Japanese teen sues over video game time-limit

A figurine of Mario stands outside a shop in Tokyo

Credit: AFP

A Japanese teenager and his mother have filed a compensation claim against their prefectural government over a local ordinance that limits the time spent playing video games to one hour a day. 

The law was passed by the local government of Kagawa Prefecture in March and is designed to combat the problem of gaming addiction on mobile phones and computers among children under the age of 18. 

Children are permitted to play games for an hour on weekdays and up to 90 minutes on weekends and public holidays, although enforcement of the legislation is in the hands of parents and there are no punishments for children who go beyond the time limits. 

The law states that there is medical evidence indicating that excessive gaming and Internet use are causing some children to fall behind in their studies, reducing the athletic ability of others and are also to blame for poorer eyesight. 

Discussions of the law generated fierce debate, with one member of the local government claiming it amounted to “an intervention in the private affairs of families”.

The statute is now being challenged in the Takamatsu District Court, with a 17-year-old plaintiff and his mother filing a suit demanding damages of Y1.6 million (GBP11,403) from the local government for violating their human rights and causing them emotional distress, the Mainichi newspaper reported. 

“The prefectural assembly created the ordinance as if to say that all games are bad, but they are not that bad”, said the plaintiff, identified only by his first name, Wataru, as he is a minor.

“The ordinance excessively intervenes into the privacy of families”, he said. “We should be able to decide by ourselves how long we play games”. 

The plaintiffs appear to have support for their campaign, with a crowdfunding drive collecting more than Y6 million (GBP42,760) from around 1,800 people to cover their legal expenses. 

The local government has said that it will defend the law and in initial hearings in court this week called for the case to be dismissed, pointing out that there are no punishments for failure to comply and that therefore the defendant is not experiencing any hardship.