G.G., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION (2026)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

The motion to compel arbitration is granted. This ruling assumes the reader's familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties.

1. Delegation. As a threshold matter, Roblox argues that whether any valid contract has been formed here is for the arbitrator to decide because the agreement delegates disputes “arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of the Roblox Terms” to an arbitrator. Dkt. No. 32, at 16. But that begs the question of whether the delegation clause is binding in the first place. The delegation clause has legal effect only if a valid contract was formed. Disputes about contract formation are for the Court, not an arbitrator, to decide in the first instance. Reichert v. Rapid Invs., Inc., 56 F.4th 1220, 1227 (9th Cir. 2022).

2. The Minor Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that no valid contracts were ever formed between them and Roblox because Roblox did not give adequate notice of the agreement's terms. Dkt. No. 39-1, at 8 (citing Doe v. Roblox Corp., 602 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1256 (N.D. Cal. 2022)). Under California law, “[u]nless the website operator can show that a consumer has actual knowledge of the agreement, an enforceable contract will be found based on an inquiry notice theory only if: (1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms.” Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2022).

Here, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs had actual notice, so the relevant question is whether the plaintiffs had inquiry notice when they created their Roblox accounts, when they purchased or redeemed Robux, or when they agreed to subsequent pop-up notifications. Even assuming that Roblox failed to give reasonably conspicuous notice when the plaintiffs created their accounts and when they purchased or redeemed Robux, Roblox has shown that its subsequent pop-up notifications gave adequate notice of the terms of use. The pop-up windows were conspicuously displayed on both the website and mobile page and required the plaintiffs to click a button attesting that they agreed to the updated terms before continuing to use the platform. See Dkt. No. 32-2 ¶¶ 26-29. Roblox even sent personal messages to each user's account notifying them of the relevant updates one month prior to each update's effective date.¹ See id. ¶ 25. Under such circumstances, courts have routinely found clickwrap agreements to be enforceable. See Berman, 30 F.4th at 856.

The plaintiffs press that “the Roblox TOU is impenetrable to a reasonably prudent child.” Dkt. No. 39-1, at 12. But section 6700 of the California Family Code states that a minor may make a contract “in the same manner as an adult, subject to the power of disaffirmance.” Applying a “reasonably prudent child” standard here to render the agreement void—even when that same agreement would clearly be valid if the plaintiffs were adults—would contradict the legislature's command to treat minors “in the same manner as an adult” for the purposes of determining contract formation.² Id.

The plaintiffs further argue that no contract between the plaintiffs and Roblox was formed because the express terms of the agreement do not contemplate binding minors. The plaintiffs focus on one paragraph in particular:

If you are under the legal age of majority (a “minor”) in your jurisdiction or state of residence, before using the services, your parent or legal guardian must read and consent to the Roblox terms. By permitting a minor to use the services, a minor's parent or guardian becomes subject to the Roblox terms.

Dkt. No. 38-11, at 3.

Although the plaintiffs' interpretation seems plausible when this provision is read in isolation, the best reading of the agreement as a whole is that it applies to all users, including minors. At the very beginning of the introduction, the agreement defines “users” as “you” and states that “[b]y accepting these User Terms, you also agree to be bound by the following.” Id. at 2. The agreement further clarifies that the “User Terms apply to any person who accesses the Services.” Id. at 3. Given most Roblox users are minors (and everyone knows that), it follows that their terms of use directly address minors, in addition to (not instead of) attempting to bind those minors' parents or legal guardians. Furthermore, the terms of use address certain topics that would be relevant only to those who actively use the platform (e.g., Roblox's right to terminate or suspend users' accounts if they fail to follow community standards, id. § 2e, and conditions on users' acquisition and use of virtual content, id. § 4). To say that the agreement contemplates binding minors' parents or legal guardians, but not the minors themselves, would mean that a large portion of Roblox users is exempted from what appears to be generally applicable conditions on using Roblox's platform. That interpretation would make no sense.

3. The Parents. Roblox further argues that the plaintiffs' parents are separately bound by the agreement because the plaintiffs agreed to the terms of use on the parents' behalf, or at least assured Roblox that their parents had read and agreed to the terms of service. That is incorrect. Under California law, any “representation by a minor that the minor's parent or legal guardian has consented shall not be considered to be consent.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1568.5. Roblox relies on Garcia v. Roblox, 2026 WL 413636 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11., 2026), to argue otherwise. But in Garcia, the minor's parents had alleged that they themselves “downloaded the Roblox application and supervised their child R.G.'s use of the platform—clear examples of the Parent Plaintiffs acting for R.G.'s benefit.” Id. at *5. The district court accordingly concluded that the parents' being signatories to the arbitration agreement made it “equitable” to impose a duty to arbitrate on the minor. Id. Here, the plaintiffs' parents were never signatories to the agreement, and the parents testified to their lack of involvement in their children's use of Roblox. See Dkt. Nos. 35-1, 35-2, 35-3.

At the hearing, Roblox insisted that the parents' allowing their children to use Roblox while this litigation was pending effectively communicated their consent to arbitrate. Roblox also observed that the complaint alleges that each plaintiff was “likely to use Roblox in the future,” further signaling the parents' knowledge that their children would continue to use Roblox. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 130, 138, 146. That is not enough to deem the plaintiffs' parents signatories of the agreement. Under California law, the “existence of mutual consent is determined by ․ what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.” Weddington Products, Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 811 (1998). The mere fact that the plaintiffs' parents knew that their children would likely continue to use Roblox at the time the complaint was filed (and did not successfully prevent the plaintiffs from using Roblox during the litigation) does not constitute an objective manifestation of assent to the Roblox terms of use. Roblox cites no authority holding otherwise. The plaintiffs' duty to arbitrate accordingly arises out of their own respective agreements with Roblox, not any agreements made by their parents.

* * *

The parties are ordered to file a joint status report every 120 days until the arbitration is terminated. If the parties prefer to avoid this obligation, they may stipulate that the plaintiffs dismiss this action without prejudice and that the defendant waive any statute of limitations defense based on the period the dispute is with the arbitrator.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because it is undisputed that each plaintiff agreed to the updated terms of use no later than June 30, 2025, the Court treats the June 30, 2025, version as the operative agreement. See Dkt. No. 32-2 ¶¶ 27-29 & Dkt. No. 38-11.

2.   Under California law, minors are protected by their power to disaffirm. Cal. Fam. Code § 6710. But the plaintiffs here have not yet disaffirmed the contract, and they conceded at the hearing that disaffirmance is for the arbitrator to decide.

VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge