EA Games Lawsuit for Video Game Addiction

The specific EA game titles named in addiction-related litigation share common features that plaintiffs argue create addictive gameplay loops particularly harmful to younger audiences.

EA generated $1.62 billion in revenue from Ultimate Team modes alone in fiscal year 2021, with Ultimate Team responsible for 29 percent of the company’s total revenue during that financial year – a figure that underscores the monetization stakes driving these design decisions.

FIFA Series and Ultimate Team Mode

FIFA’s Ultimate Team mode stands at the center of online gaming addiction allegations against EA, representing the company’s most lucrative implementation of loot box mechanics.

FIFA Ultimate Team allows players to build custom teams and compete against others, but new team members of various rarity and ability are unlocked through blind box-style packs that function similarly to gambling.

Several FIFA Ultimate Team mechanics are central to the addiction claims:

• Heavy reliance on purchasing player packs with randomized rewards, encouraging repeated spending in pursuit of high-rated players needed for competitive play
• In-game currency systems (FIFA Points) that obscure real-money costs, making it easier for players to lose track of actual spending amounts
• Time-limited promotions including Team of the Week events and seasonal content that create urgency reinforcing compulsive purchasing patterns

FIFA Ultimate Team revenue grew from $587 million in fiscal year 2015 to $1.62 billion by fiscal year 2021, demonstrating exponential growth in this monetization model.

Player packs offer randomized cards with varying rarity levels, and drop rates for valuable items remain extremely low, creating persistent incentive for repeated purchases.

Madden NFL and NHL Series

Madden NFL’s Ultimate Team mode mirrors FIFA’s model, using randomized player packs as the primary progression mechanism for building competitive rosters.

The lawsuit names popular titles including the NFL and FIFA franchises alongside other EA games, recognizing the consistent pattern of monetization across EA’s sports portfolio.

The Madden NFL and NHL series employ monetization features that mirror FIFA’s model:

• Madden NFL’s Ultimate Team using randomized player packs that mirror FIFA’s loot box model, requiring continuous investment to build competitive teams
• NHL games employing similar loot box systems that demand ongoing spending to remain competitive against other players
• Both titles releasing roster updates and new content that drives continued engagement and additional spending throughout each season

The Canadian class action specifically names Madden NFL 10 through Madden NFL 22 and multiple NHL series titles among the games covered.

Ultimate Team revenue combines earnings from all EA sports games including Madden NFL and NHL, contributing to the company’s substantial loot box income stream.

Apex Legends and Other EA Titles

Apex Legends and EA’s broader portfolio extend loot box mechanics beyond sports games into action titles, violent video games, simulation, and mobile gaming categories.

Popular EA games featuring loot boxes span numerous genres, reaching diverse player demographics with similar monetization strategies.

Beyond sports titles, additional EA games have been implicated in the litigation:

• Apex Legends, a free-to-play battle royale game using “Apex Packs” (loot boxes) offering randomized cosmetic items purchased with real money
• The Sims series and NBA Live incorporating microtransaction systems named in broader litigation against EA
• EA’s mobile games extending these monetization practices to smartphones, increasing accessibility for younger users

The full list of EA titles named in litigation includes over 60 games: FIFA series (09-22), Madden NFL (10-22), NHL series, NBA Live, The Sims, Apex Legends, Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare 2, Star Wars games, Mass Effect series, Battlefield series, and Need for Speed titles, with separate litigation targeting games like Grand Theft Auto.

Apex Legends attracts young gamers, raising concerns about exposure to gambling-like mechanics among minors.

Individuals harmed by any of these EA titles may have grounds for legal claims – TruLaw can provide an instant case evaluation to assess eligibility.

If you or your child has suffered harm from playing any EA title featuring loot boxes or addictive mechanics, TruLaw can help you explore your legal options.

Use the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to file a gaming addiction lawsuit today.

The psychological strategies that lawsuits allege EA employs to create addictive gaming experiences exploit behavioral vulnerabilities (particularly in developing minds) to encourage prolonged play sessions and increased spending.

Modern video games draw from decades of behavioral psychology research, applying techniques that target the dopamine system, which is also targeted by drugs of abuse and becomes most active when there is maximum uncertainty about rewards.

Plaintiffs contend these psychological tactics transform entertainment products into mechanisms of manipulation.

Variable Reward Systems and Dopamine Triggers

Variable reward schedules form the neurological foundation of EA’s allegedly addictive game mechanics.

