Limited Modes: Popular game modes removed on rotating schedules, forcing players to engage during specific windows or lose access entirely
• Seasonal Exclusives: Cosmetic items available only during specific seasons that never return, creating permanent loss anxiety
• Licensed Crossovers: External IP content like celebrity operators (Nicki Minaj, Snoop Dogg) or horror movie characters with unpredictable availability windows

The FTC has raised concerns about whether minors fully grasp loot box costs and their susceptibility to marketing tactics used across the video game industry.

FOMO drives excessive spending and playtime from anxiety about permanent loss rather than enjoyment, particularly targeting young players who lack developed impulse control.

The World Health Organization’s inclusion of Gaming Disorder in the ICD-11 effective January 2022 represents a pivotal development for litigation.

Plaintiffs now have internationally recognized diagnostic criteria establishing gaming addiction (whether from violent video games or other titles) as a legitimate medical condition rather than a moral failing.

This medical recognition transforms legal arguments from subjective claims about excessive play into objective medical diagnoses backed by the world’s leading health authority, providing expert testimony frameworks that strengthen product liability claims.

Diagnostic Criteria Establish Clear Medical Standards

The WHO’s ICD-11 classification code 6C51 provides specific diagnostic criteria that plaintiffs can use to establish harm.

These internationally recognized standards transform gaming addiction litigation from moral arguments into medical causation claims.

To meet the WHO’s diagnostic threshold, patients must exhibit:

• Impaired Control: Inability to regulate gaming frequency, intensity, duration, and context despite intention to stop or reduce play
• Increasing Priority: Gaming takes precedence over other life interests, daily activities, relationships, and responsibilities
• Continuation Despite Harm: Escalation of prolonged gameplay despite negative consequences to personal, family, social, educational, or occupational functioning
• Duration Requirement: Pattern persists for at least 12 months, though shorter periods qualify if symptoms are severe and all criteria are met
• Functional Impairment: Marked distress or substantial impairment in important areas of functioning

The DSM-5 lists Internet Gaming Disorder as a “condition for further study,” providing additional clinical support.

Research estimates 0.5-3% of those playing video games meet full criteria for problematic gaming, with higher rates among adolescents and heavy players who face the most aggressive engagement optimization.

Key peer-reviewed studies supporting addiction claims include King & Delfabbro’s 2018 work in the journal Addiction examining “predatory monetization schemes” and the addictive nature of loot boxes, and Drummond & Sauer’s 2018 Nature Human Behaviour paper concluding that loot boxes are “psychologically akin to gambling.”

Research by Przybylski, Weinstein & Murayama (2017) in the American Journal of Psychiatry provided large-scale epidemiological data on gaming disorder prevalence across 18,932 participants.

The WHO’s inclusion of gaming disorder in ICD-11 followed development of treatment programs for video game addicts worldwide, increasing attention from health professionals to prevention and treatment measures.

Call of Duty generates substantial revenue through engagement-dependent monetization, creating powerful corporate incentives to extend playtime regardless of player welfare.

Microsoft’s gaming segment financial reports show Call of Duty as a flagship property contributing billions annually.

This business model depends on maximizing playtime through psychological manipulation, as longer engagement directly correlates with increased microtransaction revenue from battle passes, cosmetic bundles, and limited-time offers that exploit compulsive behavior patterns.

Monetization Structures Create Addiction Incentives

The Call of Duty franchise has historically generated over $30 billion in lifetime revenue, with recent annual revenues exceeding $2 billion.

Following industry trends, in-game purchases have become increasingly important to the revenue mix, shifting from premium game sales to continuous monetization of existing players.

Warzone, the free-to-play online gaming title launched in 2020, attracted over 100 million players within its first year, with monetization entirely dependent on microtransactions.

This free-to-play model intensifies addiction risk because the company’s revenue depends entirely on keeping players engaged long enough to make impulse purchases rather than making a single upfront transaction.

