Fortnite’s maker, Epic Games, has been sued over almost every kind of digital-era legal issue: antitrust challenges against Apple and Google over app store rules, a $520 million Federal Trade Commission enforcement action covering children’s privacy and deceptive billing, copyright claims from dancers and choreographers, and class actions treating loot boxes as gambling. So when people ask why Fortnite got sued, the honest answer is that there isn’t one lawsuit. There are several, they reached very different results, and some of the court-ordered fixes are still being implemented in 2026.
The Antitrust Fight With Apple
In August 2020, Epic added a direct payment option inside Fortnite that let players buy V-Bucks without going through Apple’s payment system. That deliberately broke Apple’s App Store rules, which required all in-app purchases to run through Apple’s processor at a 30 percent commission. Apple pulled Fortnite from the App Store the same day. Epic sued, arguing that Apple was running an illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution and in-app payments under the Sherman Act.1Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Epic lost the monopolization claim. The trial court defined the relevant market as mobile gaming transactions, a space where Apple had significant power but not enough to trigger Sherman Act liability. Apple’s core rules survived.
Epic still won a piece of the case. The judge found that Apple’s anti-steering rules, which banned developers from even telling users about cheaper payment options elsewhere, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The resulting injunction required Apple to let developers place buttons and links inside their apps pointing customers to outside payment methods.2United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. – 25-2935 The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed in April 2023, and the Supreme Court declined to hear Apple’s appeal in January 2024.3Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2935 The district court later held Apple in contempt for continuing to interfere with developer competition. Fortnite came back to the U.S. App Store in May 2025, five years after being removed.
The Antitrust Fight With Google
Epic sued Google over the same 30 percent commission on the Google Play Store, and this case went the other way. In December 2023, a jury found that Google had unlawfully monopolized both Android app distribution and in-app billing, and that its agreements with device makers and developers were unreasonable restraints of trade.4United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC – No. 24-6256 Evidence at trial showed Google had deleted internal chat messages potentially relevant to the case, and the court told jurors they could infer those messages would have been unfavorable to Google.
The district court then imposed a three-year injunction running from November 2024 through November 2027. Google has to let third-party app stores access the Play Store’s full catalog, allow competing stores to be distributed through Play, and permit developers to use alternative billing systems instead of Google Play Billing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the verdict and the injunction in full in July 2025.5Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 25-303
Why the split? Apple built iOS as a closed system from the beginning, and the court treated its restrictions as part of a coherent product design. Google marketed Android as open while using contracts and financial incentives to shut out competition in practice. That gap between branding and behavior made the monopolization case much easier for the jury to accept.
The $520 Million FTC Action
The FTC hit Epic with a combined $520 million in penalties and refunds across two related enforcement actions announced in December 2022. One covered how Fortnite collected data from children. The other covered design tricks that pushed players into purchases they never meant to make.6Federal Trade Commission. Fortnite Video Game Maker Epic Games to Pay More Than Half a Billion Dollars over FTC Allegations of Privacy Violations and Unwanted Charges
Children’s Privacy
The FTC charged Epic with violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from players under 13 without first getting parental consent. COPPA requires online services directed at children to notify parents and obtain verifiable consent before gathering data like names, email addresses, or account identifiers.7eCFR. 16 CFR Part 312 – Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule The complaint described Fortnite matching children with strangers in real-time gameplay while voice and text chat were enabled by default, broadcasting players’ account names publicly.8Federal Trade Commission. Complaint – United States of America v. Epic Games, Inc.
Epic paid a $275 million civil penalty, the largest ever imposed for an FTC rule violation. The settlement also forced Epic to adopt strong default privacy settings for young users, with voice and text communication turned off unless a parent or teen affirmatively enables them. Epic later rolled out “Cabined Accounts” for players under 13 or below their country’s age of digital consent, which disable voice chat, text chat, real-money purchases, personalized recommendations, and custom display names until a parent upgrades the account.9Epic Games. Parental Consent for Epic Accounts
Dark Patterns and Unwanted Charges
The second piece focused on what the FTC called “dark patterns”: a confusing button layout where a single accidental press could trigger a purchase with no confirmation screen, children buying items freely without parental approval, and players who disputed unauthorized credit card charges finding their entire Epic accounts locked.10Federal Trade Commission. FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite Maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges
This half of the settlement cost Epic $245 million, earmarked entirely for consumer refunds. The finalized order prohibits Epic from charging players through dark patterns, processing charges without affirmative consent, and locking accounts when customers dispute unauthorized transactions.10Federal Trade Commission. FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite Maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges The claim deadline was July 9, 2025, and the FTC expects to send additional refund payments in 2026 after reviewing the remaining claims.11Federal Trade Commission. Fortnite Refunds
Copyright Suits Over Dance Emotes
Several dancers and celebrities sued Epic for allegedly copying their signature moves and selling them as in-game emotes. Rapper 2 Milly sued over his “Milly Rock” appearing as the “Swipe It” emote. Actor Alfonso Ribeiro claimed Epic copied his “Carlton Dance” from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Other artists, including Snoop Dogg, appeared in similar filings.
These cases ran into a structural problem. Federal copyright law protects “choreographic works,” but the Copyright Office has historically refused to register short, simple dance routines.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S. Code 102 – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General The Copyright Office denied Ribeiro’s application to register the Carlton Dance, calling it a “simple routine” that didn’t meet the complexity threshold. Without a registration, a plaintiff can’t bring a federal infringement suit at all.13U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright in General
The picture shifted with the Ninth Circuit’s 2023 decision in Hanagami v. Epic Games. Choreographer Kyle Hanagami sued over the “It’s Complicated” emote, which he said copied part of his registered choreography. The district court dismissed the case because the copied portion was too short. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “short does not always equate to simple” and that even a brief excerpt can be qualitatively significant to the overall registered work.14United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc. – No. 22-55890 Hanagami didn’t decide when a routine is complex enough to qualify for copyright, but it rejected the idea that brevity alone disqualifies choreography.
Loot Box Gambling Claims
Fortnite’s “Save the World” mode originally used randomized loot boxes called Llamas. Players spent V-Bucks on these virtual piñatas without knowing what was inside, a mechanic that drew class action lawsuits arguing the system amounted to illegal gambling, especially when marketed to children.
Epic settled the class action, Zanca v. Epic Games, by awarding 1,000 V-Bucks (about $8 in in-game currency) to every player who had bought a loot box before the mechanic was discontinued. The settlement also included $26.4 million in additional cash and other benefits for Fortnite and Rocket League players. Individual claimants who filed consumer fraud claims could receive up to $50, and California minors who bought loot boxes without parental permission were also eligible for refunds. Before the case settled, Epic had already replaced standard Llamas in January 2019 with “X-Ray Llamas,” which show players exactly what’s inside before they buy.
Other Character and Item Lawsuits
Beyond the dance cases, Epic has faced a steady trickle of suits claiming that specific character skins, vehicles, or in-game items copy someone else’s protected work. These generally fall into two buckets: copyright infringement, where a creator argues a skin copies their original artistic expression, and trademark infringement, where a brand owner says Fortnite uses their marks in a way that creates consumer confusion. Most settle quietly or get dismissed before trial. They don’t produce the headlines the antitrust or FTC actions do, but they’re an ongoing part of the legal risk Epic carries by building a game around a rotating catalog of pop-culture-inspired cosmetics.