Research demonstrates these reward patterns create powerful dopamine responses similar to slot machine mechanics, keeping players engaged far longer than fixed reward systems would achieve.

EA games allegedly incorporate several dopamine-triggering mechanisms:

• Variable reward schedules where players receive unpredictable rewards, creating powerful dopamine responses that reinforce continued play and purchasing behavior
• Uncertainty of outcomes that keeps players engaged longer than predictable reward systems, exploiting neurological responses to randomness
• Rare loot box rewards that trigger larger arousal and reward responses, generating greater urge to open additional loot boxes
• Variable ratio reinforcement schedules (the same mechanisms used in slot machines) deliberately implemented to optimize player retention

Research from the University of British Columbia Centre for Gambling Research found that loot box expenditure is positively correlated with problem gambling severity.

Studies demonstrate that gaming industry documents reveal intentional use of behavioral psychology to increase player engagement, with these reward patterns proving particularly effective at creating addictive behaviors and psychological dependence.

Progression Systems and Engagement Loops

Tiered progression systems and carefully designed engagement loops work alongside variable rewards to create habit-forming gameplay patterns.

Research indicates certain video games with loot boxes operate with gambling-like mechanics where the award of prizes based on variable reinforcement schedules may increase chasing behavior and persistence despite losses.

Plaintiffs point to specific engagement loop mechanics embedded in EA titles:

• Tiered progression systems requiring increasing time or money investments to advance, creating escalating commitment patterns
• Daily login rewards and streak bonuses that create compulsive gaming habits becoming increasingly difficult to break over time
• Competitive games feature ranking systems driving players to invest more time maintaining or improving their status against other players
• Achievement unlocks and milestone celebrations providing intermittent reinforcement that sustains long-term engagement

Studies show continuous availability, in-game promotions, auditory and visual cues, and electronic micro-transactions make expenditure difficult to track.

Video game industry terminology includes “variable ratio reinforcement schedules,” “intermittent reinforcement,” and “engagement loops” – terms specifically describing design elements intended to optimize player retention and spending through psychological manipulation.

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Tactics

Time-limited content and artificial urgency tactics compound the addictive potential of EA’s game designs by exploiting players’ fear of permanent loss.

Research on FOMO in gaming contexts demonstrates how limited-time events, exclusive items, and seasonal content create artificial urgency pressuring players to participate immediately or lose access forever.

EA games leverage fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) tactics through several design features:

• Limited-time events, exclusive items, and seasonal content creating artificial urgency that pressures players to participate immediately
• Time-gated content forcing players to return repeatedly within specific windows or lose access permanently to desired items
• Social pressure from multiplayer environments amplifying FOMO as players feel compelled to keep pace with peers and competitors

FIFA Ultimate Team features Team of the Week promotions and seasonal events with strictly limited availability windows.

Apex Legends uses battle passes and limited-time cosmetic events following similar patterns.

Psychological research demonstrates FOMO exploitation through the “cliffhanger effect” where unresolved uncertainty compels continued engagement, and “loss aversion” where consumers pay extra to avoid losing what they almost obtained – both mechanisms plaintiffs argue EA deliberately exploits.

When these deliberately designed mechanics cause harm to players or their families, TruLaw can help affected individuals explore their legal options.

Loot boxes operate through randomized purchase systems that plaintiffs and regulators worldwide have compared to gambling.

These mechanics require players to spend real money (or premium currency purchased with real money) for a chance at receiving valuable virtual items, with odds heavily stacked against obtaining desired rewards.

Belgium made world news in 2018 for becoming the first country to ban loot boxes in games after the Gaming Commission determined these mechanisms meet the criteria of a game of chance, setting a precedent that continues to influence litigation strategies.

Loot Box Mechanics Explained

Loot boxes function as purchasable containers offering randomized virtual items ranging from cosmetic upgrades to competitive advantages within games.

A loot box is a consumable, in-game item that offers players randomized chances to win virtual items or skills that may be necessary for player advancement, creating pressure to purchase repeatedly.

Loot boxes function through a specific set of purchase mechanics:

• Purchasable containers offering randomized virtual items ranging from cosmetic upgrades to competitive advantages that affect gameplay outcomes
• Real money or premium in-game currency (purchased with real money) spent without players knowing what they will receive in return
• Drop rates for valuable items that are often extremely low, encouraging repeated purchases to obtain desired rewards
• EA’s Ultimate Team Packs following this model precisely, offering random player cards that determine team strength and competitive viability

Video game players purchase virtual currency such as FIFA Points or Madden Points with real money, then use that currency to buy packs.

