Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS—S.D. Ga.: Lawsuit against video game companies with shotgun pleading dismissed, (Sep 12, 2025)
Law Firms Mentioned:Bowen Painter, LLC | King & Spalding, LLP
Organizations Mentioned:Activision Blizzard, Inc.
By Brian Craig, J.D.
The video game player claims he is addicted to various “products.”
In a lawsuit filed by a video game player alleging various products liability claims caused by addiction to video games against a dozen companies in the video game industry, a federal district court in Georgia dismissed all claims because the complaint utilizes “shotgun pleading.” The court dismissed the complaint against defendants Google LLC, which maintains the Google Play app store, and Roblox Corporation (Roblox), an online gaming platform, because the complaint failed to give the video game companies adequate notice. The court found that each claim was based on development and distribution of “products”— an amorphous term that would seemingly denote any video game, video-game console, video-game network, or video-game platform. The court, however, granted permission for the video game player to file an amended complaint (Sayers v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-00078-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga. Sept. 4, 2025)).
A consumer of video games filed suit in the federal district court in Georgia against various companies in the video game industry. The video game player named 12 different companies in the original complaint, but he amended the complaint limiting the claims to seven companies.
The amended complaint asserts claims for various torts arising from the design, marketing, and distribution of various video games. The complaint asserts various product liability claims, including strict liability for defective design and failure to warn, along with negligent design.
The video game player claims he is addicted to various “products,” including the games Minecraft, Call of Duty, Roblox, and Grand Theft Auto V. In addition, the video game player alleges that the devices, mechanisms, and systems through which those products are used, accessed, and played have caused him harm, including Xbox 360, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S consoles along with their integrated and companion online or digital products, Xbox Live, Xbox Game Pass, Xbox Network, and Xbox Store, and Google Play.
The court stayed the action to compel arbitration for the following video game companies: Activision Blizzard, Inc., Treyarch Corporation; Activision Publishing, Inc.; Infinity Ward, Inc.; and Sledgehammer Games, Inc. Defendants Google, which maintains the Google Play app store, and Roblox, which maintains an online gaming platform, moved to dismiss the complaint. Google and Roblox argued that the complaint is a shotgun pleading.
Shotgun pleading. The court held that the complaint is a shotgun pleading. Each claim is based on that comprehensive group’s development and distribution of “products”— an amorphous term that would seemingly denote any video game, video-game console, video-game network, or video-game platform. Each of the eleven counts are asserted against all twelve defendants, some of which have since been dismissed. Each count also arises from that broad group’s “products,” broadly defined as the video gaming products used by the video game player, including, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Roblox, and Grand Theft Auto V. As a result, because each of the defendants presumably played a different role in each of the causes of action, it is unclear which facts and allegations apply to which defendants for any given count. Because the complaint fails to give proper notice to the defendant video game companies, the court granted the motion to dismiss.
Immunity defenses. The court declined to dismiss the complaint based on the immunity defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment asserted by the video game companies. The court could not determine whether Section 230 or the First Amendment bars the claims until the video game player has clearly set out those claims in a second amended complaint.
Leave to amend. The court granted leave for the video game player to file a second amended complaint and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The court limited the amended complaint to 80 pages, excluding any attachments. The court observed that the 216-page amended complaint is too long, and its length only adds to its confusion.
The case is No. 4:24-cv-00078-RSB-CLR.
Judge: Baker, S.
Attorneys: Paul W. Painter, III (Bowen Painter, LLC) for Andrew Sayers. Geoffrey M. Drake (King & Spalding, LLP) for Activision Blizzard, Inc.
Companies: Activision Blizzard, Inc.
MainStory: TopStory CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews ElectronicProductsNews GeorgiaNews