In December, a contentious controversy arose around the renowned online gaming framework, Roblox, as it found itself embroiled in a class action lawsuit alleging its role in underage gambling. Brought forth by parents, Rachel Colvin and Danielle Sass, the suit states that their children exploited Roblox’s proprietary currency, Robux, to access illicit gambling facilities. Both parents argue that this led to inevitable financial losses.
The collective legal action initiated at the Northern California District Court encompassed several allegations, such as violations of the RICO act, although these were dismissed earlier. Nonetheless, despite Roblox’s petition for dismissal, the judge has permitted the case’s continuation recently.
In a bid to defend its stance, Roblox cited the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230, arguing that it safeguards providers of “interactive computer service” such as themselves from responsibility for third-party content hosted on its platform. However, the judicial officer overseeing the case ruled that in this particular instance, Section 230 does not apply. The judge further elaborated that Roblox is not accountable for the content available on its platform.
Contrary to Roblox’s defense, the judge clarified that the lawsuit levelled against the online gaming platform alleges it of “facilitating transactions between minors and online casinos and thus enabling unlawful gambling, as well as purportedly neglecting to issue appropriate warnings to minors and their parents regarding these casinos,” as reported by The Verge.
Roblox Asserts Robux as a Gateway to Entertainment, Not Gambling
As part of its defense, Roblox asserted that when purchasing Robux, minors did not incur monetary losses even when it was later used for online gambling activities. The renowned online gaming platform utilized an analogy of Robux to tokens used at an amusement park or cinema, emphasizing that this virtual currency is acquired for the “enjoyment of entertainment” rather than in hopes of “economic enrichment.”
However, this line of reasoning failed to convince the presiding judge. He countered by mentioning that tickets for an amusement park or cinema do not devalue once purchased, reiterating that the lawsuit’s primary concern is the exploitation of the platform’s virtual currency by minors to gain illicit access to online casinos.
In response to the company’s analogy, the judge remarked that it is synonymous with establishing a casino right outside an amusement park and subsequently “tempting” children into gambling their tokens away.