These virtual currency systems obscure real-money costs, making actual spending harder to track.

Loot boxes contain items of varying rarity with low drop rates for high-value items, creating persistent incentive for repeated in game transactions as players chase elusive rewards.

Legal Arguments Comparing Loot Boxes to Gambling

The gambling allegations in lawsuits against EA center on the structural similarities between loot boxes and traditional gambling mechanisms.

Class action plaintiffs allege that video game companies like EA and Epic Games selling loot boxes are engaging in unlicensed illegal gaming operations that exploit consumers without proper regulation or consumer protections.

Plaintiffs have advanced several legal arguments equating loot boxes to gambling:

• Loot boxes meeting legal definitions of gambling where players pay for a chance to win valuable items with odds stacked against them
• Class action plaintiffs claiming EA operates an “unlicensed, illegal gaming system” through loot box mechanics that function identically to regulated gambling
• The randomized nature of rewards combined with real-money stakes mirroring slot machine operations in casinos
• Allegations that EA fails to disclose odds of obtaining high-value items, fostering uninformed spending among players

British Columbia lawsuit plaintiffs argue loot boxes are “no different than slot machines” because players pay money for a chance at randomized rewards.

California slot machine law definitions compare variable-ratio reinforcement schedules in loot boxes to gambling device mechanics, providing legal frameworks for these claims.

International Regulatory Actions Against Loot Boxes

Global regulatory responses to loot boxes have strengthened plaintiffs’ arguments that these mechanics constitute gambling requiring oversight.

Belgium’s Gaming Commission determined that loot box mechanics constitute gambling under existing law, leading to enforcement actions against gaming companies including EA.

Regulators around the world have taken action against loot box mechanics:

• Belgium determining loot boxes violate gambling laws and banning their sale, with Netherlands reaching similar conclusions through independent regulatory review
• British Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommending banning loot box sales to children based on gambling concerns
• Multiple countries including Japan, South Korea, and Australia implementing or actively considering restrictions on these mechanics

Belgium’s Gaming Commission declared loot boxes gambling violations in 2018, ordering removal or face criminal offenses and fines up to €800,000.

The Netherlands Gaming Authority found certain loot boxes violated gambling laws, fining EA €5 million.

Belgian Minister of Justice Koen Geens stated that “mixing games of chance and video games, especially for children, is dangerous for mental health.”

EA stopped selling FIFA Ultimate Team packs in Belgium in January 2019 in response to regulatory pressure.

If you or a family member has been harmed by EA’s loot box systems, TruLaw can help you determine whether you qualify for pending litigation.

Contact us using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and see if you qualify to pursue a video game addiction claim today.

The documented mental and physical health consequences associated with excessive gaming and addiction provide the foundation for damages claims in litigation against EA.

Research findings demonstrate how prolonged exposure to addictive game mechanics affects players, particularly children and adolescents whose developing brains are more vulnerable to these impacts.

Gaming disorder is defined in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as a pattern of gaming behavior characterized by impaired control over gaming, establishing formal medical recognition of the condition plaintiffs allege EA’s games cause.

Mental Health Impacts

The mental health consequences of gaming addiction documented in research form a substantial portion of damages claims against EA.

Studies consistently link excessive gaming to psychological deterioration, with mental health effects ranging from mood disorders to severe psychiatric symptoms emerging in longitudinal research.

Research has documented a range of psychological effects linked to gaming addiction:

• Gaming addiction correlating with increased rates of anxiety and depression, particularly when games serve as escape mechanisms from real-life stressors
• Mental health struggles including social isolation commonly develop as gaming displaces face-to-face relationships and family interactions over time
• Gaming disorder linking to impaired emotional regulation, cognitive development issues, and attention problems affecting daily functioning
• Research published in JAMA Psychiatry finding that when video game addiction develops in childhood, it is associated with increased risk of psychosis symptoms in adulthood

A McGill University study of 1,226 participants found that trajectories of higher video gaming during adolescence were associated with higher levels of psychotic experiences at age 23, including paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, and bizarre ideas.

The World Health Organization’s gaming disorder definition requires behavior patterns persisting for at least 12 months, characterized by impaired control, increasing priority given to gaming, and continuation despite negative consequences.

Physical Health Consequences

Physical health issues from excessive gaming extend beyond psychological harm to encompass measurable bodily deterioration.

WHO documentation notes health concerns associated with gaming behavior include insufficient physical activity, unhealthy diet, problems with eyesight or hearing, musculoskeletal problems, and sleep deprivation (caused by late night gaming sessions).

