Antonetti v. Activision Blizzard: Video Game Addiction Complaint

By David Meldofsky, California-licensed attorney · Founder, Lawsuit Informer

Last updated: October 4, 2026

This page hosts a primary court document: the complaint in Antonetti v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., a federal video game addiction case that emphasizes alleged harm to the developing brain. Below is a plain-English summary, the causes of action, the key allegations transcribed, and the original PDF. It is part of our coverage of Video Game Addiction Lawsuits.

Case status:

Filed May 8, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:24-cv-02019-TWT), amid the same wave of federal video game addiction cases. The JPML declined to create a nationwide MDL in June 2024 (MDL No. 3109), and individual cases proceed in their home districts.

About this document:

This page reproduces and summarizes a civil complaint. A complaint is the filing that begins a lawsuit, and every statement in it is an unproven allegation made by the plaintiff. The defendants deny these allegations or have not yet responded in court, and nothing on this page is a finding that any company named did anything wrong. A complaint reflects only one side's account.

Case details

If heavy gaming came before a diagnosis for you or your child, you can request a free case review. Pick what fits:

Free review. Submitting does not create an attorney-client relationship.

On This Page

Plain-English Summary

This complaint was brought by Michael Antonetti against Activision Blizzard and a group of other game companies and platforms. Like the other cases in this group, it alleges that the companies designed their games to be addictive and failed to warn users. Its particular emphasis is on allegations that prolonged play physically harms the brain, especially the developing brain of a minor.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff played a long list of titles for roughly twelve hours a day. They include multiple Call of Duty games, Grand Theft Auto 5, Overwatch 2, Rainbow Six, Fortnite, and Minecraft. It also alleges brain damage, along with worsening ADHD and anxiety attributed to gaming.

The case was filed in May 2024, around the time the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was deciding whether to consolidate these cases. The panel declined to do so in June 2024. See our Video Game Lawsuit Updates for current status.

Did heavy gaming come before a diagnosis such as ADHD or anxiety? A free case review can look at how your situation compares.

Request a Free Case Review

Causes of Action

This complaint pleads sixteen counts. None of them has been proven; each is a claim Antonetti would need to establish at trial.

The core counts treat the games as defective products. Antonetti says they were dangerous by design and sold without the warnings and instructions a player needed. He pleads those theories under strict liability and again under negligence.

Unlike Angelilli, this complaint brings no state consumer-protection counts. Its emphasis falls on the injury: alleged brain damage from years of extended play.

It also pleads fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement and civil conspiracy. Every count is listed in the case details at the top of this page.

Key Allegations (Transcribed)

The text below is transcribed and condensed from the filing so the primary source is readable and searchable. The full 191-page complaint, including every numbered paragraph and count, is embedded below.

Transcribed from the complaint's Nature of the Action. These are the plaintiff's allegations.

The complaint notes that video game addiction is "also called internet gaming disorder." It calls it "a condition characterized by severely reduced control over gaming habits and increasing priority given to gaming over other activities." It says the result is "negative consequences in many aspects of a person's life, including self-care, relationships, school, and work."

It alleges that the defendants "manufactured, published, marketed, and sold video games, gaming platforms, and/or gaming hardware." According to the complaint, the companies "had specifically developed and designed" those products "to cause the addiction experienced" by the plaintiff and other users. The tools it names are "traditional game tactics such as feedback loops and reward systems." It adds "patented designs containing addictive features and technology to ensure its users keep playing longer and spending more on 'microtransactions' within the game."

The complaint further alleges that the defendants "design their games to keep consumers playing — and spending — by enlisting the help of behavioral psychologists and neuroscientists." It says the companies profit "by acquiring — and addicting — users when they are young." According to the complaint, that secures "their profit stream by ensuring future engagement and monetization as these young users age." It characterizes this as the use of "unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive trade practices and conduct that prioritizes gamer engagement and spending over gamer safety."

Emphasis on brain harm. This complaint adds that the defendants make their games addictive "in part, by encouraging long-term, extended game play." It says they did so "despite knowledge that such extended play causes physical harm to the human brain — and particularly to a minor's developing brain." It alleges the defendants' conduct "proximately caused Plaintiff brain damage and gaming addiction."

The plaintiff. The complaint alleges the plaintiff plays numerous games "approximately 12 hours per day." They include multiple Call of Duty titles, Grand Theft Auto 5, Overwatch 2, Rainbow Six, Fortnite, and Minecraft. It says he "has also been diagnosed with worsening Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ('ADHD') and Anxiety due to video game addiction." That diagnosis required "out-patient counseling and medication therapy," according to the complaint.

Original Court Document

The original complaint is embedded below. You can also open the full PDF in a new tab.

How This Fits in the Litigation

Antonetti was filed weeks before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on MDL No. 3109, so it was never part of a consolidated case. The Video Game Addiction Lawsuits guide covers the claims as a whole, and Video Game Lawsuit Updates tracks where they stand.

Its allegations about effects on the brain connect to the science discussed on Is Video Game Addiction Real?. Games named in the complaint are covered on our Fortnite Lawsuit and Minecraft Lawsuit pages.

The other complaints covered as primary-source case pages: Dunn v. Activision Blizzard, Johnson v. Activision Blizzard, Angelilli v. Activision Blizzard, and Baggaley v. Roblox.

Families comparing their own experience to these allegations can read how video game lawyers approach claims involving minors, from playtime records to diagnosis timelines, on Lawsuit Center.

Request a Free Case Review

Whether a situation like this supports a claim depends on the facts. If you or your child was diagnosed with a condition after years of heavy gaming, you can request a free, no-obligation review on Lawsuit Center.

Educational purposes only. Submitting a form on Lawsuit Center does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Related Coverage

Video Game Addiction Lawsuits

Start with the full overview of the addiction-by-design claims across the gaming industry.

JPML Order (MDL No. 3109)

The order denying a nationwide MDL, with the five Schedule A cases and the panel's reasoning.

Fortnite Lawsuit

The addiction claims against Epic Games involving Fortnite's design and monetization.

Minecraft Lawsuit

The addiction claims involving Microsoft, Mojang, and the Xbox platform.

Epic Games Lawsuit

The broader litigation picture involving Epic, from addiction claims to the FTC settlement.

David Meldofsky

About the Author

David Meldofsky is a California-licensed attorney and the founder of Lawsuit Informer, an educational platform focused on helping people understand lawsuits, consumer safety issues, and legal rights related to defective products and toxic exposures.

Learn more about our Editorial Policy or Contact us.

Last Updated: October 4, 2026

This page hosts a public court filing for educational reference. It is not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed.