On February 11, 2026, Judge Wesley L. Hsu, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Roblox’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed a putative class action brought by parents and a minor user over alleged improper data collection on the Roblox platform. The order offers a detailed roadmap on how courts are evaluating online terms of use, assent in mobile app environments, delegation clauses, and unconscionability challenges—particularly in cases involving minors.
Key Takeaways
- Well-designed sign‑up flows are enforceable contracts. The court held that Roblox’s “sign‑in wrap” flow—where users click “Sign Up”/“Continue” directly above a disclosure referencing “Terms of Use including the arbitration clause”—provided sufficiently conspicuous notice and bound users to arbitration.
- Delegation clauses will be honored where clearly drafted. The 2025 Terms of Use expressly delegated disputes about the “interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation” of the Roblox terms to the arbitrator; the court enforced that clause for post‑2025 disputes.
- Minors can still end up bound to arbitration. Even though minors can disaffirm contracts under California law, the court held the minor plaintiff was equitably bound to arbitrate based on: (1) the parents’ assent and their parent‑child relationship, and (2) the minor’s continued use of the platform (and benefits of the agreement) after filing suit.
- Unconscionability challenges face a high bar. The court found only low‑level procedural unconscionability inherent in adhesion contracts and rejected claims of substantive unconscionability, stressing the lack of specific, one‑sided provisions identified by plaintiffs.
- Arbitration clauses that preserve public injunctive relief are safer under California’s McGill rule. Because Roblox’s 2025 TOU expressly allowed arbitrators to award public injunctive relief, the court found no unlawful waiver.
Michael GARCIA, Salena Garcia, and R.G., a minor by and through her guardians Michael Garcia and Salena Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant., 2:25-cv-03476 (Feb. 11, 2026 C.D.Cal.).