Excessive gaming has been associated with measurable physical health effects:

• Sedentary gaming behavior contributing to obesity risks, cardiovascular concerns, and metabolic disorders from prolonged inactivity
• Extended screen time causing eye strain, headaches, and vision problems that may require medical intervention
• Repetitive strain and other physical injuries affecting hands and wrists from prolonged controller or keyboard use during gaming sessions
• Sleep deprivation from prolonged gaming sessions disrupting circadian rhythms and impairing daily functioning

Studies link gaming disorder with aggressive behavior and depression, compounding physical health risks with psychological deterioration.

Excessive gamers average 24 or more hours of gameplay per week, substantially higher than typical players, creating sustained exposure to these health risks over extended periods.

Impact on Children and Adolescents

Children and adolescents face heightened vulnerability to gaming addiction due to ongoing brain development affecting impulse control and decision-making.

Research indicates children with ADHD exhibit more addictive behaviors with respect to video games, demonstrating how pre-existing conditions can amplify susceptibility to EA’s allegedly manipulative game designs.

Children and adolescents face distinct risks from gaming addiction:

• Gaming disorder manifesting in children as young as 10, with approximately 4% of youth in grades 4-8 showing addiction signs
• Adolescents with conditions like ADHD facing heightened vulnerability to gaming addiction due to impulse control differences
• Academic performance declining as gaming consumes time previously devoted to homework, studying, and extracurricular activities
• Developmental impacts including delayed social skill acquisition and difficulty forming peer relationships outside gaming contexts

Research indicates gaming disorder prevalence of 6.6% in children and adolescents, nearly double that of young adults.

Approximately 8.5% of American youth aged 8-18 playing video games show signs of addiction.

A Montreal study found ADHD children showed addiction scores of 1.1025 versus 0.6802 in control groups, with impulsivity most strongly correlated to video game addiction, suggesting these children are particularly vulnerable to EA’s game mechanics.

If your child has experienced documented harm from EA’s game designs, TruLaw can help your family assess legal options for seeking compensation.

Use the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others filing a video game addiction lawsuit today.

Parents and caregivers seeking to identify problematic gaming behaviors in children and teenagers can look for specific behavioral, emotional, and social indicators suggesting gaming disorder.

The World Health Organization and clinical diagnostic frameworks including the DSM-5 have established criteria for identifying when gaming crosses from entertainment into addiction.

Internet Gaming Disorder is identified in Section III of DSM-5 as a condition warranting more clinical research, with five of nine specified criteria needing to be met within one year for diagnosis.

Behavioral Warning Signs

Observable behavioral indicators of gaming addiction provide parents with concrete signs to monitor in children who play EA titles.

For gaming disorder to be diagnosed, the behavior pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other areas of functioning, distinguishing problematic gaming from normal recreational play.

Parents should monitor for these behavioral warning signs based on DSM-5 and WHO criteria:

• Preoccupation with gaming – constantly thinking about previous gaming sessions or anticipating the next opportunity to play, even during unrelated activities like school or family time
• Loss of control over gaming time, including failed attempts to reduce play despite setting limits or making promises to family members to cut back
• Prioritizing gaming over previously enjoyed activities, responsibilities, and basic needs like eating, sleeping, and personal hygiene
• Needing to spend increasing amounts of time gaming to achieve the same level of satisfaction, indicating tolerance development

The DSM-5 identifies nine criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder: preoccupation, withdrawal, tolerance, unsuccessful attempts to control, loss of interest in other activities, continued use despite problems, deception about gaming, using gaming to escape, and jeopardizing relationships or opportunities.

Five or more criteria must be met over 12 months for clinical diagnosis.

The WHO Gaming Disorder definition centers on three core criteria: impaired control, increasing priority given to gaming, and continuation despite negative consequences.

Recognizing patterns versus normal gaming requires attention to duration, intensity, and impact on daily functioning rather than gaming time alone.

Emotional and Social Red Flags

Emotional and social indicators of gaming addiction often accompany behavioral changes, providing additional warning signs for concerned parents.

Clinical descriptions identify withdrawal symptoms when not playing internet games, and note that affected individuals use internet games to relieve anxiety or guilt as a way to escape from problems or negative emotions.