The financial model reveals why addictive design persists: battle pass purchases require extensive playtime to feel worthwhile, driving engagement metrics that justify continued investment.

Store bundles rotating on artificial timers create urgency for in-game spending.

The entire system depends on maximizing “time on device” – a metric directly correlated with addiction risk that places corporate profits ahead of player wellbeing.

Market Position Increases Liability Exposure

Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, completed in 2023, positions it among the major gaming companies and underscores the franchise’s financial importance.

Microsoft’s gaming segment now reports combined revenue making it one of the largest video game companies globally, with Call of Duty as a flagship property generating substantial ongoing returns.

This market dominance increases liability exposure for several reasons.

First, the acquisition price reflects expectations of continued player engagement through the same mechanics now facing legal scrutiny.

Second, Microsoft’s resources eliminate any defense based on inability to afford safer design alternatives that would protect young gamers.

Third, the scale of harm (from psychological addiction to physical conditions like gamer’s thumb) multiplies with millions of active players, many of whom are minors particularly vulnerable to addictive design.

If your gaming addiction experience has caused measurable harm to your health, relationships, or finances, you may qualify to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you can file a gaming addiction lawsuit against one of the world’s most valuable technology companies.

While comprehensive federal regulation remains absent, various regulatory actions signal increasing scrutiny of addictive game design.

The FTC’s 2019 loot box workshop examined consumer protection issues and brought together industry representatives, consumer advocates, and government officials.

A patchwork of federal, state, and international regulatory actions signals that game publishers face growing governmental pressure to address addictive design practices, creating momentum that strengthens litigation prospects as regulators validate harm claims previously dismissed as moral panic.

Consumer Protection Actions Signal Federal and State Scrutiny

Federal activity includes the FTC Loot Box Workshop in August 2019, which examined randomized in-game rewards and produced industry commitments to odds disclosure.

Senator Josh Hawley’s “Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act” introduced in 2019 targeted pay-to-win mechanics and loot boxes for minors.

While the bill did not pass, it signaled Congressional interest in gaming industry regulation.

At the state level, regulatory activity has varied:

• California: Consumer protection statutes (CLRA) provide robust plaintiff-friendly frameworks for challenging deceptive business practices
• Multiple States: Have considered loot box disclosure or restriction legislation, though most bills have not passed into law
• State Attorney General Involvement: Several state AGs have participated in gaming industry inquiries examining monetization practices

The ESRB’s self-regulatory response (adding “In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)” labels) has been criticized as insufficient, potentially strengthening arguments that Activision and other video game developers have failed to protect consumers through self-regulation, particularly minors vulnerable to addictive design.

International Precedents Create Regulatory Momentum

International jurisdictions have moved more aggressively than the United States, creating precedents that influence domestic litigation and regulatory thinking about gaming addiction and predatory monetization.

Several international jurisdictions have taken regulatory action:

• Belgium: Declared certain loot boxes illegal gambling in 2018, forcing game modifications and removal of features from major titles
• Netherlands: Gaming Authority ruled some loot boxes violate gambling laws, resulting in enforcement actions against publishers
• United Kingdom: House of Lords recommended treating loot boxes as gambling in 2020, stating products that look and feel like gambling should be regulated as such
• China: Mandates probability disclosure for randomized rewards and limits minors to three hours of weekly gaming to address addiction concerns

These international actions demonstrate that foreign governments recognize gaming addiction as a legitimate policy concern requiring intervention, providing validation for U.S. litigation claims that similar harms warrant legal remedies when publishers refuse voluntary reforms.

Those considering legal action should grasp the emerging eligibility framework drawn from existing video game and social media addiction cases.

The Quebec Fortnite class action authorization demonstrates courts find sufficient allegations about addiction risks to allow cases to proceed.

Evidence requirements focus on establishing harm suffered and causal connection to game mechanics, with damages potentially recoverable including mental health treatment costs, therapy expenses, lost wages, and in certain jurisdictions, punitive damages.

Requirements Focus on Harm and Causation

Potential claimants must demonstrate both harm suffered and connection to Call of Duty’s design mechanics.

