Platform Negligence: When Gaming Companies Fail to Protect Users

Gaming companies have legal duties to protect their users. When they don't take reasonable safety steps, they can be sued for negligence. This page explains how these lawsuits work and what families need to know.

What Is Duty of Care?

"Duty of care" is a legal term. It means companies must act reasonably to keep people safe. In personal injury law, this duty requires companies to take steps to prevent harm they can see coming.

For gaming platforms, duty of care means several things. Platforms should implement reasonable safety measures. They should warn users about known risks. They should especially protect vulnerable people like children. When platforms fail these duties, they might be negligent.

The Four Parts of Negligence

Part 1: Proving Duty of Care

First, families must show gaming companies owed them a duty of care. Legal arguments include that gaming companies must keep their products safe. When companies market to kids, they have higher duties. If companies know about risks, they must address them.

The law isn't completely settled yet on exactly what gaming companies must do to prevent addiction. But courts are working through these questions right now.

Part 2: Showing Breach of Duty

Next, families must prove the company broke its duty. Ways to show this include proving companies deliberately used addictive features, failed to warn about risks, didn't include safety features to stop excessive play, or marketed to people prone to addiction.

Evidence might include internal company documents showing they knew about risks. Expert testimony about industry standards. Proof of design choices known to be addictive. Documented patterns of harm the company should have known about.

Part 3: Proving Causation

The hardest part is often proving the platform's actions caused the harm. Families must show two things. First, that the platform's conduct actually caused the problem. Second, that the harm was a foreseeable result.

Evidence includes behavior changes that match platform use. Expert testimony linking platform features to psychological effects. Medical records showing gaming disorder diagnoses. Testimony about how specific features led to excessive use.

Part 4: Proving Damages

Finally, families must prove actual harm occurred. Damages might include medical expenses for treatment, mental health costs, school expenses from academic decline, lost future earnings, and pain and suffering.

In extreme cases, courts might award punitive damages. These punish especially bad behavior and discourage others from doing the same thing.

A New Legal Theory: Negligent Digital Access

A new legal idea is emerging called "Negligent Digital Access." Legal scholars developing this theory say it builds on old principles from the physical world.

Think about schools or daycare centers. They must carefully check who they hire. They must watch interactions between adults and children. If they fail at this, they can be sued for negligent hiring or supervision.

The Negligent Digital Access theory says platforms that let people interact have similar duties. Especially when vulnerable people like children are involved. Platforms must assess risks before letting people in. They must respond when patterns of harm emerge.

The key question is what did the platform know when it granted access? What did it fail to act on later? When platforms use tricks like trust badges without real verification, they project safety while providing none.

An Important Court Case

Doe v. Internet Brands

One significant case is Doe v. Internet Brands from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In this decision, a court let a claim proceed against a platform for what it failed to do when it knew about risks.

The plaintiff said the site knew predators were targeting users for offline exploitation. The site failed to warn or intervene. The court agreed that the duty to warn was based on what the platform knew, not on user content.

Importantly, the court said Section 230 didn't protect the platform. Section 230 is a law that shields platforms from liability for user posts. But it doesn't shield them from liability for their own conduct. When platforms make design decisions and ignore warnings, that's their own conduct.

How Platform Design Matters

Design Choices Create Duties

Gaming platforms make thousands of design decisions. These decisions shape behavior. They control who users see, what they engage with, who gets visibility. They use tricks to guide attention.

These aren't neutral technology choices. They're deliberate design decisions. When notification systems create urgency, when reward systems work like gambling, when infinite scroll eliminates stopping points—these design choices have foreseeable effects on vulnerable users.

Negligence law says with control comes responsibility. When platforms control user experiences through design, they must use that control responsibly.

What Platforms Know

A key factor is what companies knew and when. Investigation reports show platforms receive numerous complaints about concerning behavior. They get reports from monitoring systems and users.

When platforms get reports of predatory behavior or exploitation, what they do matters. Cases often start with platforms reporting problems to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This proves platforms know problems are happening.

The dramatic increase in reports raises questions. Exploitation cases jumped from 675 in 2019 to over 24,000 by 2024. This suggests safeguards haven't kept up with harm.

Comparing to Other Industries

Physical World Examples

Understanding platform duties helps when we compare them to physical places. Schools must protect students from foreseeable harm. They must properly vet employees. They must supervise interactions.

Hotels must maintain reasonable security for guests. Employers must carefully hire and supervise employees who interact with the public. These duties exist because institutions that give people access to vulnerable populations must assess risk and respond to harm patterns.