Emotional and social indicators often accompany behavioral changes in gaming addiction:

• Withdrawal symptoms when gaming is unavailable – irritability, restlessness, anxiety, or sadness when unable to play or when gaming time is restricted
• Using gaming as an escape from negative moods, problems, or feelings of helplessness and guilt rather than addressing underlying issues
• Deception about gaming – lying to family members about time spent playing or actively hiding gaming activity from parents and caregivers
• Jeopardizing or losing relationships, educational opportunities, or family connections due to gaming participation

The DSM-5 identifies withdrawal as “unpleasant symptoms when Internet game play ceases,” including irritability and anxiety that subside when gaming resumes.

Psychological research on gaming as a coping mechanism shows those with ADHD and internalizing problems use gaming to escape from daily frustrations, with gaming serving as a maladaptive coping strategy to compensate for unmet psychosocial needs.

Children may become increasingly secretive about gaming habits, minimize reported play time, or become defensive when questioned about their gaming behavior.

Parents should consider professional evaluation when multiple warning signs persist over several months, particularly when gaming interferes with academic performance, family relationships, or physical health.

Early intervention may prevent children from becoming video game addicts and limit long-term harm from continued exposure to EA’s allegedly manipulative game mechanics.

If your child shows signs of gaming addiction after playing EA titles, TruLaw can help you determine whether you may be eligible to seek compensation for the resulting harm.

Contact us using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and see if you qualify to join others filing a video game addiction lawsuit today.

The legal theories underpinning lawsuits against EA for gaming addiction draw from established frameworks in product liability, negligence, consumer protection, and fraud law.

Plaintiffs construct their cases by arguing EA’s deliberate design choices created defective products that caused foreseeable harm to users.

The California Judicial Council established JCCP No. 5363 on May 7, 2025, consolidating over 100 video game lawsuits against major gaming companies including EA, demonstrating the scale of litigation now proceeding through the courts.

Product Liability and Negligence Claims

Product liability legal theory applied to video games treats EA’s titles as products that can be defectively designed, just as physical products can contain dangerous defects.

Lawsuits allege video game manufacturers intentionally designed products with addictive features that specifically target and harm children and teenagers, forming the basis for design defect claims.

The product liability and negligence theories in these lawsuits rest on several key elements:

• Product liability claims arguing EA’s games are defectively designed products that cause foreseeable harm to users through deliberately addictive mechanics
• Negligence allegations centering on EA’s duty to design reasonably safe products and failure to warn consumers about addiction risks
• Plaintiffs contending EA knew or should have known their design choices would cause addiction, particularly in minors with developing impulse control
• Claims asserting EA prioritized profits over consumer safety by deliberately incorporating addictive mechanics despite knowledge of potential harm

Courts are allowing video game addiction claims to proceed under theories of defective design, failure to warn, and negligence.

Precedents for design defect claims include tobacco and opioid litigation strategies now being applied to gaming companies including EA and Take Two Interactive Software, where developers allegedly knew their products caused harm but continued marketing them to optimize profits.

The duty to warn arguments emphasize that EA failed to disclose the addictive nature of game mechanics or the psychological manipulation tactics embedded in their designs.

Consumer Protection and Fraud Allegations

Consumer protection violations alleged against EA focus on deceptive practices that misled consumers about the nature and risks of in-game purchases.

Lawsuits accuse EA of designing loot boxes to obscure the low odds of obtaining valuable items, encouraging repeated purchases through deliberate obfuscation.

Plaintiffs have raised several fraud and consumer protection claims against EA:

• Consumer protection claims alleging deceptive practices, including hiding loot box odds and obscuring real-money costs through virtual currency systems
• Fraud allegations focusing on misrepresentations about the nature of in-game purchases and their addictive potential to consumers
• California consumer protection laws and similar state statutes providing frameworks for claims against EA’s business practices
• Class action certification allowing affected consumers to pursue claims collectively rather than bearing individual litigation costs

British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Competition Act, and Infants Act are cited in Canadian cases against EA.

California consumer protection laws are invoked in U.S. litigation.

Alleged deceptive practices include virtual currency systems that obscure real-money costs, failure to disclose loot box odds, and targeting minors with gambling-like mechanics without appropriate warnings or age restrictions.

Current Status of EA Litigation

The current state of EA addiction lawsuits reflects growing momentum as cases advance through certification and consolidation phases.

More than 100 video game addiction lawsuits against major video game developers are now coordinated before a single judge in Los Angeles, streamlining proceedings and establishing unified legal frameworks.

