The case

What we are claiming, what we are asking the court to order, who is in the group and so on.

In short

When Mojang forced everyone to migrate their accounts over to Microsoft, they changed the terms the game had been sold under, where we are arguing that nobody ever validly agreed to those changes, that the migration was imposed under duress, and that shipping peoples personal data outside the EU as a result had no lawful basis whatsoever.

This case is deliberately narrow, where instead of throwing every grievance at the wall at once we begin with the safest possible claim, aka the account migration with the group that holds the strongest position: users who bought the game under the December 2013 terms, back when the game was BOUGHT rather than "licensed" and the privacy policy let them use your data solely to provide the game. For that group there is essentially zero plausible defense Mojang could use to justify any of this.

The claims

  1. Mojang has applied new contract terms restricting the use of the game in a way that has never been properly presented nor approved by consumers.
  2. Mojang has forced consumers to agree to new contract terms and the transfer of user accounts to Microsoft under duress in order to continue playing the game.
  3. Mojang's transfer and processing of personal data outside of the EU was performed without a proper legal basis as consents obtained under duress are invalid.

What we want resolved

  1. The full reversal of the Microsoft account migration, where accounts and user data shall be processed by Mojang within the EU.
  2. A declaratory action stating that any contractual terms that were introduced after the date of purchase are invalid.
  3. A declaratory action stating that any application of ambiguous or hidden terms is a violation of consumer rights.
  4. Reasonable damages per participant for the breach of data handling regulations (GDPR) based on Article 82 of the GDPR.

The group

The first group is made up of 2,845 participants who met all of the following criteria:

  • Purchased the game before the 10th of December 2013 (non inclusive, aka 9th at the latest)
  • Is a EU/EEA resident
  • Bought the game while under 18 years old

Participation closed on 19 June 2026, where the list was handed over to the court. This announcement explains why the purchase date is where it is.

Why this is only the first case

In simple terms, the broader a claim is the harder it is to pursue, given that it becomes much easier to lose or deny it on a technicality — something we simply cannot afford. As a simple example, had we included users outside the EU, or users who bought under later terms, Mojang would have had openings to argue that the group was invalid and get the whole thing thrown out before a judge ever looked at the substance of it.

As such we begin with the safest possible claim that still has the biggest measurable impact, where we then pursue further class actions afterwards under different criteria, which is affordable given that our legal fees can be recovered from Mojang if we win, which then funds the next round. And if we do win on the migration, the reversal should apply well beyond the people who participated directly — EU/EEA users at a bare minimum, where to my understanding a global reversal is the most likely outcome.

Read the filings in full →