Gaming Addiction Lawsuit 2026: Your Legal Rights Explained

Quick Answer
– What is the case: Multiple federal lawsuits and a developing MDL target Epic Games, Activision Blizzard, Roblox Corporation, and other major publishers for allegedly designing games to create compulsive use, particularly in minors.
– Who qualifies: Individuals diagnosed with Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) or a clinically documented gaming compulsion, with a particular focus on minors under 18 who developed the condition while playing one or more named games.
– What it may be worth: Individual claim values in comparable mass tort product liability cases have ranged from $25,000 to $500,000+, depending on diagnosis severity, age of onset, and documented harm. No gaming addiction MDL settlement has been formally announced as of early 2026.

Case Snapshot

Introduction

The gaming addiction lawsuit is not a future event. It is active federal litigation in 2026, with complaints filed against the largest video game publishers in the world.

On a related note, check out Fox Lawsuit 2026: Cases, Status, and Legal Stakes

Plaintiffs allege these companies built psychological dependency into their products by design, using the same behavioral architecture that drove the opioid and tobacco litigation before them. The comparison is not rhetorical. It is the argument appearing in filed complaints.

What makes this litigation significant right now is its structural parallel to Social Media Addiction MDL No. 3047, the consolidated proceeding before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. That case has already survived multiple rounds of motions to dismiss. Gaming addiction attorneys are building on that legal foundation.

The stakes are high. The U.S. video game market exceeded $57 billion in annual revenue in recent reporting periods. Plaintiffs argue that a substantial portion of that revenue was extracted through mechanics specifically engineered to override a player's voluntary control.

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit: What This Litigation Actually Is

The gaming addiction lawsuit is a category of civil litigation targeting video game publishers for designing products that plaintiffs allege cause compulsive, uncontrollable use amounting to a recognized psychological disorder.

These are not negligence claims based on general overuse. Plaintiffs allege that the companies knew their engagement mechanics would create dependency in susceptible users, particularly developing brains, and chose profit over user safety.

The legal architecture mirrors product liability claims used in pharmaceutical and tobacco litigation. The product itself is alleged to be defective, not just misused.

Key distinctions from social media addiction claims:

• Gaming addiction claims focus on in-game design mechanics (loot boxes, progression loops, battle passes) rather than social comparison features
• Many gaming plaintiffs are minors who were monetized directly through in-game purchases tied to addictive loops
• The harm alleged includes academic failure, social withdrawal, sleep disorders, and documented clinical diagnoses of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD)

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims note that the strength of individual cases turns heavily on whether a clinical IGD diagnosis is documented in medical records, and whether the plaintiff can trace the onset to a specific game.*

Is the Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Real?

The gaming addiction lawsuit is real. Active complaints exist in federal court records, with named plaintiffs, named defendants, and detailed factual allegations.

The skepticism around this question is understandable. Tobacco and opioid litigation also faced "is this real?" scrutiny before consolidation. This litigation has now crossed that threshold.

In 2023 and 2024, individual plaintiffs filed suits in federal courts in California, New York, and Illinois. Law firms that litigated the Social Media Addiction MDL are transferring that framework directly to gaming cases.

What confirms this is active litigation:

• Filed complaints with case numbers appear in PACER (the federal court electronic filing system)
• Defendants have entered appearances and filed motions to dismiss in individual cases
• Discovery disputes have been briefed, indicating these cases have moved past initial filing

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys in this space note that the "is it real" question is the first barrier they overcome in plaintiff intake. They point to the PACER record as the clearest answer.*

Litigation Watch: The gaming addiction lawsuit is confirmed active litigation in federal courts, not a speculative campaign, and the legal framework being used survived comparable judicial scrutiny in the Social Media Addiction MDL.

Video Game Addiction Lawsuit 2026: Current Status

As of 2026, the video game addiction lawsuit landscape is in a critical pre-certification phase. No global MDL has been formally consolidated under a single docket number for gaming-specific addiction claims yet, though coordination efforts are underway.

