Dutch Group Seeks €100M From Epic Over Fortnite Purchases by Minors

A Dutch consumer group is pursuing €100 million in refunds and damages from Epic Games over allegations that Fortnite’s in-game store was designed to push young players toward real-money spending. The case also alleges that Epic collected children’s personal data without parental consent.

Stichting Massaschade & Consument, or SMC, has served Epic with a notice of liability and an offer to settle. If those talks do not resolve the dispute, the group says it will take the matter to court. That means the €100 million is a claim being sought, not an amount Epic has been ordered to pay in this new action.

The dispute is not a call to remove Fortnite from the Netherlands. SMC chair Lucia Melcherts has instead framed the case around repayment and accountability after a Dutch regulator’s previous findings against Epic were upheld by a court. The central question is whether the design and presentation of shop purchases unfairly influenced children and teenagers, and whether safeguards around minors’ data and spending met the required standard.

What the claim says

SMC alleges that Epic intentionally structured the Fortnite store to put pressure on young players to purchase cosmetic items and other shop content with real money. The filing cited by the group points to research involving 1,000 Dutch teenagers aged 16 to 19. In that research, six in 10 respondents who had bought virtual currencies including V-Bucks said those currencies did not feel like real money. Half said they regretted a purchase made under time pressure.

That distinction matters. V-Bucks are an in-game virtual currency used for purchases in Fortnite. A player first exchanges real money for virtual currency and then spends that balance in the game. Critics of such systems argue that adding a currency conversion can weaken the immediate connection between an item’s apparent in-game price and its real-world cost. The cited research does not itself decide the lawsuit, but it illustrates the consumer-behaviour concern underpinning SMC’s allegations.

The group’s claim also concerns the use of personal data belonging to children. It alleges collection without parental permission. No court outcome has yet been reported on those allegations, and Epic has disputed the broader criticism by pointing to controls it says are available to parents and younger players in the Netherlands.

“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 created purchasing pressure and argued that the cost should sit with the company rather than players or parents. Those are SMC’s contentions, which Epic may contest if the matter proceeds through the courts.

How earlier Dutch action fits into the new claim

The proposed mass claim arrives after earlier regulatory action in the Netherlands. In 2024, the Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets fined Epic $1.2 million for what it described as unfair commercial practices aimed at children. A Rotterdam court upheld that fine in January 2026.

That history is significant for context, but the regulator’s fine and SMC’s €100 million demand are different matters. A regulatory penalty addresses an authority’s enforcement action. SMC’s proposed case seeks refunds and damages for affected players. The earlier decision may help explain why the consumer group believes there is a basis for a repayment claim, but it does not by itself establish how much any individual could receive, who would qualify, or whether a court will award damages at all.

Epic has also faced scrutiny in the United States. In 2022, the company agreed to pay $520 million to settle two complaints from the Federal Trade Commission. Those complaints involved alleged children’s privacy-law breaches and alleged “dark patterns” that led to unintentional purchases by players. A settlement resolves claims without serving as the same thing as a final judicial ruling on every allegation, but it remains an important part of the wider record around purchase design and child protections.

What “dark patterns” means in this context

Dark patterns is a term used for interface or design choices that can steer users toward decisions they might not otherwise make, or make an action such as declining, cancelling, or understanding a purchase harder than it should be. In a game-store setting, the concern can include unclear spending flows, frictionless repeat purchases, or urgency signals that make a user feel they must buy immediately.

Whether a particular feature crosses a legal line depends on the facts, the local rules, the audience, and the protections in place. It is also important not to treat every rotating cosmetic catalogue or every virtual currency as inherently unlawful. The issue raised in this case is whether the complete purchase environment, particularly for minors, was unfair or misleading.

Epic points to Dutch-specific safeguards

Epic says Fortnite includes tools intended to let parents oversee purchases and play time. Its response highlights several measures it says apply in the Netherlands:

The Fortnite Item Shop does not use a timer.
Parents can require a PIN before a real-money purchase is made.
Players under 18 in the Netherlands cannot view or buy shop items that have been available for less than 48 hours.
Players under 16 who create a Dutch account receive a Cabined Account and cannot make real-money purchases unless a parent or guardian provides consent.
The company says it provides two-step purchase confirmation, immediate purchase cancellations, self-service returns for Shop purchases, and a choice about saving payment information.

These safeguards address several distinct risks. A purchase PIN can add a barrier before money is spent, particularly on a device shared in a household. Two-step confirmation refers to an added action before completing a transaction, intended to reduce accidental buying. Self-service returns and instant cancellation options can offer a route to reverse unwanted shop purchases. The stated option not to save payment information can reduce the ease of subsequent spending.

The restriction concerning items available for fewer than 48 hours is especially relevant to allegations about urgency. Limited-time availability can create what consumer advocates call pressure to act before an offer disappears. Epic’s stated Dutch rule means under-18 players cannot view or buy newly available shop items until they have been present for at least two days. Epic also says the Item Shop has no timer, another point directly relevant to SMC’s description of time pressure.

A Cabined Account, as described by Epic, is an account status for Dutch users under 16 that blocks real-money purchases until parental or guardian consent is supplied. That is a consent-and-access control, rather than simply a spending cap. Its practical value therefore depends on correct age information at account creation and on a parent or guardian completing the consent process.

Why the case matters beyond one game

Fortnite is the immediate focus, but the principles under debate apply more broadly to games that sell optional digital goods. Cosmetic stores are now a familiar part of many live-service titles. Players may reasonably enjoy buying an outfit, animation, or other non-gameplay item, while parents may value a game’s ability to support ongoing development without an upfront charge. The legal and consumer-protection question becomes sharper when the buyers are young, the money is translated into a virtual balance, or an offer appears fleeting.

For families, this case is a reminder to inspect the tools already attached to a child’s account rather than assuming the default settings will match household rules. A parent can consider requiring a purchase PIN, checking whether payment credentials are saved, discussing how virtual currency corresponds to real money, and reviewing any purchase or return records. Those steps do not determine the legal claims in the Netherlands, but they can make spending decisions more visible.

For developers and platform holders, the case reinforces the importance of explaining purchase flows plainly and designing protections that work before a transaction, not only after one. A refund tool can be useful, but it does not answer every concern raised by a minor being encouraged to spend in the first place. Equally, a parental control exists only if families know it is there, understand it, and can use it without unnecessary obstacles.

The dispute may also shape attention around regional product design. Epic’s response describes protections specifically for the Netherlands, including the 48-hour restriction for players under 18 and Cabined Accounts for under-16s. That suggests consumer rules and regulatory enforcement can influence how digital stores operate in a particular country, even when the underlying game is global.

SMC has made its settlement offer and says litigation will follow if negotiations fail. For now, there is no reported settlement or court judgment in this €100 million claim. What is clear is that the argument will turn on more than whether Fortnite offers cosmetics for sale: it will test whether its safeguards, data practices, and purchase presentation adequately protected younger users under Dutch consumer-protection expectations.

The conversation arrives as cosmetic presentation remains a major part of modern multiplayer games; elsewhere, Warzone’s planned skin filter shows how much attention players and publishers place on the visibility and role of in-game cosmetics. In the Dutch Epic dispute, however, the issue is not players’ taste in skins. It is the path by which minors are shown, encouraged to consider, and permitted to buy them.