Update

Judge confirms fine for Epic Games, creator of Fortnite: what does this mean for the gaming industry?

On 14 January 2026, the Rotterdam District Court ruled that the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) was right to impose a fine of €1,125,000 on Epic Games, the maker of the popular game Fortnite. In addition, the regulator was also allowed to issue a binding instruction to the company. This ruling marks an important moment for game developers, platforms and other entrepreneurs involved in online sales methods, particularly if young people or children are part of their target group.

What exactly happened?

Fortnite, particularly the free-to-play mode ‘Battle Royale’, offers players the opportunity to purchase cosmetic items. These include outfits, dances, or ‘wraps’ that players can use to personalise their avatars. These purchases are made with V-Bucks, the game’s digital currency, which must be purchased with real money.

According to the ACM, Epic used various techniques in Fortnite’s Item Shop that violate consumer legislation. The crux of the matter? The way in which children were enticed to make purchases.

The ACM identified three significant violations:

  1. Misleading timers on items that wrongly suggested time pressure.
  2. Directly encouraging purchases through eye-catching buttons and suggestive texts.
  3. Creating artificial scarcity in a fluctuating supply, forcing children to make opaque choices under pressure.

Relevance of ruling for gaming industry

The ruling emphasises that providers of digital products, especially those aimed at a young audience, must take extra care when designing their sales environment. Marketing techniques that are normally accepted in adult online retail can quickly be considered misleading or manipulative by children.

The court substantiated its ruling with references to scientific literature and research by UNICEF. Children are particularly sensitive to scarcity and time pressure, which strongly influences their purchasing behaviour. This is evident, for example, from the use of texts such as ‘Get it now’ and ‘Grab it’, or buttons that stand out because of their colour and position on the screen. It is therefore not just about what is being sold, but above all how it is being sold.

In addition to the fine, Epic received a binding instruction from the ACM, requiring it to implement specific behavioural changes. Some of these measures are:

  • The timer that presented items under time pressure has been removed.
  • Colour frames and rarity labels have been removed from the Item Shop worldwide.
  • Each item now explicitly states how long it will remain available.
  • Players under the age of 18 in the Netherlands will only see items that remain in the shop for at least 48 hours.

These measures are not only corrective, but also set a precedent for what the regulator considers to be ‘fair trading practices’ in the digital environment.

Practical examples

The Epic case is not unique. Outside the gaming industry, time pressure and scarcity are also frequently used as sales tools. Think of e-commerce platforms that display texts such as ‘Only 2 left in stock!’ or ‘Offer expires in 1 hour!’ Although such techniques are often permitted for adults, stricter standards apply to children. Even suggestive design elements, such as the colour of a purchase button, can lead to legal risks.

What can you learn from this as an entrepreneur?

For entrepreneurs who focus on digital products, platforms or games (especially those aimed at a young audience), this ruling sends a clear message: commercial creativity is allowed, but within the limits of what is considered professional and fair. Transparency is crucial, especially when it comes to vulnerable target groups such as children.

Ask yourself:

  • Is the information about availability and price clear and honest?
  • Worden gebruikers onder tijdsdruk gezet zonder echte noodzaak?
  • Are there elements in the user interface that disproportionately encourage purchasing?

Als het antwoord op een van deze vragen “ja” is, is het raadzaam de werkwijze onder de loep te nemen.

The ruling against Epic Games makes it clear that unfair commercial practices in the digital world do not go unpunished, even when they originate from global market leaders. Transparency, fairness and professional diligence are more than just legal requirements: they form the basis for sustainable customer relationships, especially in a market where young users play an important role.

Do you have questions about how your platform or product range relates to the rules on fair trading practices? Please feel free to contact Julia van Leeuwen.

Read more updates
The use of photographs, images of artists and famous faces in marketing campaigns may sometimes seem harmless. Yet a single image on a product’s packaging can lead to claims running into millions for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unauthorised use of image rights. This is evident from the recent lawsuit brought by the famous singer Dua Lipa against Samsung.
gezicht
It sounds like science fiction, but it’s reality. TikTok star Khaby Lame recently struck a $975 million deal with a Hong Kong investment firm. The reason? They want to use his face. Not just for traditional adverts, but also to create an AI version of him. Welcome to the era in which your likeness has become a commodity.
In corporate law, the inquiry procedure is an important tool for shareholders and other stakeholders to have the policy and conduct of a company reviewed. A key question in the second phase of this procedure is whether there has been mismanagement. On 13 March 2026, the Supreme Court clarified once again that this is not an automatic conclusion, even in the case of serious shortcomings in the decision-making process. This is a significant development for companies and shareholders. This blog explains what this ruling means in practice and how the Enterprise Chamber (OK) deals with remedial measures and the required interest in cases of mismanagement.