The Social Media Addiction MDL No. 3047 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California remains the closest procedural comparator. Gaming addiction plaintiffs and their counsel are watching that MDL's bellwether trial schedule and motion practice as a direct roadmap.

Individual gaming addiction cases filed in the Northern District of California are being evaluated for potential coordination or consolidation with related proceedings.

2026 Status Timeline:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys following this litigation note that the pace of MDL consolidation for gaming claims will accelerate significantly once a critical mass of filed cases reaches the JPML (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) petition threshold.*

Gaming Companies Being Sued for Addiction

Multiple of the largest video game publishers in the world are named defendants in gaming addiction litigation. This is not a suit against a single rogue company.

The defendants represent a cross-section of the industry, from console shooters to mobile-adjacent platforms. Each is alleged to have deployed specific mechanics the plaintiffs characterize as addiction by design.

Named Defendants in Filed Complaints:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that defendants with documented internal research showing awareness of addiction risks face significantly elevated exposure compared to those who can argue design decisions were made without knowledge of psychological harm.*

Litigation Watch: The defendants in gaming addiction litigation include some of the most capitalized entertainment companies in the world, which gives plaintiffs' attorneys confidence about recovery capacity if liability is established.

Gaming Addiction MDL: The Federal Consolidation Picture

A formal gaming addiction MDL has not been established under its own docket number as of early 2026. However, the procedural groundwork for consolidation is being laid.

When a sufficient volume of related federal cases accumulates, plaintiffs or defendants may petition the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate them. The JPML has handled consolidations of this kind across tobacco, opioid, social media, and pharmaceutical litigation.

The Social Media Addiction MDL No. 3047 is the operational template. That proceeding, before Judge Gonzalez Rogers, consolidated claims from thousands of plaintiffs against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and others. Its motion to dismiss rulings in 2023 and 2024 established that product liability theories can survive early judicial scrutiny in digital addiction cases.

What an MDL would mean for gaming plaintiffs:

• Claims consolidated before a single federal judge
• Shared discovery of internal company documents
• Coordinated expert witness development
• Bellwether trials to test damages and liability theories
• Potential global settlement negotiations

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys in this field note that MDL consolidation typically accelerates case resolution, but it also means individual plaintiffs become part of a larger pool and settlement values are determined on a claims matrix rather than individual negotiation.*

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Legal Theory: How Plaintiffs Plan to Win

The gaming addiction lawsuit is built on three primary legal theories, each drawn from established tort law and adapted to digital product liability.

Theory 1: Negligent Design

Plaintiffs allege the games were designed with features that foreseeably cause psychological dependency. This mirrors the design defect theory used in pharmaceutical and consumer product litigation.

Theory 2: Failure to Warn

Companies allegedly knew their mechanics caused addiction and failed to warn users or parents. This theory draws directly from tobacco litigation where concealment of known risks was central.

Theory 3: RICO and Fraud-Based Claims

Some complaints include federal RICO allegations, asserting that companies engaged in coordinated schemes to misrepresent the safety of their products to consumers and regulators.

Supporting Evidence Plaintiffs Cite:

• Internal developer documents discussing "engagement" targets tied to neurological response
• Loot box probability disclosures that plaintiffs argue were deliberately obscured
• Age verification failures allowing minors to access monetization systems
• Academic research on dopamine loop mechanics commissioned or known to defendants

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys pursuing these claims note that the most powerful evidence is internal corporate communications, identical to what drove opioid settlements, because they show awareness of harm paired with continued deployment of the same mechanics.*

Fortnite Addiction Lawsuit: Epic Games in the Crosshairs

The Fortnite addiction lawsuit targets Epic Games for the specific design architecture of Fortnite, one of the highest-grossing free-to-play games in history.

Plaintiffs allege Epic deliberately engineered Fortnite to maximize compulsive engagement through a combination of season passes, limited-time offers, daily login bonuses, and social peer pressure mechanics. The game's free-to-play model is central to the legal theory: Epic profits only when players make in-game purchases, creating a financial incentive to maximize psychological dependency.

