In Garcia et al v. Roblox, United States District Court, C.D. California, 2026 WL 413636 Roblox moved to compel arbitration in a suit alleging the online game platform and creation system collected children’s data in violation of electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) by secretly recording their children’s online interactions and device details without their knowledge. The California court, in reviewing Roblox’s Terms of Use, granted Roblox’s motion to compel arbitration—finding that the users were provided conspicuous notice that clicking “Sign Up” or “Continue” on it platforms bound them to the arbitration clause contained in its Terms of Use.
The key provisions of the TOU stated:
2023 TOU: “USER AGREES THAT USER IS GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY, INCLUDING IN A CLASS ACTION, FOR DISPUTES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.” (Declaration of Ronita Jit in Support of Motion (“Jit Decl.”), Ex. 5 § 16.1).
2025 TOU: “YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY, INCLUDING IN A CLASS ACTION, FOR ANY DISPUTES SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION PROVISION BELOW.” (Id., Ex. 6 § 11).
The TOU also included the following clauses about enforceability, scope, and interpretation of the Agreements:
“2023: Enforceability. All issues in the Dispute are for the arbitrator to decide, except that only a court may decide issues relating to the scope, interpretation, and enforceability of these Arbitration Terms, or whether a Dispute can be arbitrated. (Id., Ex. 5 § 16.4.9).
2025: The arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to the extent permitted by law to resolve all Disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of the Roblox Terms, including, but not limited to, any claim that all or any part of the Roblox Terms is void or voidable; however, in the event of a Dispute about which particular version of the Roblox Terms you agreed to, a court will decide that specific question prior to the commencement of the arbitration. This Arbitration Agreement is intended to be broadly interpreted and will survive termination of the Roblox Terms.”
Plaintiffs began using Roblox in May 2023 and created multiple accounts in 2023 and in 2025. During the account creation the sign u page indicated: “By clicking Sign Up, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use including the arbitration clause.” And the TOU were hyperlinked directly below the sign-up button.
The court analyzed four main issues: 1) Assent; 2) Disaffirmance (Minor Plaintiff); 3) Delegation Clause; and 4) Enforceability and Unconscionability.
On the issue of assent, the court concluded that Plaintiffs assented to the aribitration agreement as the sign-up interface constituted a legally sufficient “sign in wrap” agreement under Ninth Circuit precedent because it provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the button signiged agreement to the TOU, including arbitration. The hyperlinks were clearly displayed, and the disclosure appeared directly below the action button. Additionally, the court emphasized that downloading and repeatedly using a mobile app demonstrates a forward-looking, ongoing relationship. Plaintiffs’ continued purchases and long-term use reinforced this conclusion.
Next, the court held that the minor Plaintiff did not effectively disaffirm the agreement at least until she stopped using Rblox in September 2025. Plaintiffs argued that plaintiff as a minor, could disaffirm the agreement under California law. While minors do have the right to disaffirm contracts, the court held that the minor’s continued use of the platform after filing the lawsuit undermined any effective disaffirmance. A minor cannot retain the benefits of a contract while repudiating its obligations. Moreover, the court found equitable grounds to bind the minor because her parents—who were unquestionably bound—created and supervised the accounts. The parent-child relationship justified imposing the duty to arbitrate on the minor especially where the claims arose directly from use of the platform.
The court next addressed whether questions of arbitrability should be decided by a judge or an arbitrator. It distinguished between the two versions of the TOU. The 2025 TOU contained a clear delegation clause assigning disputes about interpretation, enforceability, and scope to the arbitrator. The court found this language “clear and unmistakable,” meaning gateway issues for post 2025 claims must be decided in arbitration. By contrast, the 2023 TOU lacked such a clause, so the court itself analyzed arbitrability for earlier claims. Even so, the court concluded that the 2023 arbitration provision broadly covered disputes arising from Roblox’s services, including the alleged data collection practices. So all claims—whether pre- or post 2025—fell within arbitration.
Last Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable. Under California law, a contract must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable to be invalid. The court acknowledged that the TOU were adhesion contracts, which inherently involve some degree of procedural unconscionability. However, it found no evidence of meaningful oppression or surprise, particularly given the conspicuous notice provided at sign-up. On substantive unconscionability, Plaintiffs failed to identify specific one-sided or unfair provisions. The court also rejected the argument that the agreement unlawfully waived public injunctive relief, noting that the 2025 TOU explicitly permitted arbitrators to award such relief where authorized by law. Finding only minimal procedural unconscionability and no substantive unconscionability, the court upheld the agreements as valid and enforceable.
Just another reminder that a well-crafted and properly implemented arbitration agreement can mean the difference between defending a single claim in individual arbitration and facing sweeping high-exposure class liability in federal court.
This is precisely why Queenie’s Ten matters. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing the mechanics of online assent—placement, wording, proximity, clarity, and user action all determine whether arbitration clauses and website terms are enforceable.
We’ll be breaking down these strategies in detail at LCOC IV this year—for those companies that rely on website terms and disclosures, this is a session you won’t want to miss.
CIPAWorld 