Roblox fails to halt LA child-exploitation lawsuit over age checks

Los Angeles County’s claim that Roblox exposed children to sexual exploitation can proceed after a judge held that the platform’s age-verification processes are not protected by Section 230 or the First Amendment.

Roblox has failed to stop Los Angeles County pursuing claims that it did too little to prevent children and adults interacting on its gaming platform, leaving young users exposed to sexual exploitation and trafficking. In a ruling delivered last week (23 September), Judge Dean Kitchens of Los Angeles Superior Court rejected the company’s attempt to dismiss the action, allowing the county to continue with allegations that Roblox’s safety representations were misleading and that its practices created a public nuisance.

The decision is an early but consequential defeat for a company facing more than 180 individual claims from children and parents who allege that the platform failed to protect young users from grooming and sexual abuse. It also cuts through two defences that technology companies frequently deploy in content-safety litigation: the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment right to free speech.

The background

Los Angeles County filed its claim in February, alleging that Roblox did not adequately verify users’ ages, enabling children and adults to communicate with insufficient oversight. The county says the platform contributed to child sex trafficking and exploitation, misled families about the safety of its service and created a public nuisance.

Public-nuisance litigation has traditionally concerned conduct endangering public health or safety. In recent years, however, public authorities have used it against businesses in disputes concerning tobacco, opioids, vaping and climate change. A successful claim can result in an order requiring the defendant to change how it operates, as well as financial relief aimed at addressing the alleged harm.

This action focuses on what the county says were the company’s own choices about age checks, safety tools and the way in which children and adults could interact.

Roblox has already faced regulatory pressure over child safety. Earlier this year it reached settlements with the attorneys general of Alabama, West Virginia and Nevada, agreeing to pay more than $30 million and to make changes to access to gaming and chat functions. The company has also announced nationwide changes to its service, including facial age checks for access to chat, age-based accounts with tighter restrictions and expanded parental controls.

The arguments

Roblox argued that the county’s claims were barred by Section 230, the federal provision which generally prevents online platforms being treated as the publisher of content provided by another user. Section 230 has often proved a formidable obstacle for claimants seeking to hold technology companies liable for third-party posts, messages or other material. Roblox also relied on the First Amendment, contending that the claims concerned protected features of its platform.

Judge Kitchens rejected both arguments at the dismissal stage, holding that the age-verification allegations did not concern third-party content posted on Roblox. They involved Roblox’s own operational decisions about how it establishes, or fails to establish, the age of its users.

The ruling does not determine that Roblox caused the alleged harm or that it will ultimately be liable. It means the county’s claims have cleared the first procedural hurdle and can proceed towards evidence-gathering and, potentially, trial.

The developing litigation

This case is just one part of a growing body of litigation over the role of online platforms in child safety. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin filed a similar public-nuisance claim in June, also in Los Angeles Superior Court, naming both Roblox and Discord as defendants.

Meanwhile, Roblox and Discord face more than 180 individual claims alleging that adults contacted minors through Roblox before communications moved to Discord and other services. The companies deny that they should be liable for the actions of third parties.

Those federal claims are being co-ordinated in the Northern District of California. Roblox and Discord have this week sought to move selected claims into private arbitration, relying on users’ acceptance of the platforms’ terms and conditions. This is likely to provide a test of whether the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act 2021 prevents the companies from enforcing arbitration clauses where claimants allege online grooming and coerced sexual images but without any physical contact with the alleged perpetrator.

For the time being, however, Judge Kitchens’ ruling gives Los Angeles County the opportunity to test a different question in open court: whether Roblox’s own safeguards and age-verification practices fell short of what the law requires.

The parties

In The People of the State of California, acting by and through Los Angeles County Counsel Dawyn Harrison (claimant) v​Roblox Corp (defendant), the claimant was represented by its own County Counsel Office and by Alexandra Walsh of Anapol Weiss. The defendant was represented by Andy Pincus of Mayer Brown.