The emerging framework drawn from social media and video game litigation establishes categories of eligible plaintiffs and evidence that strengthens claims.

Potential claimants fall into the following categories:

• Players who developed gaming disorder or related mental health conditions directly linked to Call of Duty gameplay
• Parents filing on behalf of minor children who suffered developmental harm, declining academic performance, or psychological harm
• Young adults who began playing as minors and experienced lasting effects into adulthood
• Purchasers who can demonstrate consumer fraud through deceptive marketing even without addiction diagnosis

If you or your child has experienced harm from Call of Duty addiction, you may have legal options available.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to file a lawsuit for video game addiction against Activision.

Documentation and Evidence Strengthen Legal Claims

Strong claims require documentation connecting gaming behavior to measurable harm.

The quality and breadth of evidence directly impacts potential recovery and likelihood of favorable settlement or verdict.

The following types of evidence can strengthen a claim:

• Gaming Disorder Diagnosis: Formal diagnosis from mental health professionals using WHO ICD-11 or DSM-5 criteria provides medical legitimacy
• Play History Data: Platform data requests can document extensive time players spend playing video games, demonstrating compulsive behavior patterns
• Purchase Records: Financial records and in-game transaction history showing meaningful spending that correlates with addictive engagement mechanics
• Third-Party Documentation: Academic records such as individualized education plan modifications, employment evaluations, or relationship counseling notes documenting functional impairment
• Medical Records: Treatment records connecting symptoms like anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, or computer vision syndrome to gaming behavior

The legal process includes procedural considerations such as Activision’s Terms of Service arbitration clauses with class action waivers, though these may be challengeable for minors who cannot legally contract or under state laws limiting such provisions.

Statute of limitations varies by state, typically 2-4 years for personal injury claims, but tolls for minors until reaching majority age.

Repetitive strain injuries and other severe harm from gaming require extensive treatment.

The Epic Games Fortnite litigation provides the closest precedent for Call of Duty claims.

A 2019 Canadian class action against Epic Games alleged Fortnite was “designed to be as addictive as possible,” employing psychological techniques targeting minors.

This video game addiction case advanced through initial procedural hurdles, establishing that such claims can survive early dismissal and demonstrating courts find sufficient allegations about addiction risks to warrant full litigation.

The Social Media Adolescent Addiction MDL demonstrates how gaming litigation may scale.

Consolidating hundreds of cases against major platforms, the MDL addresses nearly identical allegations – intentional design of addictive features, targeting minors, failure to warn, concealment of known harms.

Rulings in this MDL will likely inform gaming addiction case strategy and outcomes.

Video game addiction litigation parallels tobacco litigation: both involved industries with internal knowledge of harm, marketing targeting vulnerable populations, and product liability frameworks applied to addictive products.

Our Video Game Addiction attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Video Game Addiction lawsuit.

With extensive experience in product liability cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with litigation leaders and mental health professionals to prove how video games with deliberately addictive features caused you harm.

TruLaw and our legal team focus on securing compensation for mental health treatment expenses, academic and career setbacks, family relationship damages, and other losses resulting from your video game addiction injuries.

We understand the psychological and social toll that Video Game Addiction issues have on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet the Lead Video Game Addiction Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Video Game Addiction attorney:

• Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her experience in product liability and personal injury to her client-centered approach by prioritizing open communication and personalized attention with her clients. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring a Video Game Addiction lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis – with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced addiction, depression, sleep disorders, social isolation, or other mental health problems from excessive video game use, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Video Game Addiction lawsuit today.

Video game addiction lawsuits targeting titles from Call of Duty to Grand Theft Auto are being filed by individuals and families across the country who suffered mental health injuries and addiction from video games designed with manipulative features.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the video game addiction lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your video game addiction lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The video game addiction lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling consumer protection cases similar to the video game addiction lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one suffered from video game addiction or related mental health problems, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the video game addiction lawsuit today.