Key litigation milestones and EA’s responses to date are as follows:

• British Columbia Supreme Court certifying a class action against EA in December 2024, allowing the lawsuit to proceed toward trial
• Multiple individual and class action lawsuits continuing in U.S. courts, including California actions filed in 2025
• EA denying allegations alongside other video game developers, with executives calling claims “wholly misconceived” and asserting loot box purchases are voluntary choices

EA stated it was “pleased that the trial court rejected, as a matter of law, the allegations of unlawful gaming” and maintains “nothing in our games constitutes gambling.”

However, the certification of class actions and consolidation of cases indicates courts are finding sufficient merit in plaintiffs’ arguments to allow litigation to proceed through discovery and toward potential trials.

If you believe you or a family member has been harmed by EA’s allegedly addictive games, TruLaw stays current on litigation developments and can help you determine how legal rulings may affect your potential claims.

Contact us using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and see if you qualify to file a video game addiction lawsuit today.

Pursuing legal action against EA for gaming addiction-related damages requires documenting the harm experienced and taking steps toward legal recourse.

Individuals who have experienced harm from EA Games’ allegedly addictive gaming practices may be eligible to file a video game addiction lawsuit seeking compensation for psychological, financial, and physical damages.

Families affected by these practices can take concrete steps to assess their eligibility and begin the process of seeking accountability for the harm EA’s game designs have caused.

Types of Compensable Damages

The categories of damages in video game addiction cases encompass both economic losses that can be calculated precisely and non-economic harm that reflects the broader impact on quality of life.

Typical damages considered in these cases include psychological and emotional damages, financial compensation for in-game purchases, and educational or employment losses stemming from addiction.

Plaintiffs may seek compensation across several categories of damages:

• Psychological damages including treatment costs for anxiety, depression, social isolation, and gaming disorder therapy requiring ongoing professional intervention
• Financial losses from excessive in-game spending on loot boxes and microtransactions, potentially totaling thousands of dollars over extended play periods
• Educational and developmental harm, including academic decline, missed opportunities, and costs of remedial support needed to address learning gaps
• Medical expenses for physical health consequences including computer vision syndrome, repetitive strain injuries, and sleep disorder treatment

Examples of harm documented in pending lawsuits describe children exhibiting brain damage and delayed development, depression, rage and aggression, and compulsive gaming behaviors preventing participation in other activities.

Additional recoverable damages may include therapy costs for family counseling, diminished earning capacity resulting from educational setbacks, emotional distress experienced by both the addicted individual and family members, and loss of quality of life.

Punitive damages may also be available in cases where plaintiffs can demonstrate EA acted with willful disregard for consumer safety, potentially increasing total recovery amounts.

Documenting these damages requires gathering comprehensive evidence including medical records, therapy notes, academic transcripts showing performance changes, and financial records of in-game purchases.

Family members can provide testimony documenting behavioral changes observed over time, strengthening claims for non-economic damages.

How to Determine Lawsuit Eligibility

Assessing eligibility for legal action against EA begins with evaluating whether documented harm resulted from playing the company’s games.

To qualify for a video game addiction lawsuit, individuals typically need to be aged 24 or younger with documented gaming of 2 or more hours daily for extended periods, plus evidence of addiction-related harm connecting gaming to specific damages.

Determining lawsuit eligibility involves evaluating the following factors and taking these documentation steps:

• Evaluating whether you or your child experienced documented harm (mental health impacts, financial losses, or physical health effects) directly from playing EA games
• Gathering evidence including gaming records, spending history, medical documentation, and academic records showing decline corresponding to gaming periods
• Obtaining formal gaming disorder diagnosis from qualified mental health professionals who can document the connection between EA games and resulting harm
• Collecting testimony from family members who witnessed behavioral changes and can describe the progression of addiction symptoms

Time limitations apply to legal claims, making prompt consultation with qualified attorneys valuable for preserving rights before statutes of limitations expire.

Documentation recommendations for gaming addiction cases include medical records, therapy notes, formal gaming disorder diagnosis, academic records showing decline, screenshots of spending history, and testimony from family members documenting behavioral changes over time.

The strength of individual claims depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of documentation connecting EA’s games to specific, measurable harm.

Early consultation allows families to begin preserving evidence while memories remain fresh and records remain accessible.

TruLaw gives immediate answers to individuals about their eligibility for video game addiction litigation based on the details they share – contact TruLaw for an instant case evaluation.

If you or a loved one has suffered financial losses, mental health harm, or developmental problems from EA’s allegedly addictive games, TruLaw can help you determine whether you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact us using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and see if you qualify to join others filing a video game addiction lawsuit today.

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 focuses 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 are being filed by individuals and families across the country who suffered mental health injuries and addiction from addictive 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.