(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a

columnist for Reuters.)

By Jenna Greene

June 21 (Reuters) - When my twenty-something son was a

teenager, there was a period when he played video games for

hours on end, bristling when we told him to stop.

Which is why I can relate to allegations in a series of

personal injury lawsuits filed across the country over the past

eight months against video game makers, claiming the companies

intentionally designed products that have turned a generation of

kids into "gaming addicts."

Still, it's one thing to feel like your child spends too

much time playing video games and another to prevail in

litigation against multi-billion-dollar companies and the army

of lawyers defending them.

The first of more than a dozen similar video game addiction

suits was voluntarily dismissed last week, though its (rather

ignominious) end didn't test the litigation's central theories.

Instead, it strikes me more as an unforced error by the

plaintiffs - one seized on by defense counsel.

Plaintiff Cynthia Jimenez, who is the guardian of her

14-year-old grandchild identified only as "I.C.," sued companies

including Epic Games, Roblox ( RBLX ), Microsoft ( MSFT ), Google and Nintendo ( NTDOF ) in

East Saint Louis federal court last fall. Seeking unspecified

compensatory and punitive damages, she alleged the defendants'

"intentional, negligent, deceptive, fraudulent, willful,

immoral, reckless, and unlawful acts" caused I.C. to become

addicted to video games.

Company spokespeople declined comment or did not respond to

requests for comment.

Jimenez is represented by Tina Bullock and Breean "BW" Walas

of Bullock Legal Group in Atlanta. Bullock declined comment and

Walas did not respond to a request for comment. Bullock in an

email declined to provide contact information for Jimenez, whom

she said did not wish to speak to the press. Reuters was unable

to independently locate Jimenez.

According to the 161-page complaint, I.C. at age seven

allegedly began playing video games "at an increasing and

uncontrollable pace," and now spends 35 hours a week playing

Fortnite, Roblox ( RBLX ) and Minecraft, becoming enraged if told to

stop.

As a result of this "gaming addiction," I.C. allegedly

requires treatment that includes "medication therapy,

out-patient counseling, and an Individualized Education Plan" at

school.

After filing suit in November, plaintiffs' counsel sent

Fortnite maker Epic Games a standard letter requesting that it

preserve documents and information related to I.C.'s gaming

account, Epic said.

But when Epic consulted its records, it found the account

was created just three days before the suit was filed, and that

it was used to play Fortnite for less than one hour. In the

intervening four months, Epic said, it hadn't been touched.

"The false premise that I.C. continues to play Fortnite

uncontrollably is the basis for all claims against Epic,"

outside counsel Moez Kaba wrote in a motion for sanctions,

asking U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn to dismiss the case

and award Epic legal fees. An "alleged 'addiction' requires more

than a single brief instance of gameplay."

Both Epic and Kaba, managing partner of Hueston Hennigan,

declined comment.

Plaintiffs' lawyers responded in court papers that I.C.

"played Fortnite compulsively and addictively from 2017- 2020"

on other unidentified accounts, and that Jimenez "can testify to

personally witnessing I.C.'s compulsive and addictive use of

Fortnite."

But a week before the sanctions hearing set for June 21, the

court granted the lawyers' joint request to dismiss the suit

against Epic with prejudice. Plaintiffs' lawyers also withdrew

their claims against the other defendants with leave to re-file.

I.C.'s case may be over, but litigation continues in federal

courts in Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, Georgia and Minnesota,

almost all co-filed by Bullock with local counsel or partner

firms.

Given the potential number of plaintiffs - according to

industry trade group the Entertainment Software Association, 61%

of the U.S. population reports playing video games for at least

one hour a week - the litigation (in theory) could be enormous.

In practice, it may be constrained by economic

considerations. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

earlier this month declined to consolidate the initial group of

15 lawsuits, pointing to a "lack of common factual questions."

The ruling means plaintiffs' lawyers are stuck slogging it out

case-by-case in courts around the country.

The complaints allege video game makers use "psychological

tricks" to ensnare users and keep them coming back, including

vibrant graphics, random rewards, satisfying sounds and

continual gameplay variety.

The lawsuits also point to research on the harms of

excessive gaming, including brain imaging studies that show

long-term playing affects the regions responsible for reward,

impulse control and sensory-motor coordination.

As a first-line argument, defendants, including Microsoft ( MSFT )

and Nintendo ( NTDOF ), say the cases should be dismissed because the

plaintiffs as a condition of using their products agreed to

arbitrate any disputes.

If these procedural arguments fall short, game makers also

offer a robust free speech defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants

Association held in 2011 that video games are protected by the

First Amendment, and that their creation and dissemination

"cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or

images" that some might consider "unsuitable."

Here, defense counsel argues, the alleged problem is that

video games are "simply too 'engaging.'" But they say that's not

grounds for liability any more than a page-turning novel or

bingeworthy Netflix series.

Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that the cases are "about

conduct, not content - product defects, not expression," but to

me, the difference is hard to parse.

I also keep coming back to my real-life experience. However

captivating or even addictive video games may be, surely parents

or guardians still have the power to pull the plug.