Fortnite-Specific Allegations:

• The V-Bucks virtual currency system obscures real-money value of purchases
• Season pass expiration creates artificial urgency and FOMO-driven compulsive play
• Daily and weekly challenge structures are designed to force habitual return regardless of voluntary intent
• Plaintiff minors in filed cases experienced school failure, social isolation, and clinical anxiety directly attributed to Fortnite compulsion

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that Epic's prior legal battles, including its antitrust case against Apple and Google, produced significant internal document disclosure. Some of that material is being examined for relevance to gaming addiction claims.*

Bold Callout: Epic Games generated over $5.1 billion in Fortnite revenue in a single reported year, underscoring the scale of the commercial operation at the center of these claims.

Roblox Addiction Lawsuit: A Children's Platform Under Legal Scrutiny

The Roblox addiction lawsuit occupies a particularly serious position in this litigation because Roblox's primary user base is children, many under 13.

Plaintiffs allege Roblox Corporation designed its platform to extract spending from minors through a virtual currency system (Robux) tied to cosmetic items, game access, and social status signals within the platform. The psychological mechanism alleged is peer pressure monetization: children are alleged to purchase Robux not because they want a product but because social exclusion within the game follows from not having it.

Roblox-Specific Legal Vulnerabilities:

• COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) compliance failures alleged
• Robux purchase systems allow minors to spend real money with minimal parental oversight
• Developer incentive structures allegedly reward engagement-maximizing design
• Internal moderation failures cited as evidence of systemic disregard for user welfare

Age Breakdown of Alleged Roblox Harm:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that cases involving Roblox and minor plaintiffs carry the highest damages potential because courts apply heightened scrutiny to harm caused to children by commercial entities.*

Litigation Watch: Roblox-specific claims targeting child users represent the most legally combustible segment of gaming addiction litigation because they intersect product liability with established children's consumer protection law.

Related resource: Apple Class Action Lawsuit 2026: Key Cases and Claims

Call of Duty Addiction Lawsuit: Activision Blizzard Faces Allegations

The Call of Duty addiction lawsuit targets Activision Blizzard, now owned by Microsoft, for the design of one of the most commercially successful franchise games in history.

Plaintiffs allege that Activision deployed skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) manipulation to engineer win/loss cycles designed to maximize emotional volatility and compulsive return. The theory is that SBMM does not simply match players by skill. It is alleged to have been tuned to create artificial losing streaks followed by orchestrated wins, producing a variable reward schedule clinically associated with compulsive behavior.

Loot box mechanics in Call of Duty titles, particularly supply drops in earlier titles and cosmetic bundle systems in Modern Warfare and Warzone iterations, are separately alleged as addiction-by-design features.

Specific Activision Mechanics Under Legal Scrutiny:

• SBMM algorithm manipulation (described in complaints as "engagement optimization")
• Battle Pass seasonal content expiration pressure
• Warzone free-to-play model creating initial access, followed by monetization dependency
• Cross-title progression systems that lock players into the franchise ecosystem

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling Activision-related claims note that the Microsoft acquisition creates a unique dynamic: Microsoft's internal culture around gaming ethics may surface documents that contrast with pre-acquisition Activision practices, potentially strengthening plaintiff discovery requests.*

Which Games Are Included in Gaming Addiction Lawsuit?

The gaming addiction lawsuit includes games across multiple genres, platforms, and publishers. No single game defines this litigation.

The common thread is not the game type. The common thread is the presence of specific engagement mechanics that plaintiffs allege convert voluntary play into compulsive use.

Games Named in Filed Complaints or Identified in Legal Theory:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that plaintiffs with documented harm from EA's Ultimate Team specifically benefit from Belgium and Netherlands regulatory findings that declared similar mechanics gambling under those jurisdictions' laws, providing persuasive cross-jurisdictional authority.*

Who Qualifies for Gaming Addiction Lawsuit?

Qualification for the gaming addiction lawsuit turns on a specific set of criteria. Not every heavy gamer qualifies.

The clinical threshold matters more here than in many mass tort cases. Courts in product liability litigation require plaintiffs to demonstrate that the harm they suffered is diagnosable, not merely inconvenient.

