Dutch Consumer Group SMC Sues Epic Games Over Fortnite Pressure Tactics

Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, is facing a new legal challenge in the Netherlands over how its battle royale game encourages young people to spend money on in-game items and virtual currency. On 24 September 2026, the Dutch consumer group Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SMC) filed a class action lawsuit against Epic Games, seeking more than 100 million euros in refunds and damages on behalf of Dutch players who spent money in Fortnite before they turned 21. The foundation also wants compensation for children whose personal data, it says, was collected without parental consent.

The case centres on Fortnite's Item Shop, V-Bucks and the design choices that SMC says pressure young players into buying. SMC argues that countdown timers and other in-game prompts create a false sense of urgency, making children and teenagers believe an offer is about to disappear when it is often still available days later. The foundation served Epic Games with a formal notice of liability on 23 September 2026 and offered to negotiate a collective settlement. If those talks fail or do not happen, SMC says it will take the matter to court.

Epic Games has pushed back forcefully. A company spokesperson, Phil Mahoney, said the Fortnite Item Shop does not have a timer, and that players under 18 in the Netherlands cannot see or buy items that are available for less than 48 hours. He also said that accounts for under-16 players are Cabined Accounts, which cannot make real-money purchases until a parent or guardian consents. Epic says parents can require a PIN, and the company offers two-factor confirmation for purchases, immediate cancellations, self-service returns and an explicit choice to save payment details.

The dispute is not happening in a vacuum. In 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) fined Epic Games 1,125,000 euros for unfair commercial practices linked to the Item Shop. A Rotterdam court upheld that fine in January 2026, and Epic later waived further appeal, making the ACM decision final.

Key Facts

GamesIndustry.biz reported on September 24 that SMC filed the Dutch class action against Epic Games, seeking over 100 million euros for players who spent money in Fortnite before age 21. The claim also covers compensation for collecting children's personal data without parental consent. SMC cited research among more than 1,000 Dutch teenagers aged 16 to 19. According to that research, six in 10 buyers of currencies such as V-Bucks said it did not feel like real money, and half said they had regretted a purchase made under time pressure.

NL Times reported on September 24 that the Massaschade & Consument Foundation has launched a mass claim against Epic Games for misleading young people. The plaintiffs point to countdown clocks shown during gameplay that create the impression the chance to buy something is about to expire, yet days later the offer is still there. The foundation wants Epic to refund money people spent under that pressure while they were under 21 years old, plus damages. Combined, the claim would amount to more than 100 million euros.

DualShockers reported on September 24 that SMC's case also targets marketing practices related to Fortnite, including official LEGO sets, which the group says were designed to mislead younger players. The group seeks over 100 million euros in combined refunds and damages, plus additional compensation for underage players whose personal data it claims Epic harvested without parental consent. SMC formally served Epic Games with a notice of liability and an offer to settle. If negotiations fall through, SMC will move the matter to a formal court.

Stichting Massaschade & Consument stated on September 23 that SMC held Epic Games liable on behalf of Dutch children and young adults and invited Epic to a conversation about a collective solution. The page lists three demands: stop tricks that make players buy as much as possible and refund Fortnite purchases; stop addictive game elements that keep players playing as long as possible and compensate players for that damage; and compensate players for privacy violations. Participants pay nothing if the claim loses and may receive compensation if it wins.

The ACM fined Epic 1,125,000 euros in 2024, made up of two separate fines of 562,500 euros. One was for phrases such as 'get it now' and 'buy now', and the other was for countdown timers that falsely suggested items would become unavailable. The Rotterdam District Court upheld the fines on 14 January 2026. According to the foundation's timeline, Epic appealed but lost, with the court finding that Fortnite's ads directly pushed children to buy and that the Item Shop used artificial time pressure. Epic then waived further appeal, and the ACM decision became final. In the United States, Epic previously settled related claims for 275 million dollars, and US parents sued Epic on 5 March 2025 over the same expiring Item Shop timers and fake discounts.

Analysis

What this really means is that the Dutch case is less about one game and more about whether European consumer law can force platform owners to redesign monetisation systems built around urgency, virtual currency and young audiences. SMC is not asking for Fortnite to be banned. Its chair, Lucia Melcherts, said the group wants more accountability and transparency from Epic. She argued that Epic deliberately designed the game to pressure players into buying, and that the bill belongs with the company that made the game, not with the players or their parents.

Epic's defence is equally significant. The company says the Item Shop has no timer, that under-18 players in the Netherlands cannot see or buy items available for less than 48 hours, and that under-16 accounts are Cabined Accounts that cannot make real-money purchases without parental consent. If those controls work as described, Epic will argue that any spending by minors happened with parental involvement or through safeguards that SMC has not properly considered. The ACM decision, however, already established that certain Item Shop practices were unfair and aggressive. That final regulatory finding makes it harder for Epic to dismiss the case as a misunderstanding of how the shop works.

The bigger picture here is that this lawsuit could become a template for other European consumer groups. SMC has a track record of collective actions, having previously brought cases against Airbnb, TikTok, Google, Sony, Snapchat, ABN Amro and Klarna. Its claim against Sony, filed in 2025, says at least 1.7 million Dutch PlayStation owners overpaid for digital games. The Airbnb claim was dismissed by the court of appeal, which ruled that the foundation had to sue in Ireland, and the ABN Amro case saw the foundation declared inadmissible. The age 21 threshold in the Fortnite claim is also unusual. Dutch law and European consumer protection rules often focus on minors under 18, but SMC is reaching young adults who were under 21 when they spent money. That expands the potential class and the financial exposure, and raises questions about causation and evidence. SMC will need to show not merely that young people regretted purchases, but that Epic's design caused the spending. The Rotterdam District Court, which already upheld the ACM fines, could be the venue if settlement talks fail.

Why It Matters

This case matters because it tests the limits of how far game companies can go when designing digital storefronts for young players. Fortnite is one of the most popular games in the world, and its Item Shop and V-Bucks are central to its business model. If SMC succeeds, or even if the case forces a settlement, other publishers may face pressure to change countdown timers, limited-time offers and other mechanics that regulators consider manipulative. The Dutch ACM has already shown it is willing to fine Epic over phrases such as 'get it now' and 'buy now'. A consumer claim seeking more than 100 million euros raises the financial stakes far beyond a single regulatory penalty.

The lawsuit also highlights the growing intersection of consumer protection, data privacy and child safety. SMC alleges that Epic did not check age or parental consent and left voice and chat functions on by default for children and teenagers, exposing them to bullying, threats and harassment by strangers. The foundation's campaign page states that skipping a day of Fortnite means missing something because the game is designed to keep players playing and spending. For parents and players, the outcome could shape what safeguards become standard in Europe, where Epic says it already offers parental controls, PIN requirements and purchase confirmations, while SMC says those tools are not enough.

Next Up

The immediate next step is the settlement conversation that SMC offered when it held Epic liable on 23 September 2026. If Epic engages and the two sides reach a collective solution, the case could end without a trial. If talks fail or do not happen, SMC says it will proceed to court, likely before the Rotterdam District Court. Epic has not signalled a willingness to settle, and its public statement focuses on the safeguards it already provides. SMC, meanwhile, has made clear that it is not seeking to ban Fortnite and that it wants accountability and transparency instead. Further ahead, the case will be watched alongside SMC's other collective actions, including its claim against Sony over digital game prices and its ongoing appeals involving Airbnb and ABN Amro.