Digital platforms that play big roles in users' lives should meet similar standards. If we expect proper vetting from schools, we should expect it from platforms where children spend hours daily and interact with adults.

New Regulations Worldwide

Governments are setting new standards. The European Union's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Bill impose explicit duties of care on digital platforms, especially regarding children.

These laws require platforms to set up complaint systems, disclose content moderation policies, design interfaces that don't manipulate users, publish annual transparency reports, remove illegal content when aware of it, and suspend repeat offenders.

In America, the FTC scheduled a major workshop for June 2025 about how tech firms exploit children. This shows continued regulatory focus on gaming platforms' impact on minors.

Legal Challenges

Section 230 Protection

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected online platforms for decades. But here's what's important: Section 230 doesn't shield platforms from their own conduct.

Section 230 protects platforms from being treated as publishers of user content. But it doesn't protect them from liability for their own actions. Claims based on platform design, access control, and failure to implement safety measures fall outside Section 230's protection.

No Clear Industry Standards

One challenge is that industry standards aren't well-defined. Gaming platforms show very different standards in content moderation and safety. There's no clear, consistent framework.

Some companies are strict because of family-friendly branding. Others are more relaxed. This makes it hard to say what "reasonable care" means in this industry.

But families can point to platforms with stronger safety measures as proof that good protections are possible. Expert testimony from psychologists, child safety advocates, and tech designers helps establish what reasonable safety should include.

What Evidence Matters

Internal Company Documents

Documents showing company knowledge are critical. Strong cases require showing the company knew or should have known about risks and could have implemented safeguards.

Discovery in lawsuits may reveal internal research, safety reports, executive communications, and data about user complaints. These show whether platforms knew about risks, what they discussed doing, and what they actually did (or didn't do).

Expert Witnesses

Experts are essential in these cases. Psychologists can testify about how features affect brain development in children. Technology experts can explain how design choices create addictive patterns. Child safety experts can testify about reasonable safety measures.

Expert testimony helps establish the link between platform actions and injuries, such as negative effects on health, education, or social functioning.

User Data

Platform usage data provides powerful evidence. Time-stamped logs show patterns of excessive use. Chat logs document inappropriate interactions. Purchase records show compulsive spending. Data across multiple users reveals patterns platforms should have recognized.

How Money Factors In

Understanding platform negligence requires looking at economic incentives. Economic analysis shows platforms face decisions about how much to invest in safety versus other priorities.

Different liability rules create different incentives. With no liability, platforms might underinvest in safety because they don't pay for harm. With strict liability (liable for all harm), they might be overly restrictive. Negligence-based rules—where platforms are liable only if they fail to take reasonable care—should create incentives to implement cost-effective safety.

But negligence rules have challenges. They require defining reasonable care case by case. The injured party must prove the defendant failed reasonable care, which requires significant evidence.

State Laws Vary

Negligence standards differ by state. Some states have consumer protection laws that apply to gaming. California, for example, has statutes that may provide grounds for claims against platforms that don't follow responsible gaming practices.

When platforms fail to provide required tools or safeguards and users suffer harm, they may have legal or regulatory claims. Keeping clear records helps establish users reached out in good faith and concerns were ignored.

Parental Controls Aren't Enough

Platforms often point to parental controls as proof they care about safety. But lawsuits question if controls are adequate. Effective child protection requires policy measures and technological tools together.

Questions in cases include: Were controls disclosed and explained well? Were they easy to find and use? Did they effectively prevent harm? Should they have been default settings instead of opt-in? The answers help determine if platforms met their duties.

Where the Law Is Headed

Platform negligence law keeps evolving. Legal scholars are calling for a "systemic duty of care" in platform regulation. This would establish ongoing standards for platforms' safety systems, not just rules for individual cases.

This approach would require platforms to maintain reasonable safety measures as an ongoing obligation. Platforms that fall short would face penalties. This would create clearer standards while allowing flexibility for different platforms.

As lawsuits proceed and regulations develop, clearer standards will emerge about what duty of care platforms owe users, especially children. These developments will shape both legal liability and platform practices for years.

Getting Legal Help

Platform negligence cases are complex. They involve evolving legal standards, technical evidence, and well-funded defendants. Families considering legal action should consult with attorneys who understand video game addiction and platform liability.

Experienced attorneys can evaluate if a case has merit, gather necessary evidence, secure expert witnesses, navigate complex legal issues, and pursue effective strategies. They can also advise whether joining a class action makes sense.