Primary Eligibility Criteria:

• Diagnosis: A documented diagnosis of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) as recognized in DSM-5, or a clinical finding of compulsive gaming disorder by a licensed mental health professional
• Game played: The compulsive use must be traceable to one or more named defendant games
• Causation: Medical records, school records, or other documentation connecting the gaming behavior to the diagnosed harm
• Harm documented: At minimum one of the following: academic failure, employment loss, social withdrawal, financial harm from in-game spending, or clinically documented psychological injury
• Age: Both minors and adults may qualify, but minor plaintiffs generally carry higher damages potential

Who likely does not qualify:

• Individuals who played extensively but have no clinical diagnosis
• Those whose gaming was concurrent with other diagnosed disorders without clear attribution
• Claimants whose sole harm is time spent gaming without documented psychological or financial injury

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys conducting plaintiff intake note that the strength of a claim scales directly with the depth of medical documentation. A single clinical visit noting gaming compulsion is a starting point; a longitudinal treatment record is a much stronger foundation.*

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Children: Special Considerations for Minor Plaintiffs

Minor plaintiffs in gaming addiction litigation receive different legal treatment than adult claimants, and that distinction significantly affects both eligibility and potential recovery.

Minors cannot contract. Their in-game purchases raise separate consumer protection and parental consent issues. Their developing neurological systems are alleged to be more susceptible to the dependency mechanisms in these games, which directly informs the damages analysis.

Key Legal Advantages for Minor Plaintiffs:

• Tolled statutes of limitations: In most states, the statute of limitations for a minor's claim does not begin running until the minor reaches 18. This means individuals who were harmed as children may still have active claims even if years have passed.
• Higher damages potential: Courts and juries historically award greater damages for harm to minors because of longer life trajectories affected and the power imbalance between a child user and a commercial platform.
• Parental standing: Parents may file on behalf of minor children and may assert their own claims for costs incurred and harm suffered as a result of the child's compulsive gaming.

State-by-State Statute of Limitations (Minor Gaming Claims):

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that the tolling rule for minor plaintiffs is one of the most significant advantages in this litigation. A child harmed at age 10 in 2018 may have a claim that does not expire until 2026 or later in many states.*

Litigation Watch: Minor plaintiffs represent the legal and moral core of gaming addiction litigation, and the tolling doctrine means thousands of potential claimants who were harmed years ago may still be within their filing window.

Lawsuit for Gaming Addiction: How This Differs From Prior Tech Litigation

The lawsuit for gaming addiction is distinct from prior digital harm litigation in ways that affect its legal trajectory.

It is not a privacy class action. It does not turn on data harvesting or unauthorized disclosure. The harm alleged is physical and psychological, which brings it closer to pharmaceutical tort litigation than to consumer protection class actions.

This distinction matters procedurally. Personal injury-based mass torts proceed differently from privacy class actions. They require individual damages proof, involve expert medical testimony, and can yield significantly larger per-plaintiff recoveries.

Comparison to Prior Tech and Product Litigation:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys in this space consistently reference opioid litigation as the structural comparator, not privacy class actions. The legal architecture, internal document discovery, and individual harm model are far more analogous to opioid cases.*

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Settlement Amount: What Claimants Could Recover

No formal gaming addiction lawsuit settlement fund has been announced as of early 2026. However, the range of potential individual recovery can be estimated from comparable mass tort outcomes.

Settlement values in product liability mass torts are typically determined by a claims matrix, a grid that assigns point values based on injury severity, age, documented harm, and defendant exposure. The opioid and Social Media MDL frameworks both use this approach.

Estimated Value Ranges (Based on Comparable MDL Structures):

These figures are analytical estimates. They are not guaranteed outcomes.

What drives settlement value up:

• Documented IGD diagnosis from a licensed clinician
• Medical treatment records spanning a sustained period
• School records showing academic decline attributable to gaming
• Evidence of direct financial harm from in-game purchases
• Age of onset in minor years

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys note that the highest individual recoveries in these cases will likely go to plaintiffs whose records create a clear timeline: normal functioning before the gaming compulsion began, documented deterioration during the period of compulsive play, and evidence of injury that persisted.*

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Payout: How Distributions Actually Work in Mass Torts

The gaming addiction lawsuit payout structure, once a settlement is reached, will follow the standard mass tort distribution model. Understanding that model helps claimants set realistic expectations.

In mass tort litigation, individual plaintiffs do not receive equal shares. Recovery is allocated through a point-based claims matrix administered by a court-approved settlement administrator.

Standard Mass Tort Payout Process:

1. Global settlement negotiated: Defendants agree to pay a total fund into a settlement trust
2. Claims administrator appointed: A neutral third party reviews and scores each claim
3. Claims matrix applied: Each plaintiff receives points based on documented injury, age, game played, and tier of harm
4. Attorney fees deducted: Contingency fees in mass tort cases typically range from 33% to 40% of individual recovery
5. Liens resolved: Medical liens from insurance providers or government programs are paid from the award
6. Net payment issued: Plaintiff receives the remainder

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys advise clients to preserve all documentation, including medical bills, prescription records, and therapy invoices, because the claims matrix values documented costs separately from general damages, and every documented dollar reduces the proof burden.*

Bold Callout: In the opioid MDL, the difference between a well-documented claim and a poorly documented one translated to a 3x to 5x difference in point value under the claims matrix. Documentation discipline is not optional.

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Deadline: When to Act

The gaming addiction lawsuit deadline depends on the state where the plaintiff lives and when the harm was discovered. There is no single national deadline.

Statutes of limitations in personal injury cases are jurisdictional and fact-specific. The clock generally begins running from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known about the connection between the game and the harm, the discovery rule.

Here is something related: Schedule 1 Lawsuit: What Plaintiffs Need to Know 2026

General SOL Windows for Gaming Addiction Claims:

Why the deadline is urgent:

• Once a gaming addiction MDL is formally constituted, courts typically set a uniform filing deadline that may be earlier than the state SOL
• Evidence preservation becomes harder as time passes (medical records may be destroyed, game account data may be purged)
• Law firms active in this litigation are in active intake phases now, not after an MDL is constituted

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys consistently note that waiting for a settlement announcement before contacting a lawyer is the most common mistake in mass tort cases. By that point, the early filing advantages, including potential leadership positions and better discovery access, have passed.*

Litigation Watch: The absence of a formal MDL deadline is not permission to delay. State statutes of limitations are running independently, and discovery rule exceptions are fact-specific and not guaranteed.

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit How to File a Claim

Filing a gaming addiction lawsuit claim begins with a confidential attorney consultation, not with submitting a form online.

These are not consumer class actions where plaintiffs submit claim forms to a fund. Gaming addiction cases are active personal injury lawsuits where a mass tort attorney evaluates the facts, files a complaint, and litigates the claim on a contingency fee basis.

Step-by-Step Process for Potential Plaintiffs:

1. Gather medical documentation: IGD diagnosis records, therapist notes, psychiatric evaluations, any clinical documentation of gaming disorder
2. Compile supporting records: School transcripts showing decline, employment records showing job loss, bank or credit card records showing in-game spending
3. Identify the games played: Specific titles, approximate dates of use, platform (console, PC, mobile), account names if available
4. Contact a mass tort attorney: The attorney evaluates whether the claim meets the threshold for filing and explains the litigation process
5. Sign a contingency fee agreement: No upfront cost; the attorney is paid from any recovery
6. Complaint filed: The attorney prepares and files a formal complaint in the appropriate federal court
7. Litigation proceeds: The case moves through discovery, potential MDL consolidation, and eventually trial or settlement

What attorneys look for in intake:

• Clinical diagnosis or strong clinical evidence of IGD
• A clear connection between one or more named defendant games and the diagnosed harm
• Age of the plaintiff (minor cases receive priority evaluation)
• Geographic jurisdiction (affects SOL analysis)

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys conducting intake note that the consultation itself has no cost and no obligation. The only risk of calling too early is learning that the claim is stronger than expected.*

Gaming Addiction Lawsuit Status 2026: Where Things Stand

The gaming addiction lawsuit status in 2026 is best described as active and accelerating. The litigation is past the credibility-question phase and into substantive procedural development.

Key status indicators as of 2026:

Active: Individual complaints are filed across multiple federal districts. Defense counsel is engaged. Discovery is proceeding in anchor cases.

Pending: JPML petition for formal MDL consolidation is the most significant near-term development to watch. When that petition is filed and granted, the litigation shifts into a more structured and faster-moving phase.

Not yet resolved: No global settlement. No bellwether trial dates. No claims fund.

2026 Developments to Monitor:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys tracking this litigation note that 2026 is the inflection year, the period where individual cases either consolidate into a formal MDL or begin to diverge into state court tracks. Where a plaintiff's case is filed now may determine which path it takes.*

Bold Callout: The Social Media Addiction MDL took approximately 18 months from initial consolidation to its first set of bellwether trial dates. If gaming addiction MDL consolidation occurs in 2026, trials could begin as early as 2027 to 2028.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the gaming addiction lawsuit real or just a marketing campaign?

The gaming addiction lawsuit is real federal litigation with complaints filed in U.S. district courts, named defendants who have appeared through counsel, and active discovery in progress as of 2026.

It is not a speculative campaign.

The legal framework builds directly on the Social Media Addiction MDL No. 3047, which has survived multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.

Can I file a gaming addiction claim if my child played these games years ago?

In most states, the statute of limitations for a minor's personal injury claim is tolled until the minor reaches age 18.

A child harmed at age 12 in 2016 may have until age 20 to file, depending on the state.

Consulting a mass tort attorney is the only way to confirm whether the specific timeline applies to your child's situation.

Which games are currently named in gaming addiction lawsuits?

Games named in filed complaints or legal theories include Fortnite, Call of Duty, Roblox, League of Legends, FIFA/EA FC Ultimate Team, Apex Legends, NBA 2K, Overwatch, and World of Warcraft.

The common element is not genre but the presence of specific monetization and engagement mechanics alleged to cause compulsive use.

This list will expand as litigation progresses and additional complaints are filed.

How much is a gaming addiction lawsuit worth?

No gaming addiction settlement fund exists as of early 2026, so no guaranteed payout figure is available.

Comparable mass tort cases suggest individual recoveries ranging from $10,000 to $500,000+, depending heavily on the severity of documented harm, age of onset, and quality of medical records.

Well-documented cases with clinical IGD diagnoses and longitudinal treatment records carry the highest estimated value.

Do I need to pay a lawyer upfront to join the gaming addiction lawsuit?

Mass tort attorneys handling gaming addiction claims work on contingency, meaning no upfront cost to the plaintiff.

The attorney's fee, typically 33% to 40% of the recovery, is deducted from any settlement or judgment.

If no recovery occurs, the plaintiff owes no attorney fee under this arrangement.

What evidence do I need to file a gaming addiction lawsuit?

The strongest evidence package includes a clinical IGD diagnosis from a licensed mental health professional, medical records documenting treatment, and supporting records such as school transcripts, employment records, or documented in-game spending.

A diagnosis alone establishes the medical foundation; the supporting records establish the damages.

Plaintiffs without a clinical diagnosis should still consult a mass tort attorney, as an evaluation can determine whether evidence is sufficient to support one.

Closing

The gaming addiction lawsuit is one of the most significant developing mass torts in the U.S. legal system in 2026. The defendants are among the largest entertainment companies on earth. The legal theories are proven frameworks that have already survived judicial scrutiny in adjacent litigation. The potential class of affected plaintiffs is enormous.

Anyone with a documented gaming disorder diagnosis, or a parent whose child developed a clinically recognized compulsive gaming condition, should take this litigation seriously. The statute of limitations does not wait for a formal MDL announcement.

The next step is a confidential consultation with a mass tort attorney who handles digital addiction product liability cases. That conversation costs nothing, establishes whether a claim exists, and preserves options that expire with time.

Before you go further, consider reading Amazon Prime Lawsuit 2026: Claims, Settlement & Who Qualifies